My prediction for today is as follows- Obama wins NC by 6-10, Hillary wins Indiana by 4-8, Hillary picks up a few delegate net, and the nightmare continues even though there is no chance she can win.
Although this is probably the most accurate prediction of what will happen. Depressing.
John, I think you’re right about the split. But I think Obama will gain a few delegates net because there are simply more delegates to be won in NC and Hillary’s win in Indiana won’t be large enough to offset that.
Not that it changes anything going forward. Indiana will matter, North Carolina won’t, and Hillary will continue to hamstring the Democratic Party because her massive ego can’t accept the fact she isn’t going to win.
Grand Moff Texan
… and continues limping along for no apparent reason, becoming more and more dependent on Republican talking points and policy positions.
She’s like a well-hung Joe Lieberman.
Pretty sure that if Obama wins NC by the same or greater margin than Hillary wins Indiana, he gets more delegates. NC has more delegates to award than Indiana (115 compared to 72).
I’m going to say Obama by 9 in NC, Hillary by 5 in IN, net delegates +1 for Obama, and continued media “horse race” coverage that ignores the fact that one of the horses is 100 yards from the finish line while the other is a couple of feet away. Slightly more pessimistic version.
The Hillary Clinton campaign.
Lies, damn lies and statisterry.
He hasn’t even won yet, and he’s already acting like a real President.
And why should she withdraw? There’s no chance Obama can win either, not when he needs over 2200 delegates to win. What, you thought it was only 2025?
So even if enough super-delegates do declare to put her over 2025, perhaps we’re still going to the convention.
NC has 50% more delegates at stake than IN. obama +9 in NC and hills +5 in IN means obama walks away with far more than 1 net delegate.
Well, I suck at this, but I was looking at Overly Complicated Delegate Math earlier today, and this was the best I could come up with. It’s all this district-by-district, if you don’t win by 61.2% you split the votes in the district type head-exploding stuff. Now I can’t find the website I found it on. Anyone else have a link to that kind of thing?
Grand Moff Texan
They did, did they?
What a couple of dumb shits.
Put me down for Obama +10 for NC and Clinton +10 for IN.
I’ve lived in Indiana, which is why I would be stunned if BHO gets single digits.
Obama should easily pick up delegates today. Enough to make up for PA? Probably not. Clinton consistently underperforms on delegates relative to popular vote. She won PA by 9% but only gained 8 delegates – about 5%. Obama should pick up 8 delegates in NC and lose maybe 3-4 in Indiana, is my guess. So, all of this smoke and heat for what amounts to a good superdelegate day.
Obama is really good at maximizing delegate gain/minimizing delegate loss. Clinton puts more energy into popular vote since she really doesn’t have a delegate argument to make – she knows she can’t move the pledged delegates enough to really help her. She’s trying to use popular vote to sway the supers since that’s really where her only chance is.
The naive person in me wants to believe that the talking heads have started to feel the backlash on this and that they might try and take it in the other direction, ie, not cheerleading for Hillary. They may start to see better ratings in their future with the Obama/McCain than they are getting now with the tired and frustrating Clinton/Obama “same thing happens every day” nomination fight.
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
I think the ‘nightmare’ starts resolving itself after tonight. Chuck Todd noted that after today, there are more super delegates in play than there are delegates available in the remaining primaries. The campaign trail, as he put it, will be over, now it’ll be down to wooing the remaining SDs to declare.
This is the sort of thing I am talking about, where this projection has Obama winning 17 more delegates but he has to win by over 17%. If you turn those wins into more narrow wins, even if he wins more narrow wins than he loses, the districts will split evenly.
Like I said, though, I suck at this stuff.
Billy K Says:
He hasn’t even won yet, and he’s already acting like a real President.
Of course, that will headlined here as “Even more brown terrists supporting Obama!!11!1”
P.S. How does one blockquote around here, anyhow?
Though mentioned above, many more delegates are at stake in North Carolina than in Indiana. Slate’s Delegate Counter is a fun little tool to waste time with various scenarios. Even if Clinton wins by 20 in IN and Obama wins by 10 in NC she would net 3. Unless she wins both big, the math will continue to favor Obama.
No hope for Clinton
Know Hope for the rest of us
1. Click on arrow atop comment box.
I hope it will end; I’m not confident. Even if super-delegates declare, they can always change their minds. Hillary Clinton’s campaign has already said Obama needs 2209 delegates to win, so presumably they won’t drop out if he gets less than that, saying they have to resolve Florida and Michigan. Hillary has even said that pledged delegates can change their minds.
Clinton wins Methiana by 8, and loses Nord KKKarolina by 17. Declares “victory” for both states.
1. If the outcome favors Hillary in the least, the Hillsterics will scream that Obama needs to go home now.
2. If the outcome favors Obama in the least the Hillsterics will scream that the results don’t count and Obama needs to go home now.
3. I will wish I hadn’t abused my liver during college so I could drink a lot during the work week.
I think Poblano is out in the weeds on this one. I don’t see him taking NC by that kind of margin. Clinton actually bothered to show up for this race, so she’ll keep in in the ballpark. I’d be a little surprised if Obama hits double digits.
Went to the polling place today with my brother. We both pulled the lever for Obama. And good god, did it feel good. It felt like I was giving the thumbs up to Obama and giving a big FUCK YOU to Hillary at the same time! I can’t recommend it enough! And you know, whatever the result of the primaries today, I know that I did the right thing.
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
That’s what the Clinton campaign says, but – as usual – they failed to see their cunning plan all the way through. The super delegates, after all, were part and parcel of slapping Florida and Michigan down. The whole ‘disenfranchisement’ argument isn’t going to work that easy on them.
No worries. Obama hits 2025, then Howard Dean goes “Congratulations!”, Nancy Pelosi says “Congratulations!”, the party elites start falling over themselves yelling “Congratulations!”, and Hillary’s left with taking it to the convention and firmly stomping the Clinton reputation into the ground or start dealing with the Obama campaign for post-electoral bennies.
Read Mr. Super, it’ll be good for you.
NC: BHO over HRC by 10 points OR MORE;
Ind: HRC over BHO by 3 points OR LESS.
You heard it here first!
You may be right here. What is somewhat depressing is that Obama might not be able to win Indiana, despite the fact that he is a calm and reasonable alternative to the Hillary Clinton panderfication.
The tougher nut to crack is the kind of uninformed voter sentiment noted on Andrew Sullivan’s site. When Obama wins the nomination, he will have to find a way to reach these voters (Ignored by candidates, rural voters quietly pick favorite, or at least ‘lesser of 3 evils‘):
The irony here is that Senator Clinton is preferred not because she is the Blue Collar Momma, but because she is the elitist insider who presumably knows how to get things done (although you would never get a whiff of competence from most of her campaigning).
That Obama is still viewed with ignorant suspicion is just sad.
I don’t either, I just linked it for the district-by-district breakdown. Sheesh, I wish I could find that more realistic projection I was looking at this a.m.
HC by 25
HC by 15
Hey, just managing expectations.
I’m convinced that the Milky Way collided with another galaxy recently, and we just don’t know it yet.
What I find even more sad is how people can be concerned that Obama is too close to his firebrand black Christian pastor and that he is a Muslim plant/terrorist sympathizer at the same time.
The cognitive dissonance is breathtaking.
Hehehehehee. The thing is, this might help her in the primaries, but in the general? Remember what they did Gore, “re-inventing” himself if so much as put on a new sweater? It almost makes me want to see her win the nomination to see it happen.
“i outdrank a 72-year-old with cancer! i’m fucking hard core!”
And then all the pro-Hillary blogs wail that Hillary never had a chance with the Decmocratic leadersin determined to give the election to Obama from the beginning.
But I do feel better, thank you.
Talk about overplaying your hand, or in this case a penchant for getting liquored up. Might work with the alcoholic Bubba vote, but with suburb security mom’s–mmm maybe not so much.
You know, these are really a small subset of the population. Polling shows that maybe as much as 12% of voters hook into these things, but the vast majority don’t. And the lack of serious cross-over votes as a result of the primaries reinforces that.
For the vast majority of voters, they’re picking among 2 acceptable candidates and preferring one over the other. Of course the media is going to pick up the extreme narrative – that sells.
I wonder if she votes Democratic normally. She could either be a genuine Clinton supporter or just narrowing the odds against Obama based on that statement and will vote McCain in the general. Hard to tell with reports like that one. I’ve voted in Republican primaries to do just that before and it’s pretty common especially after one party has wrapped up the nominee. That’s part of why Bill had such shitty support in the 1996 primaries – a lot of the Dems were dicking around with the GOP primaries.
And to head off the trolls – it really doesn’t bother me that Rush asks supporters to do that – it’s just something the candidates need to power though. But that doesn’t give you license to ignore the opposition monkeying in order to raise an electability argument like what happened in Mississippi.
While I can appreciate that there is a relatively low number of mind-numbingly stupid people out there, I find little solace in the fact that the number is still as high as 1 in 10. That’s upwards of 20 million adults.
I still find that to be depressing.
Think she sobers up by 3 AM? I usually don’t.
That’s the Indiana I know and…..know….
I still live here, and Hill will by three or four points, ironically thee three or four points my dad and his Limbaugh friends will provide her. Indianapolis and the NW corner of the State will go hugely for Obama.
For my part, I am victorious today because my wife finally agreed to vote for Obama. My urban (but overwhelmingly white) precinct had higher voter turnout than most general elections. I am torn by what that means, since it is a very Republican district, but as this almost 40 year went to vote, he was surrounded by 5-6 old people (boo) and three under 20 year old voters, including one who had just registered (good).
So, I think the polls are right. Hillary will squeak by thanks to Republicans and Democratic union towns like Anderson and Evansville.
By the way, Obama would have won this state if Reverend Wright had waited a month to speak. All the metrics were headed his direction. I defended Wright’s original remarks, since I have sat in many evangelical churches and heard denunciations of the American Way. But, the Wright redux? I would like to beat that man with a post.
there is no chance Obama can win either — if you are talking about pledged delegates won in primaries and caucuses.
And at this point, it doesn’t look like Obama can win the popular vote either — that’s gonna go to Clinton — its already there, in fact, since democratic voters did go to the polls in Florida and Michigan.
Of course, Cole is now going to insist that on Memorial Day, the big race is the Indianapolis 450. And that a voter in Alaska is worth 23 voters in Ohio. And that the less than 18,000 people in Kansas who provided Obama with a net 12 delegate advantage are more important than the 110,000 New Jersey voters whose support gave Clinton an 11 delegate advantage. Never mind that New Jersey had 15 Electoral College votes, and Kansas only six. Those people in New Jersey are worth on 1/6 of the people in Kansas, according to ColeMath.
how convenient. The in-the-tank-for-Obama Chuck Todd declares the “campaign trail” over, just one week from when Obama will get his ass handed to him in West Virginia, and two weeks from getting his ass handed to him in Kentucky, and maybe even losing Oregon.
Funny how the minute Obama’s ‘sure thing’ states run out, the “campaign trail” ends.
Hey P. Lukasiak- You know what I realized?
If Hillary steals the nomination, I don’t have to vote for her because there is no chance in hell she will win WV anyway.
What a relief.
The upside is that I can sit and sabotage Hillary for the next six months. Of course, I won’t call it sabotage. I will just all it raising questions about her electability. That is how it is done, right? And then I can dig up all the dirt about Hillary that I have refused to discuss this primary (unlike how you have hipwaded through anything you can find about Obama), and just say that I am “vetting” her because you know, “the Republicans are going to do worse.”
Piss off, you piker.
Is Oregon the new “firewall?” Is it the new “make or break” state?
No, we’re talking about actual winning.
I’m betting Obama in NC by 10-12 and Hillary in IN by 4. Obama pads his lead…and Clinton tries to play like she made NC close.
It doesn’t matter she’s in til June even if Obama somehow wom both.
“Popular Vote”…that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
Five years from now, p. luk. is going to look back on the times where he methodically ripped his credibility to shreds…is he going to think it was worth it?
Project much, p. luk?
Those pesky goalposts – they just keep moving.
So, just out of curiousity, how many delegates does that “Top Clinton aide”, say Hillary needs to get for the nomination?
Oh, wait…silly me…it must be that 2,025 MINUS that 183, or 1,842. Well, Hell…looks like she’s a virtual shoe-in now, doesn’t it?
Nothing to see here folks, just move on and mark your ballot in November for the candidate of our choice.
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
Having a ‘Popular Vote Winner As Definied By Me’ trophy will look very good on Hillary’s shelf, next to her Cutco kitchen knives and $100 Meineke gift certificate.
Cheers to that. If you honestly think that Rush’s Legions (who are sober and lucid enough to make it to the polling booths) are going to swing an election, you give that man way, way too much credit. He’s little bullshit “Operation Chaos” dance is a ratings game. Everyone gets to tune in and pretend to be party of a grand conspiracy to topple the Democratic Party. They get to feel like they’re really playing a hand in politics.
And, who knows? Maybe, between all the “Damn you John McCain, I’m voting for Obama” and “OMG! Scary Muslim! Vote for Hillary!”, Rush managed to trick a couple of his truly wacko followers into actually giving money to the opposition party. At the very least, having his minions run around voting like lemmings gives the GOP as much of a headache as the Dem Party. People are so focused on the Democratic Primary, McCain is getting lost in the shuffle. It’ll be interesting to see how “Anybody But A Democrat” plays in November once they’re done wasting all their capital jerking their followers around.
No matter how you slice it the nominee is selected by delegates. Obama has more. Obama will have more when all of the primaries have ended.
Popular vote means absolutely nothing. While perhaps some superdelegates will vote based on it, most will not.
What you and other Hillary supporters can’t seem to get your arms around is the concept that Obama supporters want the race to end because it is damaging the party with no real positive. Hillary still isn’t going to be the nominee. You can pout about it if you wish but she isn’t.
She can win huge in Kentucky and West Virginia and no one is going to care. She’ll gain 15 delegates from both. Big deal. She’s still way behind.
it wasn’t Wright that hurt Obama, it was Obama that hurt Obama. Wright said nothing he hadn’t said before (other than saying that Obama was just a politician), and if Obama was going to disavow Wright, he should have done it back in Pennsylvania.
But Obama does whatever the media tells him to do, and they were saying “Obama has to distance himself from Wright.” If Obama had stuck to his guns, and used Wrights remarks to start that “dialogue on race” that he told us we needed (and then dropped the minute his speech got glowing reviews) the damage would not have been so bad. But Obama screwed it all up, and people realized he couldn’t be trusted thanks to the Wright mess.
Did you have to do that, P luk? Why?
Are you really in favor of mugging Obama at the convention. At taking the winner of the most pledged delegates and having a bunch of white guys give the nomination to someone else?
Look, unlike many of the people here, I like Hillary. I will vote for her if she can steal the nomination. But, the idea that that is good for the Democrats is laughable. Combine that betrayal with the candidate’s stellar 49% disapproval rating and in essence, you, a committed good guy, a bright and intelligent man, are electing John McCain. You can’t see that?
You go do the polling and all, but Obama’s got buzz and votes in this red state and Republicans will have to spend money here to win Indiana (like ’96). They won’t have to spend a dime to beat Hill.
Where is my faulty math? All I am doing is looking at the primary the way, you know, the rules set it up.
I am not the one making up bullshit arguments about what counts and what does not and how this vote here is more important than that vote there. I am just looking at the delegate totals and who has won what officially. How does this turn me into a villain?
Wright had said before that the US Government intentionally infected black people with AIDS? Care to back that up with facts?
Oh, wait, I’m very sorry. I forgot who I was speaking with.
Probably. A lot of the remaining supers are going to throw down for the pledged delegate winner (AKA Club Pelosi). Obama should secure 50% of that count by Oregon – though it’ll be close. Once that happens, expect about 70-ish supers to announce.
People like pluckshake can’t seem to accept that these super have effectively declared themselves to be national add-on delegates. We’ll know where the party stands on FL/MI if they announce after 50% of the non-FL/MI is hit, or if they hold out for 50% of the count with FL/MI included. All indications are that they’ll jump at the pre-FL/MI mark.
you don’t need “more”, you need “enough”. Obama won’t have “enough”. Neither will Clinton. And not only will more people have voted for Clinton, FAR more people in states that are key to a Democratic victory will have voted for Clinton.
So do the Superdelegates ignore the will of the voters — especially the voters in states that Democrats have to win in November?
and what you can’t get your arms around is the fact that not only will Obama lose the election if he is the nominee, his nomination will do a great deal of damage to the party itself, because rank and file Democrats in swing states don’t want to be treated as second class citizens.
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
Good grief. I imagine it’s only a matter of days before patronizing.luk starts ranting about Wenck and Steiner saving Hillary’s nomination. Someone get this guy an intervention, stat.
Yeah because 8 years of a dry drunk wasn’t enough, we want the full monty now.
as usual, you’re wrong.
The way the ‘rules set it up” FL and MI should have been penalized have their delegate strength — as should Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, all of whom moved their dates up in violation of the rules.
The Rules Committee decided to ignore the rules, and penalize two states 100% of their delegates, while ignoring the violations of the three other states.
I’m all for “the rules”, but just one set of rules for all the states.
Right, the state in which Obama wasn’t on the ballot.
Un-fucking-believable that you are saying this, even for you.
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
I prefer calling it ‘the way the Democratic party – the people who will back the winner of the nomination – have set it up’.
Ah, there’s the problem. pluky doesn’t know what ‘fact’ means. Either that or he’s from the future.
Paul, are you actually siding with Republican opposition researchers?
As to your point, it was “right” for Clinton to dump Lani Guinier? How many people did Bill Clinton at the behest of a Republican media elite throw people overboard? Ever heard of Les Aspen. Any idea why he resigned?
See I remember the good and bad from the 90’s and your dynamic duo didn’t exactly live up to your exacting expectations. I suppose Hill learned that lesson
…oh, hold on, Mark Penn is calling (I thought the Press made him step down? Guess I was wrong; Hillary must’ve said “F you” to the press on that one! She is so brave!)
Really? That’s interesting.
(thank you Cleek for the script)
It would be irresponsible not to speculate as to how such news would be
good for Republicans, er bad for Democrats, er…GOOD FOR HILLARY.
Because Barack Obama is unelectedable in the general, and a blog that supports an Obama nomination is really a blog that supports four more years of not-Hillary.
Why can’t you understand that Hillary has to be the next President? She really, really wants it. And she’s a woman. So she deserves it. Also, she’s electable and will answer the phone at 3am so if you don’t vote for her you don’t care about your kids.
New Jerseys kids suddenly become less important than Kansas’s kids and the entire system is set up to let Barack Obama lose to John McCain and then Hillary won’t be President and IT’S ALL YOUR FAULT!
In short, give me what I want and shut the fuck up.
I’ve already dropped off my Oregon mail-in ballot. It’s great to be able to have my primary vote count for a change.
I think Obama will win here by 10 points but don’t hold me to it.
Obama will have enough delegates on June 10th after the supers pledge for him. I realize the new meme for Clinton supporters is 2209 but the RULES state 2025.
Yup. Sucks, doesn’t it? For some reason the superdelegates are more concerned about overt appearances than tortuous arguments about which states matter and which states don’t.
Hillary is unelectable in November. Her unfavorables are stronger now than they were 3 months ago and her nomination would energize a listless Republican base.
Gee, that was fun. I love speculation masquerading as fact.
Oddly enough I am not quite ready to accept the premonitions of a Clinton zealot in his attempt to convince everyone why Clinton deserves to be the candidate despite the fact that she is in fact losing.
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
Except that’s not how the Democratic committee ruled. Last time I checked, they made the call – not the Clinton campaign.
You do not define the ‘will of the voters’.
The Clinton campaign does not define ‘the will of the voters’.
The Democratic party, via the process they’ve established through the years – up through the meetings last year where they whacked Michigan and Florida – and to the present day, have set up the criteria that they feel defines ‘the will of the voters’.
By metrics the Democratic party itself has established, Barack Obama is the leading candidate and is all but guaranteed to win the nomination.
Now you can whine and cry all you want about the Democratic party running itself off the ledge, but if you’re that broken up about it, I hear there are openings in the Lieberman Party.
he’s talking here about the government, genocide, and AIDS…
slippy hussein toad
Pluk-for-brains, did you forget that elections with only one choice on the ballot are less democratic than the Soviet Union? Are you honestly that head-crushingly stupid?
Or do you think the rest of us are? Hillary DOES NOT LEAD in the popular vote.
Your chance to make this argument was before rules committee certified NV, IA, NH, and SC. Once they certified the delegates, that ship sailed. And once FL and MI were denied certification, the DNC was REQUIRED to cut their delegate count in half and had the option to punish them even further which they did.
I do enjoy the “We should disenfranchise even more voters” rationalization though, Paul. It reveals the true motives of Clinton supporters and strips away the veneer of “We care about the voters”.
Eh, good luck with that. Pure Delusional Disorder is one of the tougher problems to treat in DSM.
pluk: feel free to link or post the relevant rules. My understanding was that only Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina were to be allowed pre-2/5 primaries, but could change dates at will as long as the original order was preserved. It was MI and FL’s attempt to eff that up that got them in hot water.
Of course, since Clinton supported the DNC’s ruling until she started getting her ass handed to her by the uppity negro, your entire argument is fatuous either way.
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
Oddly enough, neither are the supers.
actions have consequences. Obama took his name off the ballot to pander to Iowa voters — and it worked. He won in Iowa. But that was the trade-off he made.
Remember how Bush said we should vote for Bush because he could get the Saudis to listen to him and keep oil prices low?
Meanwhile, Obama hasn’t even been elected yet and he’s already getting more done on the oil-price front than Bush ever could.
FL/MI lost 50% automatically for breaking the calendar and the other 50% because they willfully refused to comply with the rules. Had the states made a good-faith effort to comply, they would not have faced the latter 50% lost. Both states flagrantly and publicly violated the calendar. Plenty of evidence to support this has already been offered here. The other states petitioned for waivers to the rules for reasons the DNC considered valid. FL/MI never petitioned because their goal was different. They wanted to ‘break’ the DNC by forcing a large number of delegates outside the calendar to get the DNC to fold. MI tried this with McAuliffe in 2004, he took a hard line, and MI backed down. This year with FL on board they went all-in.
Seriously, if you’re gonna repeat other people’s bullshit, at least take the time to read and understand that it’s bullshit so someone doesn’t knock your head 5 minutes later.
Then why do we even bother to have primaries/caucuses in a few fuck-stick states like Iowa, Nevada, South Carolina, Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Utah, Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington, Maine, Maryland, Virginia, Hawaii, Wisconsin, Texas, Vermont, Wyoming, and Mississippi? Why, we don’t plan on even contending for these people’s votes in the general; fuck ’em! And think of all the money we’d save if we only let people vote in states that prefer Hillary! Why, it’s genius!
Is that the argument the Clinton campaign finally settled on? Well then, let’s consult the rules of the Democratic Party…
Whoops, looks like we already did. Sorry, you just lost. Badly.
oh, look, another Obot plays the race card! what a shock!
Clinton did exactly what was expected… once Florida and Michigan no longer had an impact on who the nominee was, she said “seat the delegations”. That was the original plan, after all.
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
And Hillary agreed to the DNC’s conditions to pander to those same Iowa and New Hampshire voters. So, we’ll give her half of her MI and FL delegates if she dumps her IA and NH delegates. That sound good?
Did lukasiak’s parental guardian go to jail for buying him a Mike’s Hard Lemonade?
Uh….Ice Cube’s been rappin’ about this for years.
I stand corrected.
You stand corrected.
I don’t know why we even bother with those states. Colorado and Texas are possibly worth caring about, and maybe Virginia might be worth caring about in the forseeable future, but as far as the Dems are concerned, the rest of those states are just a waste.
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
You forgot Doddamania and That Wacky Kucinich.
When did Howard Dean get a time machine? I keep hearing about how the DNC is in the tank for Obama by not counting Florida and Michigan, but I’m a bit curious how they could do that unless they knew that in the end Florida and Michigan would be Hillary’s last ditch appeal.
So I’ve really got to know — how did Howard Dean and Obama know, months before a single vote was cast, to make sure the rules kicked out Michigan and Florida? How did they manage to make the Michigan and Florida legs move their primary up?
Because, I’ve got to be blunt — if Obama managed to predict all this crap 9 months in advance, and mind-control the Florida and Michigan leg’s into screwing themselves, AND get Hillary to agree with it all before a single vote was cast anywhere — I sort of want THAT guy for President.
I mean, shit. Talk about foresight. Talk about Xanatos Gambit’s and screwing over your enemies. Obama’s like a freakin’ GENIUS, according to Hillary and her supporters. He gamed the system, the legislatures of two states, and even Hillary herself months before anyone cast the first vote.
Think of what he’d do as President. The dude’s apparently a political genius.
Indeed they do. The Michigan Democratic Party took the action of jumping its primary ahead to January 15, as a consequence of which they lost their voice in the nominating process.
Oh, wait–you meant that some actions have consequences, and some don’t, as needed to construct an argument that the superdelegates should override the pledged delegates and nominate Clinton.
No matter how you construct your argument, Clinton has run a dreadful campaign that took her from overwhelming favorite to close second in four months, at tremendous expense. You argue that she was instead focusing on the general election–but she’s done nothing of the sort. Instead, she’s actually been talking up McCain in hopes of knocking down Obama. What makes you think she’d be any more effective against McCain than she has been against Obama?
you’re about to be corrected again. Nothing in the party rules required Obama to take his name off the Michigan ballot.
So you’re saying that they all look alike to you?
Just kidding; I know it’s a myth that’s been around, but I didn’t know that Wright was spreading it. I had little problem with his well-publicized speech that brought him into the public eye (didn’t wholly agree, but I could see where he was coming from), but when he started talking about the US Government intentionally spreading AIDS, I (and apparently Obama) had enough.
Paul, pretending that the MI/FL contests reflected (cue dramatic voice) the will of the voters is so much horse shit. You know it, we know it, and the superdelegates know it. Those beauty contests weren’t waged on the same basis the other primaries and causcuses were: candidates didn’t campaign, some candidates pulled their names off the ballot in MI at the request of the DNC, and voters in both states were told by all the candidates that their votes wouldn’t count.
Too fucking bad.
You keep talking about states that are key to a Demcoratic victory, but you are assuming that voting patterns this year will be like those in the past. The fact is that Obama is bringing many states into play that haven’t voted Dem in years; states like NC. FL, on the other hand, has been moving steadily away from the Dem fold, and can’t be relied on even if Clinton is the candidate.
Oregon is in the tank for Obama. Count on it. This is the place where the green party won 5%.. we’re freaking mavericks. :)
which is just a fancy way of saying that the rules were applied differently to different states which broke the same rule.
At some point, maybe tonight, Clinton is going to have to move away from her victory at all costs stance and reflect on her long-term political future. Today is her last chance to make any measurable dent in Obama’s delegate lead. After tonight, she’s going to have to make the decision of whether to take this to the convention floor. A large movement of superdelegates to Obama after today will signal that the Party wants this wrapped up. At that point if Clinton takes this to a floor fight and loses, she’s toast—no more Senate seat, no more Presidential campaigns. If Clinton wins a floor fight, lots of people in the other 48 states are going to see that as a disenfranchisement of their votes. That’ll give the GOP a tremendous story (“The only way way she could win the Dem nomination was by changing the rules in the middle of the game”), and that will make her election even more of a challenge.
What I expect is the Clinton will be offered a sweetener to drop out (Majority Leader or something similar), one of her main supporters will be offered a VP slot, or a significant cabinet post, and she’ll drop out sometime in June.
A little visualization therapy for the Clinton supporters.
“That’s right. Take a deep breath. Feel the tension leaving you. Imagine yourself on a secluded, beautiful island. Feel the sea breeze. Its so relaxing. Now, slowly say to yourself-Hillary will never be president, Hillary will never be president. Let it out, go ahead and cry. Let it all out. Now, as you stop sobbing, feel your breath slowly going in and going out. That’s right. Just enjoy the view and the relaxing, warm sand. Its not so bad. Things are going to be ok. Now you can say it with out tears or upset. Hillary will never be president . . . and it doesn’t matter! Life goes on and everything is ok.”
Well, the session is over. This one is on the house. See you next week for some work on negative, self-defeating cognitions?
I stand uncorrected.
The Democratic party asked that candidates withdraw from the primary in Michigan. They made no such request for Florida, as it was too late for the candidates to remove their names. Every canididate BUT Hillary did so.
Sounds like a great strategy!
Yeah, I’m the one “playing the race card” while you keep arguing that Obama is unelectable because more racists will vote for Clinton.
unfortunately for her, the “expected” never came to fruition. So, given that the MI and FL delegations could, in fact, have an impact on who the nominee is, your statement above is simply false.
I can’t take any more of p.luk’s idiocy. Too bad such a seemingly intelligent person can be so brainwashed and irrational; but I guess that’s pretty common from what I hear of some other formerly reasonable blogs. I held out as long as I could, but it’s time to find this cleekscript I’ve been hearing so much about….
I think Florida represented the will of Florida voters.
Michigan is trickier — I’d say that the exit polls (Clinton 46%, Obama 33%) reflected the will of Michigan voters.
does this mean we should ignore the results from Alaska, Utah, etc because Clinton didn’t campaign there?
I mean, its not like voters in Michigan and Florida were sequestered from news about the candidates — hell, Obama even advertised in Florida (oops, another violation of the rules that the DNC “waived” for Obama’s benefit — and it would have been cheaper for Obama to target the ads, rather than do a national ad buy… Obama wanted the publicity in Florida for not ignoring them.)
Florida is a swing state — and was predicted to go Democratic (and Clinton still has a lead there in some polls, last time I checked.)
And for every “red” state Obama supposedly puts in play there is a bigger “blue” state that Obama puts at risk. I mean, its all well and good that Obama does better than Clinton in Colorado, but if Obama has to spend all his time defending New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, and California, he’s not going to have time to campaign in Colorado and take advantage of it being “in play.” And writing off Ohio and Florida for the chance to win in North Carolina is a really stupid bet.
Ah, the old 50%+1 strategy. How has that been working out for the party, by the way? Oooooo, yeah. Not so good. Maybe we should rethink that.
So, next time you give us the “Count every vote!” mantra when arguing about the fake primaries in MI and FL, can I throw this quote in your face? Pretty please?
So sayeth p.luk, MAN OF THE PEOPLE, DEFENDER OF THE WORKING STIFF.
The Fl/MI arguments are bogus and will be stopped when the Supers come out en masse for Obama (after PR). Then, we can finally stop insulting an intelligent Democrat and get back to getting rid of Bush/McCain.
In other words, allow Paul the luxury of credential committee fantasy and make him answer a more basic question: Is Hillary using Sean Hannity’s talking points?
Better yet, my father hates the Clintons, yet he just voted for one with all his churh-y friends. Why do Republicans support Hillary as the Democratic nominee if she is going to win the general?
And yet, you seem strangely unwilling to accept the consequences of Hillary “running for president instead of the nomination”, instead finding all sorts of reasons why those consequences are unfair.
HAHA OH WOW 10/10
I believe that’s already been pointed out. The rules were applied differently because the RAB committee has some leeway in applying sanctions. When FL and MI aggressively tried to break the DNC’s control of it’s own primary calendar, refusing any compromise after the DNC repeatedly tried to broker a settlement, FL and MI were slapped down. Even some Clinton campaign advisors voted for the harshest penalty. Clinton herself said that MI and FL votes didn’t count—until she needed them.
Too fucking bad.
I agree 100%.
See, it all depends on the definition of “is”. And the definition of “participate”. Furthermore, if you look at the etymology of the word “participate” you will see that it has a clear sexist bias, stemming from the Latin word particeps which means…
I LIKE PIE!
Why does arguing with PLuk feel like arguing with a latte-sipping Rushbo? Or is that a vegan Hannity? Gah.
Except a Dem just won a red district in MS and won Hasterts seat in a red district in IL. You and Clinton have already ceded half the map to McCain. How french are you?
But it’s HOW they broke the rule that matters. Yes, there was jumping around from the 4 pre-super tuesday states, but SC and NV were granted the right to go ahead of that date by both the GOP and DNC. SC jumped ahead of NH by effort of the Republican party there, so NH asked to move in response to that and that was approved by the DNC. FL and MI, by comparison moved at the initiation of the Democratic parties there. MI was up-front about why they did it (hard not to since they threatened to do it 4 years ago) and FL lied about it and blamed the GOP and got caught.
P.luk just jumped a shark that was on fire that was being mauled by a grizzly bear that is a riding a unicycle and juggling plates that have seals on them balancing balls on their noses that have razor blades embedded in them.
Jesus H. Christ! With Democrats like you, Who-the-Fuck needs to worry about Republicans? So, you’re willing to blithely write-off all those
Statesthat you didn’t strikethru…and the voters in them…and the down-ticket candidates, apparently as well. You know it’s entirely possible an active top-ticket candidate might help ELECT some Congress-critters, local office-holder’s and perhaps even a Senator or two with some help. But I guess it’s more important to annoint HRC, isn’t it?
I was willing to let all the stupid-assed spinning you do pass, but I really need to point out the out-an-out arrogance of such a stance. You know, the “50+1” shit is NOT, repeat, NOT necessarily an intelligent long-term electoral strategy, and for that matter, neither is the “Say Anything” BS we are all being treated to by the Clinton campaign. “50+1” strategy is dependent upon a static model where you can dependably count your “50+1” electoral entities…I really don’t see anything carved in stone that says voting patterns are such and will remain as such ad infinitum. If you believe they will I think you’re a horse’s ass.
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
Because the GOP does.
I never said more racists would vote for Clinton. But keep on imagining that the only reason people who would vote for Clinton but won’t support Obama is because of his race.
Clinton has to deal with misogyny. Obama has to deal with racism. And those states that Obama supposedly puts in play? They are in play because men who will support Obama won’t support Clinton — the difference in the female vote is relatively small in those states — its the misogyny of male voters that makes Obama “competitive” in states like Colorado.
I mean, as of late February in Colorado, both Clinton and Obama were getting the support of 57% of female voters… but Obama was 8.0 points ahead of McCain, and Clinton was 8.8 points behind McCain, because while 42% of males supported Obama against McCain, only 26% of males supported Clinton against McCain.
And there is NOTHING comparable to this in term of racism in the 50 state poll that SUSA did in late February.
There is a whole load of unexplained assumptions backing up this rant that need clarification. Breaking it down:
How? And it must be explained how this anticipated damage would be greater than the damage from the usurpation it will take for Clinton to become the nominee.
How are these Democrats being treated as second class? This definitely needs explanation. Try to use sentences that don’t use the word (or a derivative of) elite as either an adjective modifying Obama or a noun. I.e. sentences that include “the elitist Obama” or “Obama is an elitist” are not allowed, for those sentences only proves an unsupported presumption that will be disregarded.
You know, its easy to say that they’re supporting Hillary now because they think McCain can beat her in the general. I think, deep down inside however, they just want to vote for someone who isn’t going to get railroaded in November.
One more reason I’m happy to see Obama win. Not only is he not the GOP wingnutville’s pick for President, he’s not even their primary pick. They didn’t get Romney, they won’t get Clinton. This is one long, painful kick-in-the-nuts for the entire Republican Party. *picks up another handful of popcorn* In the end, I don’t know what everyone is really complaining about.
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
Nonono, he’s jumping the shark with Ted McGinley in a sidecar and cousin Oliver on his lap all the while he’s singing and kissing Agent Scully. Live.
Bzzt..checksum error…does not compute…initiating shutdown sequence…
I don’t. The voters in FL didn’t have the benefit of all the candidates campaigning in the state, and never got to hear much of anything about the candidates positions. Voters were told their votes wouldn’t count. That doesn’t make for a fair contest.
Clinton chose not to campaign in those states because she didn’t think those states were important. She fucked up. Repeatedly. The situation in MI and FL was different, as you well know. In those two states all the candidates agreed not to campaign, and all the candidates agreed that they would not participate in those primaries—you know, the votes don’t count. Until Clinton got herself behind.
don’t bother arguing MI and FL – those two trolls have been draggin that bait for months now. it stunk then and stinks 100x worse now.
Yeah, the “I can’t win, I may as well give up” strategy has really paid off for the Democrats. Just ask President Gore and President Kerry. Or the solidly Democratic Congress we’ve enjoyed for the last 8 years.
Of all of the many, many types of p.luk idiocy, this is the one that pisses me off the most. And then he has the gall to whine about “rank and file Dems in swing states” being treated like second-class citizens? Priceless.
Hey! If we’re going to refight the Shipper wars, you’re gonna lose so bad.
That’s it. That’s all the proof I need to know p.luk is either a total spoof or 100% batshit insane.
no, not all the downticket races. But in terms of a Presidential nominee, I’m more concerned with winning the white house than in getting some democrat elected mayor of Bumfuckeqypt, North Dakota.
I think I’ve only written off maybe 100 or so EC votes there… that leave far more than 50+1.
And if there is a “say anything’ candidate, its Obama. I mean, this is the guy who said Wright was like his dear old grandma to him, but the minute Wright said Obama was just a politician, Obama dumped his ass. THAT is “say anything” — and its why Obama will lose in November…. and take “downticket” Democrats down with him if he is the nominee.
nobody said they’re carved in stone — but for the foreseeable future, the only time those states will go Democratic for President is if there is a landslide, and their EC votes are superfluous.
I mean, I can see not writing off Colorado and Texas and Virginia and Indiana and North Carolina in terms of campaigning there — but only because you want the GOP to have to defend those states. But basing your nomination on whehter a candidate will be competitive in those states is insane — those are “bonus” states, not one that a sane Democrat would care about winning.
Grand Moff Texan
They’ll be in play because Obama’s machine is patterned after Dean’s DNC.
Clinton’s DLC losers were happy to leave Nebraska as an “export state.” The DNC picked up a senate seat. Clinton’s DLC losers will leave my state as a right-wing ghetto, ignoring that all of Dallas county when blue last time, among other changes.
Clinton’s faction and Clinton’s demographic are out of date. She does nothing to build the party, and her husband did nothing to build the party. I think it’s just plain stupid to stay hard-wired to the past. That’s what’s fucking the GOP right now. No reason to imitate them.
Then again, Hillary’s imitating them at every juncture.
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
I’ve given up arguing against him logically. He’s dead set on slamming that round peg into the square hole for some reason.
Hey pluk, what do you call it when women support Hillary in high numbers because she is a woman and they want to see a woman prez. Talk left is crawling with those types. Maybe reverse misogyny?
Grand Moff Texan
Which is why you’re an idiot. Mayors = machines when it comes to GOTV. The religious right built their machine from the ground up with local activism.
Back to your armchair, elitist.
well, when the will of 110,000 people in New Jersey is considered less important than the will of 18,000 Kansans, I’d say that was treated someone worse than second class, wouldn’t you?
I swear, I’m a mostly happy Safari-user, but p.luk and myiq are the best argument ever for switching to Firefox – just so I can has pie script.
I mean, damn – I’m accustomed to trolls, but these guys are just off their meds and really make this site a chore to read. I wish Cole would just shit-can them.
okay. So lets lose the white house this year, so that we get more democratic mayors. Brilliant.
Grand Moff Texan
Actually, the feud between them goes much further back, and it is an important one, generationally, in African American politics.
If you weren’t a waste of bandwidth, you’d know that. One would think that the recent Sharpton episode would have thrown it into focus for you.
Grand Moff Texan
okay. So lets lose the white house this year, so that we get more democratic mayors. Brilliant.
False option, you dim joke.
You almost have to admire the sheer, shameless, batshit-insane audacity of this statement. p.luk is no longer whoring for Hillary, he’s just giving it away for free.
Gee, that almost sounds kind of . . . elitist.
Shorter lukasiak: Fuck the Constitution. Federal Republics are for bitches, yo. Also, since I hate elitists, I am going to have my appendix removed by a rusty spoon wielding alcoholic redneck.
Were this a spoof it would be funny. Hillary today on FL and MI: “They were legitimate elections. People came out and voted. If you count them, I’m ahead.”
Your version of democracy reminds me of Saddam’s Iraq, the one in which he kept winning reelection with 99.5% of the vote.
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
Welcome to patronizing.luk’s world, where the Reagan Revolution happened overnight, and had nothing to do with Richard Nixon or Barry Goldwater.
You know, when you first came here pluck you were basically ranting about how Obama couldn’t win because he was black and America would not elect a black prez. Then the Wright thing came along and then it wasn’t because of race but about Obama’s preacher and then Bittergate and so on. Your just an opportunistic liar pal who believes HC is owed the presidency.
You really are a fucking lunatic.
That is what the function of the electoral college is specifically for – to balance the power of larger states versus smaller ones. The reason for that was so that the smaller states didn’t end up second class citizens. But why would I expect your grasp of American history to exceed you grasp of current affairs?
If you don’t like it, take it up with the founders of this country. Or better yet, change the constitution. Changing the rules mid-game (in typical Hillary fashion) won’t work on this one.
Grand Moff Texan
Talk about the ‘say anything’ candidate.
certainly not in those words, but it is at the bottom of your silly “electability” argument. You’ve repeatedly pointed to Clinton’s “appeal” to a certain demographic that you claim Obama can’t get as a point in her favor. I’ve just gotten sick of listening to you argue that I should support her because you think more ignorant jackasses will vote for her than will vote for Obama.
Not what I said, but that’s never concerned you with anyone else so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. For the record, I think there are plenty of reasonable arguments to be made in favor of Clinton’s candidacy. It’s just a shame neither you nor Hillary are willing to make them.
Doesn’t that make him more “electable?”
are you intentioanlly undermining everything you’ve said today, or did the rant just get away from ya?
Okay, I believe you. Misogyny > Racism.
How is Hillary the better candidate again?
actually, in the primary states that have voted so far, women have favored Clinton by less than 4% (3.47% to be precise) so I’m not terribly concerned with those “high numbers”. On the other hand, Obama has outdone Clinton among men by 12.23%.
I’ve never complained about AA supporting Obama, so I don’t see any need to comment further on women who support Clinton because of her gender, especially since the advantage that Clinton has amoog women is outweighed by Obama’s advantage among men.
Unless, of course you are Hillary Clinton, who disdained “elitist” scientists like Newton to come up with her own version of political physics.
First Law of Political Motion:
A delegate will stay in the Obama column or continue to accrue for Obama according to Party rules unless challenged by an external unbalanced force.
Second Law of Political Motion:
Delegates are counted for Hillary Clinton using imaginary numbers.
Third Law of Political Motion:
For every action, there is an endless series of rationalizations.
General Law of the Anti-Elitist Blue Collar Momma:
Consequences? I ain’t got to show you no stinking consequences.
So true. That’s why we should have a constitutional amendment to assign U.S. senatorial representation by population. Big states like New Jersey can get two, while really small states like Kansas will have to pool together to get one.*
*Except for states like Rhode Island and Oklahoma that voted for HRC. They get a full one.
This is how the commenters are talking in places like Talk Left. Obama is going to have to use up his resources defending himself if he doesn’t want to loose states like California.
It gets even better. p.luk actually said that his vote should count more than the votes from, in theory, “red” states.
Now what was that about “disenfranchisement,” again?
Good luck with the electoral college in November.
Here is the white women vote in Pennsylvania. Even after subtracting the black and non white women who voted for Obama (and I’m not sure you should) HC still carried the woman vote by a huge margin,
excuse me Ohio. Penn. was likely similar.
well, a couple of reasons.
1) when males actually listen to CLinton, rather than just listening to media accounts of her, her numbers improve considerably.
2) Women have traditionally been a larger percentage of the electorate, and a Clinton candidacy would increase the percentage of female voters
3) The February poll was taken before questions about Obama’s experience were raised, before the first time Wright became controversial, and before the Rezko trial. When you look at mid-april polling, in some states (like Oregon) those problems had little impact on Obama’s numbers versus McCain, while in others (Ohio, Missouri) the impact was profound.
In other words, we already see the likely maiximum impact of misogyny on Clinton’s numbers, but the impact of racism is just beginning to be felt. It not that voters won’t support a female or black candidate — its just that women and african americans wind up being held to different standards by men/non-AA’s respectively.
Here is link for my stats. Sorry.
Perfect example of the dangers of blogs.
They’ve created an echo chamber in which all Democrats are like them and that all Hillary supporters are completely against Obama. And since they would sooner shoot their child than vote for Obama, they view him as utterly unelectable.
Fuck you very much right back, pluck.
I live in one of those states that are “just a waste” and I guarandamntee you Clinton wouldn’t return my check because it came from here. I also guarantee you that she’d accept the support necessary from a democratic congressperson from my state for anything she might want to accomplish should she make it to the Oval Office. I’m also pretty sure that mailer I got from “James Carville” last week asking me for money didn’t get sent by mistake, since the address was in a state that was “a waste.”
And your assinine statement that we should write off states like Utah that Clinton CHOSE NOT TO CAMPAIGN IN AND LOST because she didn’t campaign there is absurd.
There is NO WAY to conclude that any popular vote totals out of MI or FL are an accurate accounting of the “will of the people” because some of the people who would have participated didn’t because they were told it didn’t count.
That skews your numbers, and since you are so into the numbers, and the polling, you should know that.
This 50+1 strategy sucks, and it’s been a losing one.
With that, your calling me a “waste” because of where I live has just prompted another donation to Obama.
Uh-huh…. And that, in a nutshell, is why you and Clinton will lose.
do you understand the concept of “averages”.
Random comment from TL today..
The poster can’t even see the irony of this comment.
oh, I agree. I was just responding to the idea that MI and FL shouldn’t count because there was no “campaigning” there.
We should ignore Utah not because Clinton ddin’t campaign there, but because there is no way in hell that either Obama or Clinton is gonna win there. Same goes for Oklahoma (which Clinton won) btw.
Do you understand the concept of providing links to back you bullshit numbers? Cause I don’t believe you pluk,or your 4% .
slippy hussein toad
No, but his short bus has been idling outside for several HOURS. It’s his turn to drive.
You do realize that this is an unprovable assertion, right? And that the same thing could be said of any political candidate in any race ever run.
As for the rest of your bilge, it’s unsupported and unsupportable. You have no idea what will happen in November and cannot back up any of your assertions. Accordingly, I see no reason to take them, or you, seriously.
No, actually, we shouldn’t. And it’s foolishness like this that just makes you and the Clinton campaign look stupid.
Nim, ham hock of liberty
I’m from Michigan, and if I hear one more HRC supporter explain how they’re looking out for my interests as a voter, by giving some sort of credence to the sham “election” that was held here, I will…..I dunno, throw an internet tantrum. Maybe shit twice and die.
It’s very simple – garbage in, garbage out. Ascribing any meaning or weight whatsoever to the Michigan “election” would be a much bigger disenfranchisement of Michigan voters than would simply ignoring the results. The “will of the voters” is a stupid, dishonest red herring. Nothing even remotely resembling the “will of the voters” came out of that sham. And yes, I would make this same argument if Obama had been on the ballot and HRC wasn’t. I happen to like Hillary, but this bullshit argument about seating Michigan is beyond obnoxious – it’s offensive to the very concept of democracy.
its not an echo chamber — its polls like this one showing Clinton with a comfortable 13 point lead over McCain in California in mid-April, and Obama up by only 7 points — especially since Obama was up by 11 in late February, and Clinton up by 10 in late February. Clinton gained 3 points on McCain, while Obama lost four points. That is reason to be concerned with California.
p.luk is definitely their standard-bearer of batshit craziness. A bongo monkey running as a Democrat will carry NY and CA – even if it was caught in a scandal having sex with the Energizer bunny.
Clearly the electoral college is biased against Hillary. It should be abolished immediately.*
* Void where Obama is the nominee.
when the DNC becomes bi-cameral, you’ll have a point.
Until then, you’re an idiot.
So you are A) railing against our whole electoral system that has been in place since the founding of the US (see Electoral College) and B) uninformed about how the number of delegates for each state are chosen:
How in any rational sphere of thought does this have anything to do with Obama? The number of delegates for New Jersey and Kansas is determined by the Electoral College (systematic determination of delegates), how that state voted in previous elections (uh oh, self determination of delegates), and state rules (more self determination of delegates!).
And how, unless you are completely unhinged, does this:
support your claim that:
Huffpo is reporting Obama up 12 in NC and Clinton up 7 in IN in exit polls. That would mean about an 8 delegate gain for Obama.
Yeah, I’m sure glad that California has a Democrat governor, and that New York hasn’t had a democratic governor in decades.
The point here is that while a Democrat will probably win in New York and California, Clinton won’t have to spend nearly as much time in those states as will Obama to ensure that win (Clinton may have to spend time in Illinois that Obama won’t have to, of course.)
Your just pitiful pluk. I can’t hammer at you any more. It’d be like clubbing a baby seal and I’m a liberal and we’re against that sort of thing.
This isn’t Calvinball, you don’t get to change the rules during the game. If you want to change the rules, you do that before you start playing.
Grownups don’t change the rules during the game, unless they play with young children that throw temper tantrums if they don’t get to win.
And it seems like I’m not the first person to compare Clinton’s changing the rules to Calvinball…
I think everyone is seriously underestimating the Mike Gravel effect.
The poll you linked to shows Clinton and Obama separated by 3 fucking points versus McCain (and it is several weeks old), which is statistically insignificant.
that means if it is a reason for people to be concerned about Obama’s chances in CA, it is likewise worrisome for Clinton.
And pollster shows Obama outperforming Clinton in CA you cherry-picking motherfucker. It also shows Obama’s support holding steady there while Clinton is declining.
And when we abandon the notion of electoral colleges and primary delegates to national conventions, you’ll have a point with your rantings here. Until then, you’re an idiot.
No, the point is you are a fucking liar.
Your single poll shows no statistical difference between Obama and Clinton in CA, while Pollster’s aggregate data shows Clinton running weaker in CA than Obama, which means she would have to spend more money to hold it.
I’m done with you and your bullshit.
Hey, I’m a “liberal”, too. Can I borrow your club if you’re not going to use it?
Well, that’s OK…gotta go and I see I wasn’t the only one who noticed how freaking absurd the pluk fluk had become, so I will count on others to batter his/her arguments senseless…it shouldn’t take but a moment anyway considering the gravitas they are displaying.
first off dickhead, I’m well aware of the delegate allocation process.
I’m also well aware that the formula provides an advantage to primary voters in Republican states, because half the delegate formula is based on electoral college vote. Thus, despite the fact that there were more democratic voters in “blue” illinois than in “red” texas in the last three Presidential elections (7.8 million in IL, 7.7 million in TX), texas is allocated 40 more “pledged” delegates to the DNC convention than Illinois (TX 193, IL 153).
We’re not even talking about the fact that the Dems lost Texas for the last three years by an average of 16.47%, while Dems won in Illinois by an average of 13.68% — something that I think should be considered when allocating delegates — simply the fact that the delegate allocation system favors Democratic voters in Republican states.
So, your whole argument here is that polling numbers change. In a month where she threw the kitchen sink at him his numbers dropped. What makes you so sure that when he can focus his superior financial advantage against McCain that his numbers won’t go back up?
For Christ’s sake, you’re like a fund manager who only shows his return on equity based on the most cherry-picked time periods.
It also shows Obama ahead by wider margins than Clinton in other states, like New Jersey, something that p.luk conveniently ignores.
Here’s a free clue for p.luk: when you have to work so hard to massage the numbers to get them to show something in your favor, the time has come to fold ’em.
Those of you with pie script are really missing out today. p.luk’s comments on this thread have provided more honest-to-God laugh out loud moments than anything I’ve seen on the internet in a long time.
I’ll give you credit, p.luk, you’re plucky. Delusional and disingenuous, but plucky.
Bullshit. The Clinton v McCain margin is 13 points. The Obama v McCain margin is 7 points. That is statistically significant.
But what is more important is that I cited two polls… by the same polling company, using the same methodology in both sets of polls… and Obama dropped while Clinton gained.
And while its not unlikely that one of two different polls would favor McCain over either democrat, its extremely unlikely that two such polls would find significant differences in voter preference in McCain v Obama and McCain v Clinton.
p.luk – So full of shit it hurts.
Mario Cuomo (1983-1994) was a Democrat. So was Hugh Carey before him (1975-1982). Eliot Spitzer was a Democrat, and now his successor David Paterson is, too. With the exception of George Pataki (1995-2006), in the last 33 years of New York governors a Republican has been governor for 12 years – but they haven’t had a Republican in decades!!
And remind me, Paul – state politics is a solid indicator of how that state goes in a national election how exactly?
Just testing block quoting and 2nding John S.’s sentiment.
Learn how to read, Paul.
In that SUSA poll Clinton beats McCain 53-40.
Obama beats McCain 50-43.
That means that – as I said – the preference of Clinton over Obama is a whole whopping 3 points (53 – 50), you fool. You don’t measure the net difference versus McCain when you are examining the difference between Clinton and Obama.
We don’t get to see the raw material, but we do get to see the choicest nuggets block quoted by other posters and nicely framed just before the smackdown. I prefer it that way, actually.
I don’t cherry pick dickhead. I use SUSA polling data, because they provide a consist methodology between states and across time, and provide detailed demographic information.
And I’m looking at trends — which is something you can only do if you know that the methodology is consistent.
And if you don’t like the current rules for allocating delegates, then you got four years til the next president election to change them.
Did Clinton ever complain about how unfair caucases were before she found out that she had problems winning them? Did she ever complain about how the delegates are allocated before she found herself behind in the delegate count?
Sure signs of a sore loser.
When Clinton finally gets out of the race, she can start her campaign for a redistribution of the delegates, for the abolishing of caucases, and all the other things that ended up not suiting her this election.
About the four years? Make that eight, Obama will run for reelection in 2012.
do you understand what a MARGIN is? According to you, if it was McCain 44%, Clinton 47%, and McCain 50%, Obama 47%, there would be no difference.
“Bullshit. The Clinton v McCain margin is 13 points. The Obama v McCain margin is 7 points. That is statistically significant.”
And the margin of error for the poll is?
In any case, the aggregate of all polls for California show precisely what you would expect: Clinton and Obama are both comfortably ahead of McCain by virtually identical numbers.
By the way, if you really want to engage in this kind of cherry-picking, let’s take another look at that SurveyUSA poll you’re so proud of. Clinton had a 23% lead in that poll in mid-February and an 18% lead in March. Funny how you don’t mention those numbers.
So what was your point again?
I think the rule of thumb for tonight the winner in Indiana will net 1/2 a delegate for each percentage point over their opponent and the winner in North Carolina will net a full delegate for each percentage point.
First results from Indiana courtesy of TPM:
I just love how p.luk’s cherry-picking of the SurveyUSA numbers is so blatant, conveniently picking an outlier so that he can pretend that Clinton gained ground since February, when the reality, of course, is that she has lost ground. What, does he think the rest of us don’t know how to read polls?
I am talking about the difference in support between Obama and Clinton while you are about the margin of victory over McCain.
The margin is fucking irrelevant – they both win CA well outside the MoE. But your histrionics over Obama losing CA flies in the face of the fact that voters prefer Clinton over Obama by a whole whopping 3 fucking points – which is inside the MoE.
Do you have your massage license? Because with all this bullshit of yours, I think you should be required to have one.
Was that one of the polls that showed Obama winning California on Super Tuesday?
Cuz SUSA said he would lose by 10 pts and guess what?
Dear heart, pollster is an aggregate of the polls, not a single poll. You really ought to be directing this snark at your comrade, though, since he’s the one pretending that the polls today really mean something for November. And he can’t even get the polls right, at that!
LOL…. Dear heart, that’s the polling company that p.luk is pretending demonstrates that Obama’s in trouble in California! Way to go in undermining him.
do you acknowledge that the delegate allocation system favors Democrats in Republican states over Democrats in Democratic states?
I used Texas (where Clinton won the popular vote) and Illinois (where Obama kicked Clinton’s ass) for a reason — to provide an example that was NOT about Clinton-Obama, but was about the way that delegates are allocated.
(there is also a small bias toward the GOP based on the minimal 3 EC votes per state, but its really minimal.)
The flaws in the delegate allocation process is one of the reasons why its important that a SUPER-MAJORITY of pledged delegates (those elected through caucuses and primaries)is required before someone is handed the nomination. You can only “game” the system so far…Obama gamed it about as far as is possible, but he still can’t get the SUPER-MAJORITY necessary to guarantee him the nomination.
Meanwhile, Clinton is going to win the popular vote.
But your argumnent is that because Obama wins a bunch more delegates in states that aren’t important to a democratic victory, states that provide an advantage to Democratic voters in Republican states, and states that use the caucus system which provides results that are completely at odds with the will of the democratic electorate in the states, that he has to be the nominee.
That’s complete bullshit. Anyone who gave a flying fuck about winning the white house, and doing what is best for the party, would recognize that argument as bullshit.
If you want to claim that Obama makes a better candidate than Clinton, or would make a better president than Clinton, go for it.
But don’t use complete BULLSHIT arguments about delegate counts that don’t meet the necessary threshhold being the determining factor in choosing the nominee.
I’ll make it easy for you, Paul.
Clinton beats McCain with 53%. MoE is +/-3%.
At – 3% it becomes Clinton with 50%. Same as Obama.
Obama beats McCain with 50%. MoE is +/-3%.
At + 3% it becomes Obama with 53%. Same as Clinton.
And yes, you are still an idiot
Nope, she’s not. Sorry.
Nope, the argument is that because Obama will win a majority of the delegates, he has to be the nominee. It’s only in your little fantasy world that people make bullshit arguments like those.
ROFL…. Dear heart, I don’t think you’d recognize bullshit if it jumped up and bit you in the ass.
Dear heart, you’re the expert on BULLSHIT arguments, as you’ve so amply demonstrated on this thread. Case in point: that SurveyUSA poll you’re so proud of.
J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford
How is campaigning in all the state contests, according to the rules of each state contest, “gaming the system”?
Wouldn’t a better example of “gaming the system” be a campaign that focuses only on a stategic minority of state contests in an effort to wrap up the nomination by Super Tuesday?
Okay, lets look at it this way, shall we. Clinton is at 53%, with an moe of 4.5%. That means that the worst Clinton could be doing right now is Clinton 48.5, McCain 44.5%… a damned comfortable margin for Clinton with 7% undecided.
But the worst Obama could be doing is losing… Obama 45.5%, McCain 47.5% with 7% undecided (survey says 8% but it adds up to 101%).
I’m looking at Clinton’s numbers, and I know there is nothing much to worry about — even with the MOE under the worst case scenario, she still has a nice lead over McCain that requires her to pick up less than 22% of the undecided vote to get to 50%+1, and win California’s EVs.
But as a democrat, I have to be concerned about Obama v McCain, because HIS PARGIN IS SO MUCH CLOSER….
Personally, I love this assertion. I mean, what can you say to someone so deluded?
Only if you ignore most of the available data, as you persist in doing. When you look at all of the available data, instead of cherry-picking, they each have identical victories over McCain, which means that your argument is complete bullshit, but then you alrady knew that, just as you know that your assertion about Clinton gaining ground in that SurveyUSA poll was complete bullshit, since she’s actually lost ground.
It’s not bullshit arguments. It’s rather simple, you don’t change the rules during the game unless you’re a sore loser or a cheater.
Did Clinton ever complain before she found out that some things didn’t suit her?
Clinton is going win the popular vote? Yes, being able to read rules and add votes is elitist, so I understand why you’re not able to count. You should fit real good with the Khmer Rouge.
Super Majority? There’s no rule about a super majority. A super majority is usually two thirds, here were just talking about a simple majority, or half of the delegates.
Perhaps you should read up about the rules?
The minimum 3 EC votes for small states is biased towards small states. It’s not biased towards the GOP. Unless you believe that the GOP has a time machine. Maybe they share it with Dean?
the “system” is set up to ensure that the Democrats select the best nominee for November. Building up a big delegate lead in GOP states only tells you which candidate will lose the red states by the smallest amount — it doesn’t tell you which candidate has the best shot at the swing states, and which candidate can rack up big enough margins in Dem states that they don’t have to worry about defending them. And building a lead in delegates in caucus states tell you nothing at all.
If this was RISK, Clinton would have a well defended Western Hemisphere, and Obama would have a lot more territories, but no continents and his armies would be spread thin. An idiot would look at the board and think that Obama was winning, because he had more territories.. anyone who understands the game knows better.
actually it is — when you look at the actual census numbers there are more people on average in the Dem 3 delegate states than the GOP three delegate states. (not to mention the fact that there are more GOP states with 3 delegates than Dem states with three delegates)
But the advantage is relatively minor, compared to the kind of ridiculous disparity you see with Illinois and Texas.
Dear heart, has it really escaped your notice that some of those “red” states are really purple? And that for every state that Clinton does better than Obama, I can find an equally important state where Obama does better than Clinton? Not to mention the fact that you still cannot deal with the fact that you’re completely wrong about California? Or that Clinton has actually lost ground there?
slippy hussein toad
Pluk, I don’t know why Democrats keep losing Presidential elections. Since 1964, we’ve won three of ten Presidential elections, and the last two of those were by a plurality of the vote only. But with a shit attitude like yours it’s no wonder most of us think if Hillary is the nom, we’re guaranteed to be fucked. Even over a weakling like McCain. In the meantime, the 50-state strategy keeps producing results and you keep your soft little head in the sand. It’s gonna get broked out here in the world anyway.
J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford
It’s like debating a Republican. p.lukasiak even has a RISK board analogy.
Here’s a question for you phuk:
How do you keep an asshole in suspense?
I’ll tell you later.
oh, for fucks sake.
first off, a super-majority is anything higher than a majority.
secondly, the rules make it possible to win the nomination through the primary process only if you win a super-marjority (slightly over 62% of the delegates available in primaries and caucuses) because there are only 3253 delegates that can be won through primaries and caucuses, and you need a majority of ALL 4048 delegates to win.
THAT is the rule.
2% further along, Obama has narrowed the gap from 32% to 18%. That’s 7% for each percent reporting. My final projection after the remaining 97% of Indiana reports, per p.luc math is:
if this was dungeons and dragons, hillary would be a 15th level magic user with a +5 vorpal blade and a well-stocked “bag of holding” whereas obama would be a retarded halfling with a broken leg. totally.
Words fail me.
ROFL…. Um, no.
hey, Kerry is supporting Obama. Brazile, the “genius” behind Gore’s loss, is supporting Obama.
On the other hand, the guy who won two of those three presidential elections is backing my candidate.
In other words, Bill Clinton knows how to win Presidential elections. And I’ll take his expertise over any of the dickheads ‘advising’ Obama any day of the week. And if you don’t think that Bill Clinton — THE ONLY DEMOCRAT TO WIN TWO PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS SINCE FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT — has had a hand in CLinton’s strategy, you’re an even bigger idiot than I thought.
if this were candyland clinton would be at the finish line while obama would still be stuck in the peppermint forest.
Indiana just closed, I think a near split; NC I’d bet 9%. As for OR, pluk is an idiot, Hillary will get waxed. Not by any stretch of imagination is OR anything like OH, IN, PA, or NY.
And yet he apparently doesn’t know how to win primaries and caucuses. Funny, that.
By the way, do you realize how unhinged you sound in this thread?
why don’t you bother checking a dictionary before you make an ass out of yourself next time. A supermajority is anything in excess of a simple majority. Period.
what can i say, triangulation works. well, it wins elections. for bill clinton. it aint working too well for hillary, despite having many of the same advisors on board.
and maybe it’s just me, but as a liberal i see throwing progressive policy under the bus to win as clinton did in 96 as more than a bit pyrrhic.
but he sure did win all right.
Dear heart, I did, which is why I was laughing my ass off at you since you’re not even close to being correct, just as you’re wrong about California and wrong about Clinton gaining ground there, not to mention being wrong about the popular vote and about pretty much everything else you’ve said here. It’s been really hilarious watching you spin.
Per CNN exits, looks like 4-5% win by Clinton in IN. They were off by a few % in PA, though, but that’s a decent ballpark.
From the exits, a full 7% of those polled (7% of all voters) voted Clinton in the primary but would vote McCain over Clinton in the general. About 2% of those polled voted Obama in the primary but would vote McCain over Obama in the general.
The 5% difference from cross-overs is probably about her margin of victory.
p.luc – don’t forget to count those admitted McCain voters as evidence that Hillary is more electable as you usually do.
if this was fortress america, clinton’s space-based laser relay would be totally frying obama’s hovertanks.
t jasper parnell
You know, Kennedy was assassinated. Gore won the election and Kerry came within in a couple of thousand votes of beating a sitting American president in time of war. Times change and so do voting patterns. John McCain enjoys a free stumble right now. How anyone can think that current poll numbers relative to McCain prove anything is beyond me. According to TPM, CNN reported that 50% of Clinton’s supporters say they will not support Obama. If whatever O’s sin is, is greater than McCain’s batshit crazy economic and foreign policies, I’ve not seen it.
You can call me all the names you want if it makes you emotionally happy.
So if you know about the delegation process, why did you make the stupid ass statement and follow up defense that
Do you NOT understand that your self-classification of New Jersey voters being “second class” has NO RELEVENCE and therefore is completely unsupportive to your claim that Obama will lose the general election and will damage the party?
Do you even want people to take you seriously?
The view from Indiana…
They don’t call it flyover country for nothing.
Sigh, is it over yet?
the minute Wright said Obama was just a politician, Obama dumped his ass.
Of course he did. I’ll rephrase it – maybe now you might get it:
the minute Wright questioned Obama’s integrity, Obama dumped his ass.
Part of “agreeing to disagree” is that you assume the person you disagree with is disagreeing in good faith. It’s how people maintain civil dialogue while they strongly disagree on things…
… Ahhhh, now I know why you don’t understand it.
t jasper parnell
Dictionary definitions are not, as they say, the last word on a word’s meaning. Half-bright undergraduates make this mistake all the time.
He probably doesn’t know how to win caucuses in deep red state, what he does know is how to win actual ELECTIONS (y’know, the thing they have in november) in swing and Democratic states. His goal isn’t first place at the half-way point, his goal is the finish line.
Once more, it’s not biased towards GOP, it’s biased towards small states. That more small states ends up voting for the GOP doesn’t mean that it’s biased towards the GOP.
The three delegates minimum has to do with every state sending two senators and at least one representative to congress, and that might be older than the GOP.
But the GOP has a time machine they share with Dean, so they get to do this things.
t jasper parnell
So, is it your position that come November, Bill and Hillary won’t support Obama and won’t do all that they can to see that the Democratic nominee wins?
then Obama lied about his reasons for dumping Wright, because I don’t recall him including “calling me a politician” as among the “outrageous” and “shocking” things that Obama objected to.
Indeed, do you consider it “outrageous” to call Obama a “politician”?
How’s all that complaining about the Democratic party primary system working out with all those Democratic party superdelegates – you know, the ones who administer the system?
where did you get that from?
if this was chutes and ladders clinton would be hitting obama over the head with a ladder
He’s been wrong about it so long…
But then he’s a Clinton supporter, so I guess it’s understandable. Math is elitist.
t jasper parnell
You keep stressing how Bill can win elections and how this, somehow or another, is something that only Hillary will be able to draw on in the General. If Bill will act as Obama’s surrogate, then surely his magic will work in Obama’s favor, no?
J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford
North Carolina has been called for Obama.
Looks like Obama by around 13-14 points in NC per CNN exit.
You guys have shown me the light. The Democratic nominee should be chosen after a knock-down, drag out board game contest between Clinton and Obama.
t jasper parnell
Furthermore, if Hillary’s supporters now claim that they won’t vote for Obama and Hillary “works her heart out” for Obama in the General, then again, Obama’s alleged failures disappear. Or is it you position that her policy positions are so distinct from Obama’s that no rational Hillary supporter will support Obama. And if this latter case is the case, what are these policy positions?
no, I don’t understand that.
The voters of New Jersey have minds of their own. And they pay attention — they know that the candidate they support has won all the big states except for Obama’s home state. They know that Obama can’t connect with voters like them — even when given seven months to do so in neighboring Pennsylvania. And they don’t hate John McCain.
So, if the DNC hands the nomination to Obama — especially with all the people talking about how Democrats can’t afford to alienate the black vote — New Jersey voters are going to wonder why the Democratic party is more concerned with “the black vote” than with the average New Jersey voter.
And the minute they get told that six of their votes is less important than one voter in Kansas, they aren’t going to feel a whole lot of loyalty to the Democratic party.
I’m as big a party loyalist as you’re likely to find. I was “anyone but Hillary”…. and one of the big reasons that I chose Clinton over Obama when it came down to the two of them was because Clinton was a much better candidate for November — I was thinking about the PARTY when I chose Clinton, because I don’t agree with a lot of what she’s done politically.
And while I’ll still vote for Obama in November, it will only be out of Party loyalty — but New Jersey has a whole lot of Democrats who are happy to support moderate Republicans, and McCain is going to run as a moderate. And lots of people who would like to see Clinton in the white house with compare McCain to Obama, and vote for the person, not the party, because the party told them that they weren’t important.
t jasper parnell
I mean really. If the Cs are as good as they are claimed to be and if the Cs work for Obama then they ought to be able to give him, say PA, NY, OH, IN, CA, NJ, and so forth. Conversely, if Obama is willing to work for Hillary, then surely he can find a way to give them the various states he may win. Unless, of course, we assume, that the voters are voting for personality, ethnicity, and gender instead of policy and, let us not forget, the “fact” that neither Obama nor Clinton is a bat shit crazy 70 year old man dedicated to extended all the joy we currently enjoy as a result of the policies of the current Administration
Go listen to the context of the quote, troll. He calls him a politician in response to questions about why they are disagreeing – thereby implying that the entire reason for the disagreement is that he is a politican. Wright implied that Obama was disagreeing in bad faith.
t jasper parnell
Some who support Obama, me for example, are (to join the all caps party) THINKING ABOUT THE PARTY’S FUTURE. Bill won, so we are told, because its the economy, stupid. Surely, Obama and the Clinton’s working in tandem can win on its the War and the Economy, stupid. Unless, of course, there is something in Obama’s record that precludes him from winning. And, as an aside, stop speaking for the NJ voters and how they will behave in a future state as of yet existing.
If p.lukasiak was a metaphor generator, he would be THE WORST ONE EVER.
t jasper parnell
not yet, even.
you’ve buttered your bread, now sleep on it.
Sad, then, that he’s going to end up short, since he forgot “how to win caucuses in deep red states.” Oh, well, there’s always 2016.
Still cannot deal with the fact that you were dead wrong about California, can you? Or that you lied about Hillary gaining ground there?
Actually, we should be thankful for both myiq0.8xu and p.lunatic, they are vetting the Balloon Juice commenters so that we’ll be ready when the GOP trolls arrive. Because they will.
Since TalkLeft is banning commenters and removing posts their commenters haven’t been vetted as good as we have. The same thing can be said about the commenters over at Red State and Hot Air.
Yet another plus for Obama.
If this was Clue, it would be Hillary in the conservatory with the pipe wrench. Obama would be the corpse.
t jasper parnell
I read somewhere or another, that the Stones’ Satanic Majesties Present, was Mick’s idea because he feared losing relevance; now some ten thousand years later SMP is rightfully forgotten as bad pandering music, therefore, if there only rock and roll, Clinton is Mick and Barrack is who?
Not only is that statement flatly incorrect about “all of the big states,” but you have yet to demonstrate that you know a damn thing about any of the voters, much less New Jersey voters. More on this, below, since your major is completely undermined by the polls.
ROFL…. I do so love it when p.luk goes into full rant mode and doesn’t even try to make sense.
Dear heart, Obama won more states, more voters, and more delegates. I’m sure the voters of New Jersey can figure this out, even if you cannot.
Since only a nutcase would actually believe something like this, forgive me if I don’t mourn for the loss of those few lunatics. And, dear heart, just who is it that is going to “tell” them this?
No, I don’t think you are.
The evidence does not support this assertion.
Funny, then, that Obama is doing better in the polls against McCain in New Jersey than is Clinton. It seems as though you really don’t know the voters in New Jersey, after all, doesn’t it?
Good thing, then, that nobody in “the party” told them that, isn’t it?
Don’t you ever get tired of being wrong?
We’re ready on Day One for a 3 a.m. phone call, bitches!
If this were Grand Theft Auto IV, you’d be a hooker that I just ran down and then backed over repeatedly.
SA2SQ Vol. n+1
If this was a swim meet, Clinton would be the heavy favorite who failed to win the qualifying heat because she was saving herself for the finals. If this was the NFL, Clinton would be the team that sat their All-Star Quaterback during the entire regular season so she would be healthy for the playoffs. If this were Monopoly, Clinton would be rounding the board not buying any properties because she’s saving up to buy hotels.
Wow, p. luk., this IS fun!
So basically this 6:1 ratio comes from the number of delegates NJ gave to Clinton (59) compared to the number of delegates that Kansas gave to Clinton (9) (Obama received 48 and 23 respectively).
Lets look at the number futher, which is what you like to do.
554,894 people voted in the New Jersey Republican primary on Feb 5th – Super Tuesday.
1,108,322 people voted in the New Jersey Democratic primary on the same day, with Clinton winning 602,675 votes and Obama winning 492,186 votes.
(I’m having trouble adding links to this information on Wikipedia).
So assuming that (feel free to disagree with my assumptions, but please give support to your disagreement):
1) The same number of people vote again (the Republican nomination hadn’t yet been finalized so Republicans still had a reason to come out,
2) There wasn’t a significant cross-over vote, and
3) Obama’s supporters will continue to support him.
If 1/3 or 198,882 of the people who voted for Hillary switch to McCain, Obama still wins the state by 155,664 votes.
Now, what are the chances that almost 200,000 New Jersians will be pissed off enough because “they don’t count as much as Kansas” to vote McCain?
New Jersians may switch votes for many reasons in the last 6-months of the election. More Republicans may be energized to come vote while fewer Democrats make the effort. All this would affect the outcome. But to harp (how many times have you posted this?) on how New Jersians may take their ball and go home because their 59 delegate were given to an unsuccessful candidate seems like a very unimportant argument. Are New Jersians really that fickle?
You can’t cross the finish line without being in first place half way through. You can’t win the general election without winning the primary first. Saying he was focussed on winning the general election and not concerned with winning the primary makes absolutely no sense; you can’t do one without the other.
Thank God. I though pluckshake might have done himself a mischief before he realized North Carolina doesn’t count.