Do facts exist anymore?

by belicheat, Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:00:33 PM EST

Over the course of this primary election season, I have become a more and more frequent MyDD visitor and commenter.  I understand the whole Kos vs. MyDD debacle, and have come to accept that MyDD is often a bastion of support for Mrs. Clinton and her candidacy.  I understand that much political discussion takes place in that special grey area between fact and fiction, the "spin" zone if you will.  Poll numbers are open to interpretation, interviews and quotations are put into, and taken out of context.  

That is why we all come to a website like MyDD.  To debate, to exchange points of view, to have reasoned discussions about pressing issues within the Democratic party.  So when diarists make the rec list with diaries that extrapolate conclusions I disagree with, I'm fine with it.  When arguments regarding abstract subjects like "electability" are put forth, it's all good because there is always room for debate.

But lately, things have been moving away from those "grey" areas and towards matters of black and white.  Diaries that I am reading from the top of the Rec list are filled with half-truth, misinformation and outright lies.  Support your candidate, "spin" issues like polls and electability all you want, but don't print lies.  

It is not a disputed fact that as of this moment, Obama has captured a majority of the pledged delegates.  This is not a debatable statement.  This is a fact.

Hillary Clinton does not have a lead in the so-called "popular vote."  You can't simply pick and choose which states and types of elections to include.  Right now, when you include every state that has voted (and yes even MI and FL) Obama leads the popular vote count.  This is a fact.

Now, before the inevitable flame war begins, let me expound a bit further.  I am not saying that every pro-Hillary Clinton diary is filled with lies.  I am not saying that Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race.  I am not saying that people should be prevented from posting pro-Hillary diaries.

What I am saying is, if you are going to support Hillary please do so without any nonsense.  If you want to claim she is more electable, please do so.  If you want to make the argument that Obama will lose X state to McCain, do so.  But don't insult everyone's intelligence by making ridiculous challenges to facts that are widely established.  You are not helping your candidate because the Superdelegates know better, and you certainly aren't helping the Democratic party in general.  All that is accomplished is further divisiveness, which we certainly do not need any more of.

That's all I have to say, and thank you in advance for keeping the comments on point and free of personal hatchet jobs.




Tags: Obama, Clinton (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 243 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: Do facts exist anymore? (2.00 / 3)

Thanks for this paean to facts.  Yesterday in my diary, one poster said that all facts are interpretations.  I think that's neither true nor helpful to Democrats in this election year.


by deminva on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:03:30 PM EST

Re: Do facts exist anymore? (none / 0)

Diaries like these are seen as "attacks" on Hillary supporters here as are fact based rebuttals. It's kind of hard to have a decent debate when most are accusing of bullying or spamming for contesting some baseless points.


No way. No how. No McCain!
by spacemanspiff on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:06:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Now that the fat lady (2.00 / 1)

can be clearly heard practicing scales, Obama supporters have also begun to overwhelm MyDD.  Which just makes the Clinton stalwarts angry, apparently, regardless of what is actually said.


by McNasty on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:09:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

someone posted about racism (none / 0)

and a while later I came over here to see what the fuss was all about.

didn't see what the diarist was talking about. thank goodness.

I am a target, come scream at me!


*&=4eva
by BlogSurrogate57 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:22:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Undisputed Facts (2.00 / 6)

Here are some more "undisputed facts":

1. Over the last three months, Hillary has won more contests, more votes and more earned delegates than Sen. Obama. More Americans have voted for her than any other candidate. In fact, more people have voted for Hillary than any other primary candidate in history - some 17 million people.  

2. Despite what the Obama campaign may say, declaring Mission Accomplished does not make it so. This race is very close, and there are enough delegates remaining to deliver the nomination to either candidate.

3. Hillary has won the key swing states of MI, FL, OH, PA and WV and runs ahead of Sen. Obama when matched up against Sen. McCain nationally and in battleground contests.

4. She is clearly the most electable candidate: She has won 16 of the 20 Republican-leaning House districts won by freshmen Democrats in 2006. And in a survey of rural districts in more than a dozen swing states, she runs far ahead of Sen. Obama against Sen. McCain in head-to-head matchups.

5. Hillary has made a commitment to the people of every state to give them a say in the Democratic process. And she is committed to ensuring that the delegations from Florida and Michigan are fully seated at our convention.

It is not a disputed fact that as of this moment, Obama has captured a majority of the pledged delegates.  This is not a debatable statement.  This is a fact.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:11:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And she loses almost all of the swing state (none / 0)

representative seats that we stand to gain this time around.

yeah, we've heard all that. we make our own decision. and nice to see you around again, knowvox. I think you posted on my first diary on Kos!


*&=4eva
by BlogSurrogate57 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:14:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Undisputed Facts (2.00 / 1)

3, 4 & 5 are not facts

(re 5: she wants to disenfranchise those who did not vote because they believed that the word of Hil & the DNC could be trusted)


John McCain: Cheney with a temper
by wrb on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:18:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Undisputed Facts (none / 0)

Don't forget #2, which "isn't even wrong" as they say, since Obama hasn't declared Mission Accomplished.


by randomscientist on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:29:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Undisputed Facts (2.00 / 4)

More Americans have voted for her than any other candidate. In fact, more people have voted for Hillary than any other primary candidate in history - some 17 million people.  

I'm glad you managed to skip over the entire part of the diary that addressed this. And come to think of it, the parts of the other 50 diaries that addressed it.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:21:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Undisputed Facts (none / 0)

He does have one point.

More DEMOCRATS have voted in this primary than in any in known history.

But the reason Clinton is not ahead in the delegates is that sadly, she has not acheived over 50% of those votes.

It's very close, but Obama is ahead and that is a fact that cannot be disputed.


by DawnG on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:04:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Undisputed Facts (none / 0)

Seriously, this is very out of touch.

Everyone knows that Hillary has received more certified votes in her name but that Barack successfully gamed the system by taking advantage of the caucus system, where a slim minority of the population dictates the state's delegate apportionment.  Look at Maine, for instance.  The state has over 1,000,000 people living in it and the caucus was decided by 5,000 people.  

That's 0.5% of the population.    


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:47:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Undisputed Facts (none / 0)

Unless you want to disenfranchise all caucus states, I don't see your point.


by Okamifujutsu on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:27:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

GAMED THE SYSTEM??? (none / 0)

That's the kind of language that gets my back up.  Are you suggesting that Hillary wouldn't have done exactly as Obama was smart enough to do if she'd been given better advice?  

Are you denying that her campaign, namely Mark Penn, didn't believe she HAD to play ball in Iowa or other caucus states?  I mean, she sure knew she needed to play in Nevada, now, didn't she?  After she lost so badly in Iowa?  

The effort to play victim card is so over the top, yet Hillary keeps trying to play it from every possible angle.   This is why I don't respect her.  She can never just admit when she's made a mistake. It's win at ANY cost.    


"Not only do I want an elite president, I want someone who's embarrassingly superior to me." -- Jon Stewart, 4/15/08
by JulieinVT on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:55:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: GAMED THE SYSTEM??? (none / 0)

Mark Penn was an idiot.  

This argument is more about the anti-democracy of the caucus system than any plea for sympathy or victimhood for Clinton.  


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:20:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

dear god.....save me (2.00 / 4)

point 1: "over the last 3 months"?? what about before that. oh yeah, i guess not. so what's the point? should we change the nomination to just post-february?? and "more people have voted for her than any other candidate." jeez, is this the popular vote minus caucuses metric again? please see the original post.

point 2: the obama campaign has not "declared mission accomplished." and while there are enough outstanding delegates that "could" deliver the remaining delegates to either candidate, the only condition under which it can happen is if obama dies. so, yes, there are enough remaining delegates, but you need to be in a different reality for that to count as clinton having a chance to win enough of those delegates to win.

point 3: who fkn cares? if you want to post a diary about what we can do to win those states in november, go right ahead. but i think you're using this to say, "look! she's more electable! go superdelegates, start supporting clinton!" ain't. gonna. happen. irrelevant to keep talking about this, it's over.

point 4. "clearly the most electable"? clearly?? um, you trot out a statistic about republican leaning house districts won by dems in 2006 and another "survey of rural districts" where she runs "far ahead." that's a clear argument for electability. sorry, not so much. um, besides, the point is moot. she lost. really, she did.

point 5: ya, she made that commitment when? oh that's right, when she realized that she screwed up and threw away a nomination that was in the palm of her hands; she did this by running a crappy campaign.

what's undisputed is that the improbability of clinton winning the nomination is so high as to be considered impossible. calamity would have to strike obama (and i don't mean "political" calamity, like, say, the rev. wright "controversy" that didn't stop him).

i don't have a messiah, but i do have a presidential candidate who has won the democratic nomination and who will win in november.

if you need a reason to fight as hard as possible to get him elected, here are ten (all related to the supreme court):

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?dia ryId=5874


by j cantarella on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:36:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

there's no reason to be an ass... (2.00 / 0)

...about it.

You're just feeding into the cycle.


by DawnG on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:28:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Undisputed Facts (2.00 / 3)

1.  I agree with #1 as far as "facts" go, but a question or two.
So the citizens of the states voting 90 days or more are worth exactly what?  
And the people of Alaska, Washington, Hawaii, Nevada, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa, North Dakota, Minnesota, Maine, etc.?  They are worth?

2.  Don't recall seeing the banner.  And Obama doesn't need to point out that 3253/2 = 1126.5 is 50% and anything over is a majority.

3.  Michigan?  Yah, whatever.  Hey Florida, do you want to vote for a Clinton or this guy named Joe Blow?  You want to meet him?  Oh no, can't do that.  You just have to pick between the wife of a two term president and this other guy. Whatever.  The KEY SWING state of West Virginia?  You are making Republican talking points seem more rational.

 4.  If she was "clearly" the most electable candidate, you wouldn't be needing to make an argument attempting to justify your assertion.  But just for kicks, if she were the most electable, what are you telling the people who supported the majority candidate?

5.  How very disengenous of her given her position stated earlier.  (more than 90 days ago, wouldn't want to hold someone accountable for something said that long ago, sort of like the logic in #1 above).

Every time some sort of new metric is made up and put forth as a basis for overturning the will of the voters, it alienates those not included in the argument.    


by Rick in Eugene on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:01:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Undisputed Facts (none / 0)

Point 3 regarding florida is nonsense.

Historically most states don't have visits from both candidates in the primary and in the general.

Democrats abroad also didn't have any campaigning nor even national media yet I've heard nobody complain about their votes being the result of uninformed easily swayed blank slates that rightfully should be ignored.

It supposes that Floridians are idiots that don't know how to read a newspaper, go to a website or even push the button that will turn the on TV.

There is certainly a case to be made if and how the delegation should be seated based on the rules but please stop insulting the intelligence of voters whose democraphics simply scewed towards Clinton but who Obama, now that he is our nominee, will need.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:55:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

FACT: HILLARY SAID MI WOULDNT COUNT (2.00 / 2)

HERE IS A FACT. AT ONE POINT, HILLARY SAID MI WONT COUNT. This is when she thought she would be winning the primary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULxxBz-PA jg

Now she changes her tune. Talk about a liar. Until you deal with this FACT, you need to get off the high horse about Clinton being victimized in MI.  The only losers in MI are the voters who are powerless to have a say because of the idiocy of the party.  

Yes, and any popular vote will have to account for the uncommitted going to Obama, at the very least. And one has to assume some Obama casual supporters stayed home.


by Pravin on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:48:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You don't seem to know what "fact" means (2.00 / 1)

Most of what you claim to be "facts" are actually interpretations.  That is all.  


Obama leads the popular vote too
by kellogg on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:20:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Undisputed Facts (none / 0)

someone help me!  when do we look at a three month period to decide a winner?  maybe you can take 7 months, hobbled from different parts of the year, and say she has won seven of the last 8.  Bottom line, months, days, years, don't count for shyte.  What counts are votes.  At the end of the day only one candidate has more votes, more SD's, and more elected delegates.  Unless of course if you just want to look at between 4:13PM on April 17 to 6:34 AM May 2.  How's that for dumb and arbitrary?


by SovSov on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:34:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Commenter tells it like it is! (2.00 / 1)

KnowVox speaks truth! This diarist has no clothes.

OBAMA FALSEHOOD #1:

Truth: The "Obama victory map" is dependent upon 'a cataclysmic sea-change within the electorate.' It is based upon a profound realignment of the electorate which may or may not occur. It is conjecture supported by weak arguments, wishful thinking and a dash of hope. (I'm paraphrasing multiple Obama-centric pundits here. I'm not going to go pulling up links. Dispute me if you wish. But, I speak the truth!)

Truth: The "Clinton victory map" is based upon sound historical and political analytics.

OBAMA FALSEHOOD #2:

Truth: The Obama campaign and the media have completely discounted the massive thumpings Clinton has posted in recent weeks in PA, WV, and KY.

Truth: A Democrat has not won a GE since 1916 (that's nineteen freakin' sixteen!) without winning WV, too. There are a lot of heavily-represented centrist and conservative Democratic voters in these and similar states (demographically) that must swing for our Party's candidate in November if we're going to win this thing. If you ignore this reality, the Obama victory map makes some sense. Can we afford to ignore this reality? I don't think so!

OBAMA FALSEHOOD #3:

Truth: Many of the states not on Obama's victory map, or states considered "sure things" by the Obama campaign now, are far from it, based upon recent polling. NJ, PA, OH, and FL come top of mind for this commenter.

OBAMA FALSEHOOD #4:

The diarist's own words...


Right now, when you include every state that has voted (and yes even MI and FL) Obama leads the popular vote count.  This is a fact.

Truth: This is a Democratic Primary. Hillary Clinton has received more Democratic votes than any Presidential Candidate in U.S. Primary Election history. This is about the Democratic Party nominating a candidate.

Truth worth reiterating: Using simple historical analysis and sound analytics--not hysterical "hope"--the Clinton campaign wins the electability argument hands down. No ifs, ands or buts.

The Obama argument, while full of "hope," is devoid of sound historical analytics. The Clinton argument is heavily driven by intensive historical analytics.

If I'm lyin' I'm dyin'...

Tell it like it is KnowVox!


by bobswern on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:12:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Commenter tells it like it is! (none / 0)

Mojo'd, not because I agree or like what you have to say, but at least you're being rational and sensible.  You make important points.


McCain: because not everyone's ready to say goodbye to W yet!
by Matt Smith on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:26:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama also begun to overwhelm MyDD (2.00 / 1)

I take full credit for The Surge© working!

;-)


"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!
by Al Rodgers on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:49:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Now that the fat lady (none / 0)

I agree.  The Obama operatives have swarmed this site on a "unity" mission.  UNITY SHMUNITY!  Many of HRC supporters have just moved on.


by trixta on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:39:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yep (none / 0)

In fact, MyDD's resident top diarist called her strike on Daily Kos after she got beat up with facts for posting a diary excoriating Obama for lying about Clinton's history of supporting NAFTA.  


by deminva on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:06:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do facts exist anymore? (2.00 / 3)

I don't understand how this is a fact: Right now, when you include every state that has voted (and yes even MI and FL) Obama leads the popular vote count.  

Is it a fact if you give uncommitted votes in Michigan to Obama?  Well then that would be intellectually dishonest, because those uncommitted votes went to John Edwards as well.

And let's revisit Michigan again.  Obama chose to withdraw his name from the ballot.  Nobody forced him to do this.  He did not do this out of some sort of solidarity with DNC rules, because if that was the case he would have also pulled his name off the ballot of other states that broke DNC rules - Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.

If Hillary Clinton removed her name from the ballots in Virginia or North Carolina, would those states not count?

Or are you stating that Obama has the lead in the popular vote if caucus states are included?  But that isn't how caucuses work.  They are not tallied by popular vote and as demonstrated by the non-binding primaries of Washington and Nebraska, caucuses are inherently flawed when it comes to the will of voters.

So it is a fact that Hillary Clinton leads the popular vote when Florida and Michigan are included.


by polson on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:00:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This only works (2.00 / 1)

if you do not count Iowa, Nevada, Maine, Washington


John McCain
by MILiberal on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:08:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This only works (2.00 / 1)

I agree. But any count that includes their "popular vote totals" cant' be factually based either, since those are simply estimates.  We cant say for fact that any candidate got a fixed number of votes there.


by Mayor McCheese on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:14:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This only works (2.00 / 2)

So the estimate we use is zero?


From a Hillary supporter: We laughed as that became our mantra - "Barack can't win!"..... ....."he can go to hell and i'll pay for his way there."
by Cochrane on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:26:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This only works (2.00 / 1)

I went to the caucus in Maine.  I voted!  Go to HELL if you think my vote shouldn't count because I was in a caucus state!  


by SovSov on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:37:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This only works (2.00 / 2)

I think you're missing the point.  It's not that your vote didn't count.  It did.  Your vote went to elect delegates.

The point is there is no such thing as a popular vote.  It's not a legit measure of who fared better in the election precisely because your state doesn't even tally a popular vote.

That's the argument people need to be making.  There is no accurate measure of the popular vote. PERIOD!


John McCain believes "Women shouldn't have a choice."
by jturn17 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:35:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This only works (none / 0)

No, but there is a rough estimate accurate enough within the current totals to see who has won it.

While the delegates are more precise to count the distortions inherent in the system used make it less representative.

Currently both metrics are flawed yet in concert they produce the good result as long as they point to the same person.

It's only needed to promote one metric over the other if they point to different candidates.

They don't so your argument is mistaken. prematurely chosing a single flawed metric over the other as the correct representation of the will of the people is deligitimizing and unneeded.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:47:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This only works (none / 0)

No. I believe we should use the best estimates available, but we can't go around sanctimoniously demanding that these "Results" are "facts" when they are merely estimates.


by Mayor McCheese on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:01:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This only works (none / 0)

From what I've seen so far the estimates used are "whatever puts Hillary ahead."


From a Hillary supporter: We laughed as that became our mantra - "Barack can't win!"..... ....."he can go to hell and i'll pay for his way there."
by Cochrane on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:53:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This only works (none / 0)

this is absolutely not true.  look at the very last line at the top.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/presi

dent/democratic_vote_count.html


by slynch on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:40:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do facts exist anymore? (2.00 / 2)

Hillary said that MI votes wouldn't count for anything. Look at my prior link. End of argument. You want to reform the party for the next election? No objection there.


by Pravin on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:50:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, thank goodness! (none / 0)

I was worried that we wouldn't have anybody to point out that no one made Obama remove his name from the list.  Why don't you take that argument to show and tell tomorrow?


by deminva on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:53:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why he didn't take his name off the FL ballot... (2.00 / 2)

"State law allows candidates who wish to withdraw from the Florida primary to do so by filing an affidavit stating that he or she is not a candidate for President of the United States of America. In other words: to get off the ballot in Florida, a candidate has to swear that he or she isn't running for President."

http://www.fladems.com/page/content/make itcount-faqs/#q17

Saw this just a short time ago on DKos and learned some stuff I didn't know about Florida.


by Liberal Monk on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:20:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do facts exist anymore? (2.00 / 2)

Well, the diary above does not appear to be all that factual itself.

RealClearPolitics can be tricky in how they present their results, but it looks like if all the votes are counted as of right now, and fairly estimated where they have not literally been counted, Hillary Clinton does indeed have the popular vote lead:

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA*
Obama  17,573,562    47.5%   
Clinton  17,637,307    47.7%   

That's really astonishing when you consider how extremely hostile and sexist the press and TV have been toward her.  Even with that, she has more people supporting her than Obama.

And that popular vote lead is expected to grow in the remaining primaries.  Of course, this is something the Obama team wants to deny, which is exactly why the Obama campaign wants Hillary to quit, and why she should not.  Obama's position is deeply hypocritical.  After all, just a few months ago he was saying that superdelegates should vote the way their state went and that anything else would negate the will of the people.  He is singing a different tune now.


by PlainWords on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:16:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do facts exist anymore? (2.00 / 1)

Even with that, she has more people supporting her than Obama.

So you believe that NO ONE in Michigan supports Obama?


by Angry White Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:32:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do facts exist anymore? (2.00 / 1)

Um, I don't believe that was implied.


by polson on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:41:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do facts exist anymore? (2.00 / 2)

Yes it was. The popular vote count he used gave Obama zero votes from Michigan. Therefore, he obviously believes that nobody in Michigan supports Obama, a patently ridiculous position.


by Angry White Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:42:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do facts exist anymore? (2.00 / 1)

If true, that's a fair point.  But let's not forget errors the other way also.  It's hard when you have to estimate. Remember that Obama chose, for tactical reasons he believed would benefit him in Iowa (and did), chose to remove his name from the ballot in Michigan.  No one said he had to.  So why should he get votes there?


by PlainWords on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:59:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do facts exist anymore? (2.00 / 2)

You were not talking about votes received. You said "She has more people supporting her than Obama."

I pointed out that you can only come to that conclusion if you assume that no one in Michigan supports Obama.


by Angry White Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:40:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do facts exist anymore? (2.00 / 2)

...and this is aside from the fact that if we're talking about who has more "supporters" every major poll has him beating her in that category fairly handily.


John McCain is surprisingly bad for this country
by minnesotaryan on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:27:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do facts exist anymore? (2.00 / 1)

And the goalposts go whizzing by, yet again. Somebody called you on your bullshit estimate and then you activate talking point 429.b

The stock answers to this talking point are:

(1) Hillary said that the election wouldn't mean anything--so why does it mean something?

(2) All the candidates pledged to the early states not to participate in that election, Obama & Edwards interpreted this as removing their names from the ballot.

(3) Popular vote is a bullshit metric anyway because (among other reasons) it dramatically undervalues caucus states--and that's why it doesn't have a direct bearing on the nomination. Its only function at this point is to inform the opinion of the superdelegates--and YOU ARE TREATING THEM LIKE THEY ARE FUCKING RETARDED. Do you think they are going to be convinced by an argument which awards 0 votes to Barack Obama in Michigan?


by Brannon on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:31:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do facts exist anymore? (none / 0)

Ha ha ...I know I'm winning an argument when the other party starts using the F-word.

Your (1) and (2) statements are both distortions that have been answered many times over.

As to (3), popular vote is a valid metric of popular opinion.  Get it?  

Next, your comment about caucus states is horribly wrong.  The truth is that the caucus states are dramatically OVERvalued in the way the DNC has set up the primaries.  And in case you forgot, the U.S. awards the Presidency based on winner-take-all electoral votes -- in other words nothing like the way Obama has gotten his delegate lead.  If you look at the electoral votes of the states HRC has won vs the electoral votes in the states Obama has won, she should be the nominee.   This is even more obvious if you are smart enough to realize that some of Obama's prize states, like Idaho, are so Republican-red that they will not go for him in November, or in a million years.

As to Michigan, even if he gets proportional votes based on exit polling in Michigan, he still will end up behind in the total popular vote.


by PlainWords on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:22:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do facts exist anymore? (2.00 / 1)

You seem reasonable.  Given that we actually cannot give exact popular vote tallies for four of the caucus states, don't you think it's a pretty flawed metric to be relying upon?

Or how about this: Minnesota and Washington are two large, stalwart Democratic states.  Both held caucuses.  If we rely on the popular vote metric, these two states count for far less in relation to others than they do when we count electoral votes or pledged delegates.  How is that fair?

Indeed, I believe it's fair to say that, if we were to count the Michigan results as is, wherein Clinton gets 328K votes and Obama gets zero, those results would outweigh the popular vote advantage Obama earned out of all of his big caucus wins.  How in the world is that fair?

What do you think?


by deminva on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:02:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do facts exist anymore? (none / 0)

You seem reasonable as well, but I believe your argument is faulty.

First, yes of course the popular vote is a flawed metric.  The only metric that is not flawed is the actual election.  And in 2000 we saw that even that is open to argument.  But having said that, I do think the popular vote is one of the best estimates -- in my opinion the best estimate -- of the will of the people.  It's how we should elect the President.

Second, if you think it is unfair to give Minnesota and Washington less based on their pledged delegates, then you have to, for consistency, be far more disturbed by the tremendous imbalance between the number of pledged delegates Obama has been awarded and the actual number of electoral votes that the states he has won will actually have in the general election.  Overall, he has been the beneficiary, not the victim, of that imbalance.  And that doesn't even speak to states like Texas, where he lost the popular vote but somehow won the caucuses, which are far less democratic, and walked away with more than his fair share of delegates.  Strange indeed.

Finally, according to the NY Times today, if you actually count all the votes, and even add votes to the Obama tally based on Michigan exit polls, he still would lose the popular vote.  And that's without today's results.


by PlainWords on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:34:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do facts exist anymore? (2.00 / 1)

The popular vote is all they have left.  If they gave that up then they wouldn't have any basis to argue that Clinton should win the nomination.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:04:21 PM EST

Re: Do facts exist anymore? (none / 0)

How is that something they have "left".

It is a subjective metric in our primary process.


http://www.truepat.org/
by CrushTheGOP2008 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:15:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do facts exist anymore? (none / 0)

Just as pledged delegates are also subjective. Depending on the state delegates differ from the amount of people they represent. Extra delegates were awarded to states based on their place in the nomination cycle, rural disticts were given relativily given more delegates then urban, etc.

The only objective one is the total delegates one. As Clinton supporters use the total vote argument to try and reach the 50% +1 delegate needed it's as valid a strategy as basis your claim on pledged delegates.

It's of course best to claim the nomination on both subjective metrics as Obama undoubtably wil be able to do in the end.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:59:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do facts exist anymore? (none / 0)

No, we can argue that she is more electable in the fall as even John King said this afternoon on CNN.


by handsomegent on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:10:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do facts exist anymore? (2.00 / 1)

That argument is complete bunk. Hillary LOOKS more electable now, but that's only because Obama has been attacked nonstop for the past few weeks while Hillary has been given a pass. If Hillary were to somehow become the nominee, the GOP attacks would begin, and her numbers have nowhere to go but down.


by Angry White Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:35:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do facts exist anymore? (none / 0)

Do you  think all attacks will stop as soon as he is the Dem Nominee?  McCain will obviously NOT drop out if Obama is nominated.

And the worshipful press he has been receiving will change quickly when he is no longer HRC's opponent but McCain's. The Time Magazine photos  will no longer be his baby pictures. You can imagine what they will be. And the sexism from which he has so profited will be turned against him, as he is framed in the Beltway Dem-girlie Thug-manly meme. I don't like this meme. I think it is loathsome in itself and also because it breeds hatred and violence. But that is the meme of The Village.

"He is more electable if no one campaigns against him" is not a strong argument.


by redwagon on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:52:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do facts exist anymore? (2.00 / 2)

Yet, "She is more electable when everybody is ignoring her" is a strong argument?


No way. No how. No McCain!
by spacemanspiff on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:15:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do facts exist anymore? (2.00 / 1)

Worshipful press?

You mean the worshipful press that played Jeremiah Wright's Greatest Hits on a loop for four weeks straight?

The worshipful press that ambushed him with a series of non-issues in the PA debate?

That worshipful press?


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:58:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do facts exist anymore? (none / 0)

Basically, what we HRC supporters have left is $ and our vote in November--and a growing amount of both will not go for your savior candidate.


by trixta on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:44:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do facts exist anymore? (2.00 / 3)

Hillary Clinton does not have a lead in the so-called "popular vote."  You can't simply pick and choose which states and types of elections to include.  Right now, when you include every state that has voted (and yes even MI and FL) Obama leads the popular vote count.  This is a fact.

Only if you give Obama a share of the uncommitted vote, which were not, technically, votes for him. (And since Edwards was still in the race, it muddies up the water on awarding them to him)

Otherwise, Hillary leads by 63k as of last night. Of course, this has never been a battle for votes, but for delegates, and I think it's obvious that the supers don't particularly care about the popular vote, as they recognize what a bad measure it is in an election like this one.


by mattw on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:09:18 PM EST

Case in point. (2.00 / 3)

When CNN and the NYT are calling your numbers "magic math," and reporters emphasize that most methods of vote counting show Senator Obama to lead the popular vote regardless of how MI and FL are counted, you aren't being intellectually honest if you don't realize you hold a debatable, minority position.

This is essentially the point of this diary.


by McNasty on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:18:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Case in point. (none / 0)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/democratic_vote_count.htm l

How is Clinton +63k "magic math"?

I'm going specifically for facts. And when people were saying Hillary was ahead a week ago in the popular vote, that was (in my head), absurd. Saying she is behind now "regardless of how you count MI and FL" seems like the debatable position, since if you don't give Obama uncommitted votes, she is ahead. That's a fact. It's not a disputable fact.

Well, maybe it is. If you think I'm wrong, then just tell me where.


by mattw on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:15:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Case in point. (2.00 / 1)

Yes, it's a fact.  But it's muddied by so many complicating factors that it just doesn't mean very much.  It boils down to this:
  • you have to estimate the vote count of four caucus states that didn't publish vote counts
  • you have to assume that it's fair for caucus states  to be worth less than primary states because of the participation levels involved
  • you have to assume that caucus results are fair given that they require a level of commitment of time that the average voter may not be able to provide
  • you have to assume that the vote in Florida was fair given that one candidate had a significantly higher name recognition factor which couldn't be overcome because the other side couldn't campaign there
  • you have to assume that the vote in Florida was fair even though one candidate had a national ad air there when the other candidate had no ads
  • you have to assume the vote in Michigan was fair even though there was only one serious candidate on the ballot
... and on and on.  From all sides, the popular vote is a tainted metric.  I'm a big numbers guy and normally love boiling things down to numbers like these, but it's just overwhelmingly misleading to try and use the popular vote to make any sort of claims regarding how the entire Democratic electorate feel.
That being said, if you're going to use the Michigan #'s, I think giving Obama half the uncommitted votes make sense.   That would be 119,084 which would put him barely on top by 55,711 votes for what that's worth (which is pretty much nothing).
by bottl4 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:03:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Case in point. (2.00 / 1)

And I acknowledge all of those.

Right now, when you include every state that has voted (and yes even MI and FL) Obama leads the popular vote count.  This is a fact.

Is what the diarist said. And if you're going to post a diary griping about people not using facts or getting them wrong, yours should be right. I don't agree that it's a credible metric, but it's not so preposterous as to be illegitimate.


by mattw on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:01:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do facts exist anymore? (2.00 / 3)

As a late great Democrat once put it -

Your are entitled to you own opinion, but not your own facts.

Tip O'Neil


Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
by jsfox on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:09:47 PM EST

Re: Do facts exist anymore? (none / 0)

As Einstein said, if your facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.


by NY Writer on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:12:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do facts exist anymore? (2.00 / 2)

I think that was Daniel Patrick Moynihan, not Tip. Great Democrats both.


by Mayor McCheese on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:13:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do facts exist anymore? (2.00 / 1)

Absolutely correct. Good catch. Sorry about that.


Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
by jsfox on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:19:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do facts exist anymore? (2.00 / 3)

OK. Here's the thing: We have a system with Supers, so the 'facts of clinching delegates don't matter.

As for Florida and Michigan, I understand that rules are rules so they can't be counted, but I also understand that (without a revote) in those states, Obama will never be the legitimate nominee. He could have made the revote happen. Still can.

Don't talk as if the party is not evenly divided, and that she doesn't carry a significant part of the  Democratic base. If your argument is the base will come home, are you talking 70% or 99%? Or if your argument is 'we might lose Florida and Ohio but we'll carry VA and CO, I'd say Save your breath. FL: and OH are traditionally mixed Dem and GOP. If you don't carry them, you're going to closely lose the others.

Fact? Here's one. They need to run together. Obviously.


by NY Writer on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:09:56 PM EST

Re: Do facts exist anymore? (2.00 / 3)

But I did go off on you. Sorry.

The main point to take from my comment above:

As for Florida and Michigan, I understand that rules are rules so they can't be counted, but I also understand that (without a revote) in those states, Obama will never be the legitimate nominee. He could have made the revote happen. Still can.


by NY Writer on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:11:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do facts exist anymore? (2.00 / 2)

Ultimately it was the State legislatures of MI and FL that cancelled any notion of a re-vote.  You also can't blame Obama for his opposition to the Clinton re-vote plans.  They were going to be financed by known Clinton partisans, and they would not have allowed all registered Democrats to participate.  

As far as I'm concerned, no election at all is preferable to an election that selectively disenfranchises some voters.  Also, I really did not hear anything from the voters in MI and FL prior to Hillary's crusade to have their campaign seated.  It seems as if her threats that MI and FL will go red in November are self-fulfilling prophecy, because she is generating the outrage.


"We have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates."
-Howard Wolfson
by belicheat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:21:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not in Michigan! (none / 0)

... florida is her third home state, so...

yawn

But Michigan is Democratic this year!


*&=4eva
by BlogSurrogate57 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:25:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not in Michigan! (none / 0)

Both Clinton and Obama should be polling +10% above McCain in Michigan this year.  But instead, they're always within the margin of error or losing because the state now hates the party.  And I don't blame them.  


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:02:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do facts exist anymore? (2.00 / 2)

The problem with your argument is that the first statement (that FL and MI don't count) is a fact.  The second statement (that Obama isn't legitimate without counting them) is your opinion.  

Opinions don't carry much weight when put up against facts.  He IS the nominee at this point, whether you consider him 'legitimate' or not.


by Lawyerish on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:57:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do facts exist anymore? (none / 0)

But whether 30% of HRC supporters consider him legit or not may determine if we have 4 more years of Pres Obama or Senator Obama.


by NY Writer on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:12:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do facts exist anymore? (2.00 / 1)

HI NYWriter.  Problem is that he painted himself into a corner with the Hillary character assault and the level of Hillary hate tolerated by his campaign, from the media to the bloggers, he hasn't advised his own supporters that he doesn't really hate Hillary and she's not really a lying monster in bed with special interests, and that he's just trying to win by knocking his competitor.  It seems his campaign thinks he'll lose his indie support to McCain and his left-leaning libertarian support to drinking brew and shooting pool, or something if he invites her onto his ticket. She'd invite him, she doesn't hate him, but he'd show some real flexibility I haven't yet seen for him to invite her.  Had he supported a revote in the first place, we wouldn't have this virtual tie, and his supporters wouldn't be arguing that super's going to her is stealing his win. It's a mess right now, for sure. Dean and Donna let it go too long, or they've never had any influence.  But a back room deal favoring either will lead to hard feelings, and so it must go to Denver, that's the only way to come out of this with a legitimate winner, on the floor of the convention. And that's probably a good thing.  


by anna shane on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:24:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do facts exist anymore? (none / 0)

I don't even know where to begin here.  Obama supporters "drink the kool-aid" huh, you guys live in a fairy tale land methinks.  I seriously want whatever you are on.


Tony Romo for Secretary of Awesome
by kasjogren on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:49:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do facts exist anymore? (none / 0)

Hi Anna
I think that wqith the closeness of the popular vote, and the fact that she has won CA FL NJ NY OH PA, he'd be gambling big time not to include her.
by NY Writer on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:13:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do facts exist anymore? (none / 0)

it would show us more about his character than anything he could say.  Glad to see you here, I'm for taking it to Denver. Did you read the op ed in today's (thursday) nyt on Kennedy's talks with the former soviet union?  Of course you have, you're a NY writer.  (I'm a berkeley shrink)  


by anna shane on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:58:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I would disagree because it appears in the latest (none / 0)

poll in Michigan (recent, after the contests), Obama was ahead of HRC.  I don't know if you saw it and if not I will try to find it.  BUt that being said, that would indicate that 1) MI does not feel disenfranchised by Obama and thus taking away from the illegetimacy issue there.  Florida I would venture is pretty pro-Hillary, and so what then?
Well then we talk about re-votes, not any revotes but fair and honest revotes, and so far the only theories seem pretty biased toward one person, not to mention the Michigan dem voters that went to play trixies into the Repub primary , thus not allowed to vote in a revote,  thus disenfranchisement (it is because they were told that the dem primary wouldn't count, and they relied on the info causing their potential "injury")

It seems any redress would disenfranchise certain voters who did nothing wrong.  Not only that it would reward states that violated the rules. It could also be unfair to one of the candidates. If any candidate is said to have an unfair advantage out of this, then you're right, it would be considered illegtimate, be it HRC or Obama

Given all the nuances of this debacle and the unlikely possibility of having a fair revote, the only truly fair way to settle this would be to seat the states delegates in a neutral way (split/half count, whatever ) to benefit neither candidate.  

I do think this is close, I want Obama to win, and I think he will, but I just hope that this primary does not bite us all in the bum.  

My point from all this is "YYYEAEAAARRRGGGHHH, what a mess!"


Democrat for the democratic nominee
by KLRinLA on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:37:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I would disagree because it appears in the lat (none / 0)

Well KLRin LA

1. I think that saying the possibility of disenfranchisement means we shouldn't revote can be applied to all elections. Ohio was stolen in 04 from Kerry. Does that mean we shouldn't have a general election?

2. To say they broke the rules and it sets a bad precedent to revote. But we have to weigh that against a basically tied primary season, in which Florida is an important player. I don't imagine FL will try to jump the calender again.

3. You, for Obama, consider a fair solution to dilute the delegates from FL and then seat them. No thanks.


by NY Writer on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:17:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What.... (none / 0)

Are you talking about my friend?  Habla ingles?
Respond with clarity dude.
Democrat for the democratic nominee
by KLRinLA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:04:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This is what the diarist is talking about (2.00 / 2)

How does their primary getting screwed up make Obama not a "legitimate nominee" there?  Is he not the "legitimate nominee" in states that Clinton won?  He's chosen by national rules, Florida and Michigan have to abide by national rules (and are punished when they don't), so he'll be the nominee there.  Legitimately.

As for the revote, Obama had no true power over it.  If Michigan or Florida's governments had decided on something, they didn't need his permission.  It was party rules, money, and the law that stood in the way of those revotes.

An Obama/Clinton ticket, right now, is the one hope that the Republicans have.  Nothing would delegitimize Obama's core principles more than taking Clinton on as his running mate, and nothing would motivate the Republican base more, once they're actually able to use the 7 years of research they've been collecting on Clinton.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:16:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is what the diarist is talking about (2.00 / 1)

when in history has a ticket lost because of opposition research on the VP candidate?


by Mayor McCheese on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:20:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is what the diarist is talking about (2.00 / 1)

It's not the oppo research, it's just who Clinton is.  You can't run on a campaign platform of change in Washington and painting McCain as an "insider" when you bring a Clinton onto the ticket.  None of his message would stick if you did that.


"We have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates."
-Howard Wolfson
by belicheat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:22:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ferraro ring any bells? (none / 0)

I'm sure there was hell about will she push the button... ;-)


*&=4eva
by BlogSurrogate57 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:26:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ferraro ring any bells? (2.00 / 1)

So Ferraro sank Mondale in 84? Wow!


by Mayor McCheese on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:36:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Be realistic (2.00 / 1)

If you don't think that every single Clinton White House smear would come out if she were on the ticket, then you're just not being completely honest with yourself.

It won't be, "How can this woman be president?" It WILL be "Do you want this woman a heartbeat away from the presidency?"

I'm not even saying that this would be a fatal issue, but it would be an enormous distraction.  We need a girlscout or boyscout on the ticket with no baggage... or Al Gore.  Whichever.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:37:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It helped sink McGovern, as I recall. n/t (none / 0)


Wouldn't it be nice if there were no rhetorical questions?
by Elsinora on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:02:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It helped sink McGovern, as I recall. n/t (2.00 / 1)

Not so much. Eagleton hurt, but McGovern was pretty much toast anyway.


by Mayor McCheese on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:10:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It helped sink McGovern, as I recall. n/t (none / 0)

Too bad. In my opinion McGovern was the best Democratic candidate of my lifetime, truly a man of peace and compassion. It really hurt that the American people didn't see that.


by berkeleymike on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:16:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It helped sink McGovern, as I recall. n/t (none / 0)

I am not saying its a good thing that McGovern lost, but lose he did, and very badly. I doubt his choice of VP made much difference, even with the Eagleton fiasco.


by Mayor McCheese on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:04:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is what the diarist is talking about (none / 0)

Well Drac, to answer your question.

I'm not posing the question of how Obama would be legit to YOU, an Obama supporter. He is already.

I'm posing how he would be to FL voters who love Clinton and who went to the polls. Yes, Florida broke the rules, and yes, a revote would be best. But don't get rule-breaking confused with perception. People don't always vote their best interests, economic or otherwise. If they did, you'd have had no Bush Reagan Reagan Bush Bush.


by NY Writer on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:20:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You're confusing your opinions with facts...... (2.00 / 1)

"but I also understand that (without a revote) in those states, Obama will never be the legitimate nominee."

- Your OPINION, NOT fact.

"Fact? Here's one. They need to run together. Obviously."

- Your OPINION. NOT fact.


by Deano963 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:23:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're confusing your opinions with facts..... (none / 0)

yeah Dean. And will this be the opinion of the 30% of HRC supporters who say they won't vote for him?

And tomorrow's NY Times article about the Jewish vote in FL. The same.


by NY Writer on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:22:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do facts exist anymore? (2.00 / 2)

He could have made the revote happen. Still can.
No he could not.  Never could.

A revote in MI was an impossible and idiotic idea from the outset.  It can not be done in a manner fair to everyone.  

Only count voters who voted the first time?  Puhleese, that was a self-selecting sample that clearly favored Clinton.  Obama would be an idiot to accept a clearly biased solution.

Only count registered Dems?  Sorry, that's against the rules too, MI was an open primary.

So you let independents vote a second time?  I don't think so.

Then there's the completely stupid idea of using campaign money to pay for the re-vote.  What, we have a spare $20 million around we aren't going to need to fight the Rethugs?  No-brainer.

So what's the answer?  Negotiate an assignment of delegates, exactly what the DNC is going to do.


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:07:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hold on (2.00 / 1)

"As for Florida and Michigan, I understand that rules are rules so they can't be counted."

That is incorrect.  The rules specifically provide means for the inclusion of Florida and Michigan.  If the rules were that draconian, there wouldn't have been a basis for re-incorporating the delegations of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina that also violated the timing provision as written.  

Including MI/FL is consistent with the rules that provide unbridled discretion for the RBC, Credentials Committee, and Convention floor to treat them as they see fit.  

This is a grave misunderstanding of the rules that happens to be a pet peeve of mine.  Forgive me if I sound harsh.  


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:05:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hold on (none / 0)

I echo this comment.

I always find the assertion that "the rules are the rules" and "no changing the rules in midgame" highly annoying as they overlook the fact that seating the delegates whould happen according to the DNC rules that are supposed to be followed so precisely.

In a dairy about factual discussions there is no room for claims that they shouldn't be seated because of the rules. The discussion should be whether it is wise to migate or uphold the original ruling.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:24:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hold on (none / 0)

Thank you.  

It's the rules themselves that allow for these delegations to be included.  To rely on the "rules" as a basis for excluding them is literally an inversion of logic.  


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:38:52 AM EST
[