Why Obama Cant Win the Nomination and Clinton Won't Lose It.

Monday, April 21, 2008
Why Obama Cant Win the Nomination and Clinton Won't Lose It.

cross posted at Tom In Paine

-----

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

FDR

----
There seems to be a consensus among certain segments of our society known as journalists and Obama supporters that its been a fait accompli that Obama will win the democratic nomination.

We've had Jonathan Alter's brilliant political insight in Newsweek suggesting Clinton get out of the race back in early March, before she won Ohio, Texas,and Rhode Island, Jim Vandehei's column in Politico.com called "Hillary Has No Chance", and Obama political mouthpeices like Richardson and Leahy calling for her to drop out (so that Obama could play out the good cop/bad cop routine and come on as Mr. Noble saying Clinton should stay in the race).

But the more one looks at the actual facts and not the dishonest spin of the media or Obama supporters, the facts say it's Obama who is going home and in fact has no chance for the nomination.

There are the simple, irrefutable facts supporting this. Facts that have existed for quite some time and ignored by media types like Alter, Maureen Down, Keith Olbermann and other Obama cheerleaders in the media who want to skew perceptions and then act as if they are reality in the service of, not journalism but in promoting their own agenda.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Just another "typical white person"?

-----

So here are a few facts that should tell them, Obama's supporters and Obama himself that they are not in Kansas anymore.

Obama's lead in the popular vote is, as of now, a day before the PA primary, 0.06%.That is 92,000 votes. That is going to be gone after Tuesday and Clinton will have taken the popular vote lead and in all liklihood will not give it up since she is favored to win 6 of 8 of the remaining primaries.So it will be Clinton who is going to end the primary season with the popular vote which alone gives her 100% of the "will of the people" argument. Even if there were nothing else it would be enough to secure the remainder of the uncommitted super delegates since the argument has been made that super delegates should not overturn the will of the people.

This figure of a 92,000 includes the popular vote of both Florida and Michigan. And don't tell me that in counting the popular vote Florida and Michigan doesn't count. Even if there are some dumb enough to believe that after what happened in 2000 the Democrats would send out a candidate who was there only because votes weren't counted in Florida, there is not a single reason not to count them in the popular vote. Unless of course youre hoping to steal an election.( As an aside, the principled Obama actually floated the proposition that he and Clinton split the Florida and Michigan delegates 50-50 even though he was landslided in both primaries. In other words Mr. Principled Politician was willing to try and steal delegates that didn't belong to him, that he didn't earn, didnt' win, and that the voices of the people who placed those votes said were not for him but for Clinton).

As for their delegates, Dean has vowed they will be seated, and they most certainly will be. But even if they werent, super delegates can still count. And if you count Florida and Michigan's delegates, Obama's true delegate lead one day before the Pennsylvania primary is 70, not the 140 being touted by the media .Clinton netted 70( or more) delegates in both of those fair and square primaries and an inside dispute over what amounted to a parking violation isn't going to negate that. Not unless the Democrats want to kiss Florida and Michigan goodbye and give the election to McCain which isn't going to happen.

A delegate lead of 50 or less is certainly a surmountable lead and some polls in the upcoming primaries show Clinton leading in 6 of the 8 remaining. So she has a very good shot at endiing up with the delegate lead as well as being a virtual lock to win the popular vote.

That would be more than enough to show that Obama has no chance but there is more. Clinton will have won every important state in the northeast, Florida, the entire southwest from Oklahoma to Nevada, the industrial Midwest and California. She has also won Tennessee and is favored heavily in Indiana, W.Va and Ky. Since when does the loser of all those states get the nomination? And all the other metrics which show a candidates strength are overwhelmingly in Clinton's favor.

Here are a few as reported by Michael Barone in US News and World Report.

In electoral votes Clinton beats Obama 263-202 before PA. In population of states won, one of the most important and strongest indicators of strength in a general election as well as the will of the people, Clinton leads 163,000,000 to 101,000,000. and that is going to increase enormously after the PA primary. These arent landslide margins, these are earthquake margins. The population of the states Clinton has won is 63% greater than Obama's now and is going to increase to more than 70% after Tuesday's primary.

And in states that had actual elections and not caucuses Clinton beats Obama 2-1.

Finally, if Democrats apportioned delegates in primaries that were winner take all, like the Republicans which is the only sane way of doing it since it emulates the general election, Clinton right now would have a 300 delegate lead.

Most of these statistics are more than a month old. Yet it didn't stop the mainstream news media from painting a picture of Obama's invincibility and inevitability when it' been the opposite that has been true. A stunning picture of media dishonesty which I think will haunt them with the public for a long, long time.

Given all the metrics showing Obama is clearly the weaker candidate and that a Clinton candidacy is really the will of the people, given the exposure of Obama's unprincipled relationships with people like Wright, Rezko and Ayers and his deceptions and the misstatemens he has made when first confronted by them, and the justifiable mistrust that has been created in both his judgement, abilities, honesty and patriotism, and add to that the head to head match ups with McCain in states Democrats have to win, Ohio, Pa, and Florida, where the polls show Clinton completely wipes out Obama and beats McCain where Obama can't, there will not be a super delegate with 2c for a brain who wants to win in November who is not going to vote for Clinton by the time the primary season ends. Which is why most of them are waiting to do just that.

PEARL HARBOR:

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

The locale Obamas "spiritual mentor" Wright said FDR knowingly allowed thousands of our sailors to be horribly slaughtered because he knew about the attack in advanced and lied.

And Obama disgraced all Dems and said nothing....

Tags: 46 state strategery, FDR, hill kicks ass tommorow!, how many mydd accounts does one person need?, imagination land, Is this John Wesley Hardin Was A Friend To The Poor?, kossacks are all such nerd losers, lulz, Obama Clinton, Shouldn't he be banned then?, snark, the guy has a ridiculous number of accounts... I think he's overcompensating for something, Undemocratic, yes (all tags)

Comments

90 Comments

Re: Why Obama Cant Win the Nomination and Clinton

What a joke. That's not Obama's popular vote lead in states that had fair and free elections and which operated according to the rules set by the DNC, including Harold Ickes.

by politicsmatters 2008-04-21 04:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Obama Cant Win the Nomination and Clinton

I believe FL and MI were stripped of their delegates, not their votes.

by RJEvans 2008-04-21 04:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Obama Cant Win the Nomination and Clinton

We voted....  otherwise no one would be touting the numbers that they bring up...  

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-21 04:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Obama Cant Win the Nomination and Clinton

Under international standards, elections are not considered free and fair if the candidates cannot campaign and organize.  And they are not considered free and fair if the candidates are not on the ballot.  Since FL and MI exemplify those major problems, no, you can't include votes from those states.  No UN election observer would consider that to be the allowable or democratic.

by politicsmatters 2008-04-21 04:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Obama Cant Win the Nomination and Clinton

Agreed... and that's why the delegates should not be seated in my opinion... well, that and those are the consequences as laid down by the DNC for moving up the primary...  I just know I'm going to lose that argument though...

But they did count our votes... and our votes counted for every race in the primary except the primary....

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-21 04:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Obama Cant Win the Nomination and Clinton

International law also states:

The right to vote in secret is absolute and shall not be restricted in any manner whatsoever.

I guess we should not count all caucus states since they are not a secret ballot.

Every candidate and political party competing in an election shall respect the rights and freedoms of others.

Obama does not want a revote. Why won't he respect the rights and freedoms of the people?

Every candidate for election and every political party shall have an equal opportunity of access to the media, particularly the mass communications media, in order to put forward their political views.

This does not apply to Obama as he removed his name from the ballot, hence, removing all participation from the election in Michigan. Clinton was a legitimate candidate as she put her name up for a vote.

You want to point to International Laws to govern the Democratic Party's primary race, fine by me. Two could play at that game.

by RJEvans 2008-04-21 04:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Obama Cant Win the Nomination and Clinton

For you to argue that MI results can EVER be considered is absurd.

by politicsmatters 2008-04-21 05:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Obama Cant Win the Nomination an

Wait, so Ickes participated in a scheme to inform voters that their votes wouldn't count, although he intended the whole time to seat the delegates based on those flawed vote totals?  What a paragon of virtue.

by rfahey22 2008-04-21 04:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Obama Cant Win the Nomination and Clinton

ha you got me, I thought this diary was serious till I read

In population of states won, one of the most important and strongest indicators of strength in a general election as well as the will of the people, Clinton leads 163,000,000 to 101,000,000.

this is some good snark!
nice job.

by TruthMatters 2008-04-21 04:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Obama Cant Win the Nomination and Clinton

at least I don't have to play fast and loose with the facts to say my candidate will win ;)

by TruthMatters 2008-04-21 04:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Obama Cant Win the Nomination and Clinton

It's too late to matter, even if she could pull it off.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-04-21 04:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Obama Cant Win the Nomination and Clinton

"And Obama disgraced all Dems and said nothing...."

Ummmm... say what now?

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-21 04:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Obama Cant Win the Nomination and Clinton

Does your popular vote include caucus votes? Count every vote. Only then you will be in a position to make the argument that every vote counts.

by grasshopper 2008-04-21 04:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Obama Cant Win the Nomination and Clinton

It certainly couldn't include the states that will never release their totals.

by rfahey22 2008-04-21 04:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Obama Cant Win the Nomination and Clinton

That's why it is so deceptive, it discounts the caucus states.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-04-21 04:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Obama Cant Win the Nomination and Clinton

If states knew that popular vote was going to be the criteria, they would have chosen to have primaries instead of caucuses.

by politicsmatters 2008-04-21 04:21PM | 0 recs
Yawn

by SocialDem 2008-04-21 04:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Yawn

Probably worried that you confuse easily and didn't want to add to it.

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-21 04:47PM | 0 recs
enjoy it when

she wins by 7 and the media says she lost.

by omar little 2008-04-21 07:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Obama Cant Win the Nomination and Clinton

Any argument that includes Michigan isn't going to convince anyone who didn't already agree with you.

by thezzyzx 2008-04-21 04:10PM | 0 recs
I like it
for the most part. I don't think Wright's comments about FDR are necessarily inaccurate... Though they sure as hell won't play well with the Democratic blue collar, patriotic voter and with anyone with more than five decades in this country. With the theme- I agree wholeheartedly. There is a lot of talk from Obama supporters about stealing this election- well, the theft has already been done- the Party stole from FL and MI voters and if we want a snow balls chance in Bush White House of taking them both in the general, then we had better make their votes count. Hell, I say give Obama the 50/50 delegate split. It ups the magic number, but makes the popular vote in those states that much more legit- apparently we need to legitimize democratic elections now, sad.
by linc 2008-04-21 04:11PM | 0 recs
Re: I like it

What did the party steal from me...?

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-21 04:18PM | 0 recs
Fellow Floridian here...

and I have no idea what was stolen from me.

by auboy2006 2008-04-21 04:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Floridian here...

Well, I'm in Ohio now, but I was in Florida when all of this went down...

Should I call the police or my insurance company...?

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-21 04:26PM | 0 recs
Boy, don't you just love snark?
lets you shirk any argument.
by linc 2008-04-21 04:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Boy, don't you just love snark?

Sure do love me some snark.

But seriously, we have rules for a reason.  The party knew the rules.  The states all signed onto the rules.

Florida and Michigan proceeded to break the rules.  So there are punishments.  These punishments means that neither state gets to send delegates to the convention.

Forgive me if I'm not crying over the horrible treatment of the poor voters (of whom, I am one, I might add).  This is bullshit if we allow state governments to play this game.  Maybe if the voters are pissed enough, they'll speak out to their elected state officials and tell them.

by auboy2006 2008-04-21 04:57PM | 0 recs
Democracy is not built on rules
a strict household might be, but not a democracy.
by linc 2008-04-21 05:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Democracy is not built on rules

Hahahaha.

I call bullshit.  Of course it is built on rules.  How else would we be able to function?

We have rules about everything.  The difference is, in a democracy we get to vote for people who make the rules.  But even then there are rules about voting.  You must be over 18, a citizen, registered, etc.

And what's more, it's not like the primary rules were dished out and everyone forced to take them.  The states signed an agreement!  They agreed to the rules!!

So please, argue that the rules should be changed next time around, but don't tell me there aren't any.

by auboy2006 2008-04-21 05:08PM | 0 recs
That would be a representative democracy
this primary will come down to the popular will- which is more purely and directly democratic- its the way all elections should go. Elections should never be determined by representative democracy- what a way to subvert the people...

And just so you are aware, I have been arguing that the rules be changed for quite a while now, long before this primary kicked off- this situation being a perfect example. I am not the only one, every read kos circa December 2007?

by linc 2008-04-21 05:19PM | 0 recs
Re: That would be a representative democracy

What kind of government do we have again?  Oh yeah...

by minnesotaryan 2008-04-21 06:07PM | 0 recs
way to read the comment n/t
by linc 2008-04-21 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: way to read the comment n/t

I did, and you're still hilarious

by minnesotaryan 2008-04-21 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: That would be a representative democracy

While popular will may be the best way for elections to go, it's not how we do things. Bush is president after losing the popular vote. In our primary process, someone could get more votes but fewer or the same amount delegates.  Technically, though I doubt it will happen this year, we could have a nominee who did not get the highest total popular vote.

You're not talking about the system we have, you're talking about this ideal system.

And I'm glad you are arguing that the rules should be changed.  I think they should too - after the primary season is over.

Changing the rules after states have started voting is wrong.  Period.

by auboy2006 2008-04-21 06:43PM | 0 recs
Re: That would be a representative democracy

"Elections should never be determined by representative democracy- what a way to subvert the people..."

So you're also in favor of doing away with the SD's this election right.  I mean allowing the nominee to be chosen by a bunch of party elites is an even bigger subversion of the people, is it not?

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-04-21 08:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Democracy is not built on rules

Ha!  Democracy is not based on rules?  That's rich.

by map 2008-04-21 05:10PM | 0 recs
Prove it
show me democracy is based on any 'rule' other than those 'rules' that define democracy:

1 person, 1 vote, for instance. I would call that a principle, but will let you call it a 'rule' if you must.

Now, a rule, instated by a Democratic Party committee made up of appointees, is not a democratic process. You could call it a process of representative democracy, but thats pushing it considering that very, very few in this party had any say in who would be on that committee and therefore making up the rules.
by linc 2008-04-21 05:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Prove it

There is no franchise right in a party primary.  The best we can do is to follow the rules as agreed upon by the participants.  

by map 2008-04-21 05:41PM | 0 recs
Ok
then I hope to hear no complaints if the credentials committee seats FL and MI in full and Super Delegates go 70-30 for Clinton. Its all within the precious rules.
by linc 2008-04-21 06:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Ok

Linc, if the credentialing committee seats both states 70-30 for Clinton, I promise that not a single Obama voter will utter a peep about it.

We also will not complain when Hillary wins North Carolina.

by minnesotaryan 2008-04-21 06:09PM | 0 recs
This makes two comments

of mine that you have fudge:  
I expect all people so defensive of the precious rules to cheer loudly if:

1.  the credentials committee seats both MI and FL in full.

2.  Super Delegates go for Clinton, 70-30.

Totally within the rules.  The precious rules.

by linc 2008-04-21 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: This makes two comments

Great!  I'm saying: no one will complain if they seat the delegates 70-30, because you know what?  The only way they do that is if the nominee is already decided.

But please, don't stop writing these.  This type of diary is the single most entertaining thing on the internet right now.  So hott.

by minnesotaryan 2008-04-21 06:21PM | 0 recs
I didn't write the diary n/t
by linc 2008-04-21 06:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Ok

So be it.  That's in the rules.

It probably won't happen, but if it does it is in the rules.

by auboy2006 2008-04-21 06:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Prove it

The US Constitution is a set of rules.  There's no soaring oratory (unless you count the preamble, which has NO status in constitutional law).

by politicsmatters 2008-04-21 06:12PM | 0 recs
Sure are
but it doesn't define democracy, in fact, in a great many ways, it has served to undermine democracy. Property owners only? Men only? Whites only? Only through the pressures of those that believed in true democracy were the rules changed to make the system more democratic.

And it is no perfect document today, either. Fellons can't vote- how is that allowed? Alien residents can't vote, if you weren't born in this country, you cannot lead it? There is more, but you get the point: Rules are not always right and they certainly do not define or constitute democracy.
by linc 2008-04-21 06:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Prove it

The rule that only people over 18 can vote.  The rule that the general election be held "on the Tuesday following the first Monday of November".  The rule that the Presidential vote is every 4 years.  etc.

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-04-21 08:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Democracy is not built on rules

It may appear that way since January 2001, but in fact, rules are the core of a democracy. Without rules there can be no democracy.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-04-21 05:38PM | 0 recs
Democracy is a concept
based on principals, not rules. A Democratically elected body might create rules, but those rules do not define a democracy until they undermine it.
by linc 2008-04-21 06:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Democracy is a concept

We don't live in a democracy.

by minnesotaryan 2008-04-21 06:09PM | 0 recs
Awesome!
thats the spirit. If it doesn't work for Obama, it must not exist and we should definitely stop believing in it.
by linc 2008-04-21 06:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Awesome!

The part of the diary that I personally enjoyed the most was referring to half of all democrats as a "segment".  You're a complete joke!

by minnesotaryan 2008-04-21 06:23PM | 0 recs
Hello?
I didn't write the diary- pay attention.
by linc 2008-04-21 06:25PM | 0 recs
Good for you!
Gee aren't you just great? Isn't democracy wonderful, both you and I get a say... oh wait, you don't believe in democracy- rather some odd totalitarianism where the precious fucking rules are more important than the will of the people.
by linc 2008-04-21 04:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Good for you!

No, we believe in democracy, instead of using invalid bogus "elections" to determine "the will of the people", instead of real elections.

But then I'm sure you were in favor of the Supreme Court stopping the count in Florida in 2000, because after all, we had a count and therefore we knew "the will of the people", right? Just like we have a (horribly flawed, invalid, ridiculous) count in FL and MI right now.

So let's just go ahead and count it, notwithstanding that we know hundreds of thousands stayed home in Florida because they had no compelling issues to vote for in the primary, and we know hundreds of thousands in Michigan were disenfranchised. To heck with voters, fairness, laws, rules, any of that -- we believe in democracy here, and therefore we must sanction completely undemocratic elections because counting the votes of just some of the voters and disenfranchising hundreds of thousands more is The Right Thing To Do.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-04-21 05:43PM | 0 recs
what a week argument
you know nothing about the intentions of the voters in either of those states and it is certainly not your place to presume. There were millions that voted in their state's sanctioned and designated elections. Obama cynically took his name off of a ballot, too bad. You can't win an election you don't contest. The candidates, not the party or the state, agreed not to campaign in the states. They set the playing field.
by linc 2008-04-21 06:28PM | 0 recs
Re: what a week argument

Obama had no reason to believe that the MI election was going to count for anything more in terms of delegates than the non-binding straw polls they hold in some states.  He relied on the statements of the National Party and his chief rival Hillary Clinton that the vote would not mean anything.  He and Clinton also signed a pledge refusing to campaign or participate in the MI election--a pledge Hillary subsequently broke and Obama fulfilled.  Taking his name off the ballot in fulfillment of a pledge not to campaign in a state election that was not supposed to count can hardly be characterized as cynical--sounds more like playing by the rules, which is more than I can say about Hillary in that instance.

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-04-21 08:43PM | 0 recs
All kind of crazy conspiracy theories out there?

"Just another "typical white person"?"

Actually FDR kind of fits the "Elite" meme instead that Hillary was flinging around along with her BFF McCain towards Obama?

I don't remember FDR shooting back Boiler-makers with the locals either?

Oh, and BTW, there is a lot of conjecture in historic circles that the US knew the attack was coming?

Rev Wright probably got conspiracy theory from some white guys?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbo r_advance-knowledge_debate

To me, that is just as crazy as the USA invented aids, but, then again, the US government never tested VD on members of my race as they did to blacks, just to watch the results?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Sy philis_Study

That might have made me, say, just a bit bitter?

by WashStateBlue 2008-04-21 04:12PM | 0 recs
Re: All kind of crazy conspiracy theories out ther

From the little I know of history, FDR drank 4 vodka martinis a day.  and no, I'm not kidding.

by jacen42 2008-04-21 04:48PM | 0 recs
Obama already won

It's official You've Jumped The Shark!

by venician 2008-04-21 04:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama already won

Yep . . . Grendel has done it -

by Veteran75 2008-04-21 04:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama already won

You cannot possibly be that oblivious....!  That expression predates Kos by a couple of decades!

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-21 04:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama already won

Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeey

by minnesotaryan 2008-04-21 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Obama Cant Win the Nomination and

So let me get this straight: you honestly believe that the Michigan vote total represents the will of the people?  You honestly believe that not a single person in Michigan would vote for Obama?

You can't have both: either you're making a self-serving argument to claw out a Clinton win, or you actually care about what Michigan voters want.  And, seeing as how Obama currently beats McCain in Michigan polling while Clinton loses, it certainly can't be the latter.

In any event, like I've said before, when you tell people that their votes don't count, many of them stay home.  This study indicates that 715,000 stayed home in Michigan because of this.

http://www.dcourage.com/Nini%20-%20Probl em%20with%20Existing%20FL%20and%20MI%20P rimaries.pdf

Just because they didn't show up to vote in a rigged election doesn't mean that they don't count.

by rfahey22 2008-04-21 04:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Obama Cant Win the Nomination and Clinton

you just called some historians f-ing morons...???

I'm sure they would say it right back to you....

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-21 04:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Obama Cant Win the Nomination and Clinton

Oh, I'm a conspiracy theorist...?  You know exactly not one iota of one sh!t about me, so let's not kid each other here....

You were the one that said, historical perspective and f-ing morons in the same phrase....

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-21 04:43PM | 0 recs
One serious question for the record

"In other words Mr. Principled Politician was willing to try and steal delegates that didn't belong to him, that he didn't earn, didnt' win, and that the voices of the people who placed those votes said were not for him but for Clinton"

Just so you are on the record now:

Will you be decrying Hillary's tactics at the convention if she tries to get Obama's pledged delegates to vote for her before the first ballot (they are after-all not really legally pledged and Hillary's camp has said they are fair game)?  Will you claim that she was willing to "steal delegates that didn't belong to her, that she didn't earn, didn't win and that the voices of the people who placed those votes said were not for her but for Obama?"

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-04-21 04:19PM | 0 recs
Best Snark Diary Yet!

by Lefty Coaster 2008-04-21 04:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Obama Cant Win the Nomination and Clinton

Hey Gendel, calm down a little, eh?

I didnt say REALITY, I said Conspiracy Theories?

Now, if you can post me someplace where Obama has said any of these things, you've got something.

Otherwise, Guilt by Association part 768, MyDailyOutrage.com

Oh, and what DO you think about the Tuskegee incident?

Testing Syphllis on black males just to watch the results?

Happened in Rev Wrights lifetime?

Might have made him distrustful of the government a bit, eh?

Could be where he got that silly Aids story?

by WashStateBlue 2008-04-21 04:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Obama Cant Win the Nomination and Clinton

Don't be so hard on yourself with the last adjective....  everyone is entitled to their opinion...  even you.

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-21 04:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Obama Cant Win the Nomination and Clinton

For someone with a Masters, you sure don't seem to like to answer questions?

Again, Tuskegee Experiment? Testing Syphliss on live black males?

I know this makes you uncomfortable, kind of looks like you enjoy these Anti-Obama Screeds, but not too much for discussion....

by WashStateBlue 2008-04-21 05:39PM | 0 recs
FACT CHECK

I wrote a diary earlier in the week that agreed to give HRC her MI/FL delegates, but EVEN if you want to count EVERY state . . . she is still down by roughly 204,227.

by FOB92 2008-04-21 04:24PM | 0 recs
Re: FACT CHECK

Maybe you should go to real clear politics -

14,265,507    47.6%    OBAMA
14,061,280    47.0%    HRC

+204,227    +0.6%

Face it . . . if Hillary gets 60% of the remaining supers to jump aboard then she has earned it, but her best case scenario is 55% . . . and that will end in a Denver KUMBAYA photo-op.

I know we will work together to defeat McCain no matter who is at the top of the ticket.

by FOB92 2008-04-21 04:50PM | 0 recs
by politicsmatters 2008-04-21 06:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Obama Cant Win the Nomination and Clinton

I was going to type up a serious response to it but then I saw the snark tag.

by Student Guy 2008-04-21 04:27PM | 0 recs
So you didn't have that tag

I apologize.  I thought this was snark.  

At first you aren't counting 4 states with the estimate.  Are you advocating a 46 state strategy (throw out IA, WA, ME, and NV)?  Also MI wasn't a fair election.  I could buy Florida as Obama was on the ballot but MI was unfair, how were supporters of Obama and Edwards supposed to register their support.  Undecided doesn't count for either of them apparently and Write in votes were voided.

by Student Guy 2008-04-21 04:39PM | 0 recs
Re: So you didn't have that tag

Obama did not take part in the Michigan election period. So, it was not fair, for Clinton who was not allowed to campaign.

by RJEvans 2008-04-21 04:50PM | 0 recs
Re: So you didn't have that tag

All the candidates signed a pledge not to take part in Michigan.

by Mostly 2008-04-21 08:59PM | 0 recs
You know what?

I'm not even going to argue with you here. Obviously you have some serious delusions, and I think you're welcome to them for the next few weeks. I will tell you that by mid June at the latest Hillary will withdraw. You don't need to believe that. In fact, you won't, but that doesn't make it any less the fact.

by Travis Stark 2008-04-21 04:38PM | 0 recs
Serious idiocy

given the fact that your 92,000 vote estimate not only counts Florida (debatable) and Michigan (where we can't even know how many votes Obama would haven't gotten), but also conveniently fails to incorporate popular vote estimates from NV, IA, ME, and WA.

Your hackery is astounding.

by hekebolos 2008-04-21 04:47PM | 0 recs
5 Stages

After careful reading, I'm going to place you into Stage 1.

Stage 1-Denial

We deny that the loss has occurred.

We ignore the signs of the loss.

We begin to use:

Magical thinking  believing  by magic this loss will go away

Excessive fantasy believing nothing is wrong; this loss is just imagined; when I wake up everything will be OK.

Regression believing that if we act childlike and want others to reassure us that nothing is wrong.

Withdrawal believing we can avoid facing the loss and avoid those people who confront us with the truth.

Rejection believing we can reject the truth and those who bring us the news of our loss to avoid facing the loss.

We will take a look at step 2 when you are ready, this might take some time.  

by nextgen 2008-04-21 04:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Obama Cant Win the Won't Lose It.

And in states that had actual elections and not caucuses Clinton beats Obama 2-1.

This is quite simply a lie: Seriosly list the primaries she's won and then the primaries Obama's one, tell you what I'll do it from memory and even throw in MI adn FL which yeah don't count.
Obama:
VA, WI, MD, GA, AL, SC, MS, MO, IL, DE, CT, VT, NE, SC, UT, LA, (And heck lets throw WA in it doesn't count but heck the WA primary was held and since he won the caucaus as well it seems fitting) 16 w/o WA added and please note this omits many Obama wins due to the fact that he crfushed her in caucuses 9-1 or so. Also note he won DC which should count.

Hillary: NY,NJ, AR, NM, CA, T, RI, MI, FL, AZ, MA, NH, OK, TN, OH

So even with FL and MI, and only counting states with primaries, and not counting the WA or DC primaries, Obmama still has a 1 state edge.

by Socraticsilence 2008-04-21 04:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Obama Cant Win the Won't Lose It.

You were taken in. This whole diary is a snark. That fake statistic was the most obvious give away, but there are lots of other hints.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-04-21 05:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Obama Cant Win the Won't Lose It.

unfortunately, I don't think that's true. This diarist is a Clinton supporter according to past diaries.

by BlueGAinDC 2008-04-21 05:23PM | 0 recs
Amazing analysis

you really get to the heart of the matter. I find it hard to disagree with you. Until now, I thought Obama was a lock. But I forgot all these factors to take into consideration.

1. Clinton will win the popular vote. If you include MI and FL (where everyone agreed to the rules fair and square, but NOW they don't get to be counted) , and don't include caucuses (which no one agreed to, yet they get to count).

2. Clinton won the best states. Grendel, I think you forgot to point out that in a poll of superdelegates, they overwhelmingly chose CA, NY, TN, OK, NM, and FL as their favorite states. They are the coolest, and that's what matters.

3. Electoral votes. Clinton is winning in electoral votes, and gets extra points for that at the convention. She also is winning the most states with double letters in their name and she is crushing  Obama in "New" states.

4. Population. Obama is being destroyed in the most populous states. That matters!

5. That's enough for me. Obviously, Clinton can't lose. Don't ask me how the above ends up proving my point. It doesn't need to.

/snark

by BlueGAinDC 2008-04-21 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Amazing analysis

Wait, this was a snarky comment?

by minnesotaryan 2008-04-21 06:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Amazing analysis

She's also beating Obama in Commonwealths, 2 to 1!  Obama just has one measly Commonwealth - Virginia.  Hillary's got New Hampshire and (soon) Pennsylvania.

by Mostly 2008-04-21 09:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Amazing analysis

He's shutting her out in districts though.

by Socraticsilence 2008-04-22 02:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Obama Cant Win the Nomination and Clinton

Everybody seriously needs to rec this diary. I feel really bad for Jerome, Todd, and Jonathan, but this diary is just too good and too "myDD" to not be on the rec list.

by minnesotaryan 2008-04-21 06:17PM | 0 recs
Heh

I'm just wondering why I didn't see any of you "outraged" people outside my polling place in FL protesting that my delegates weren't going to be seated.

Maybe you were all to busy running back to your rental cars while ducking from sniper fire...

by april34fff 2008-04-21 08:01PM | 0 recs
This fits this diarist perfectly

 title=

by Student Guy 2008-04-21 08:50PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------