• comment on a post Some Montana & South Dakota Exit Polls over 5 years ago

    The river card is out.  No more outs.

    A lot of the guys throwing money at the pot as-if they were 100% committed suddenly fold.

    That's just the way the game is played.

  • on a comment on Live Thread II at the RBC over 5 years ago

    Which makes 2012 the right time to do it.  No partisan motives at play if the nominee is already known.

  • on a comment on The Meaning of Half over 5 years ago

    There are various unflattering explanations that have been put forth.  But I don't think any of them are the core reason.

    The core reason is that Hillary claims she can still win and that if she wins it will be better for the party.

    Her core support group really can't let this go until she does.  It's unfair of us or her to expect them to move on until she does.

    Unfortunately, it looks like she just isn't willing to accept reality and start doing what's best for the party.  And until she does, I can't really blame her supporters for following her lead.

  • on a comment on The Meaning of Half over 5 years ago

    That's the problem.  The only way to fix the split is if the losing candidate concedes and helps bridge the gap.

    But like you said, Hillary doesn't want that.

    So we are stuck.  On to Denver.  Followed by a McCain victory in fall.  Thanks Hillary.  Thanks a lot.

  • comment on a post The Meaning of Half over 5 years ago

    Just do it.  Give Hillary the very best case she can possibly hope for.  Go beyond.  Give her an extra 5 pledged delegates as a bonus for hanging in there.

    Give her 110% of what she has asked for in MI/FL.

    Then count the delegates, tell her she's lost, and take away her microphone.

    Don't let this go to convention where we'll get to enjoy passionate speeches about the definition of half.

  • Hillary as VP candidate is huge risk.

    Her personal negatives would probably be added to Obama's personal negatives rather than canceling them out.

    And Obama would have no message control over Hillary or Bill.

    It may work out really well.  But it could also work out really poorly.  My guess is really poorly.

    Obama's best chance is to sideline Hillary ASAP and not have her and Bill dominating the news cycle.  With them on the ticket, it's going to be almost impossible to avoid a media rehash of every Clinton scandal -- something we haven't yet seen.

  • comment on a post Open Thread over 5 years ago

    Which of the following is most likely to lead to a Democratic victory in November?

    1. Obama clinches in next couple weeks and Hillary concedes

    2. Hillary forces a floor fight and Obama becomes nominee

    3. Hillary forces a floor fight and Hillary becomes nominee

    Do you think current Hillary vs McCain and Obama vs. McCain polling accurately measures the outcome for any of the above scenarios?  If so, which scenarios match which polls?

    Are there any other potential scenarios that I've missed?  Don't include scenarios like martians taking over texas or other oddball stuff.

  • comment on a post Hillary Clinton's General Election Strength over 5 years ago

    The problem with this argument is obvious on it's face.

    Sure maybe Hillary is polling stronger right now.  But who cares?

    There are three possible paths:

    1. Obama locks up nomination in next couple weeks
    2. Hillary forces floor fight in Denver and Obama still gets nomination
    3. Hillary forces floor fight in Denver and Hillary gets the nomination

    Which of these paths gives the best chances for a Democratic victory in November?  And why?

  • on a comment on Half Votes For Florida? over 5 years ago

    Cool.

    That's exactly what needs to happen.  Best case scenario in my mind: no MI/FL supers seated, 100% MI/FL pledged seated, FL allocated according to primary, MI allocated according to currently chosen delegates.

    This gives Hillary a gain of roughly 80.  And moves the milestone up to somewhere around 2180.

    At this point, Clinton has gotten the absolute best case from pledged delegates and can only appeal the ruling based on demanding supers get seated.  Won't play well in the media, so they'll drop it.

    At that point, the remaining supers can endorse Obama and close off all paths.  Finally giving us a Nominee.

    If we are lucky we'll get a nominee by 4th of July and can start unifying behind that candidate.  But I think Hillary is going to take it to the floor in Denver.  And McCain is gonna win in November.

  • on a comment on End Game over 5 years ago

    In your world view, do you think there is a moral imperative to tell states upfront what rules will govern how and whether their votes will count?

    Isn't it odd that you see a moral imperative to include the popular vote totals from two states that violated the rules while completely excluding four states that followed the rules?

    And if you are going to play that game, shouldn't you at least have the moral imperative to count WA state's beauty contest?  Obama won that contest by 30k votes.

    The DNC told voters in MI, FL, and WA the exact same thing: your primary votes will not count and will not in any way help decide the nominee.  But somehow popular votes in MI/FL carry moral imperative but popular votes in WA are worthless.

    Hmm... doesn't sound that moral to me.

    BTW. I support seating MI/FL pledged delegates with uncommitted MI going as selected.  MI/FL supers should sit this one out as a special thanks for going along with the rule breaking.

  • on a comment on Clinton Steps Back over 5 years ago

    I'm also trying to ignore the RFK part of the argument.

    But 1992 comparison is a blatant lie.  That campaign was essentially over by April.

    That leaves 1968, 1980, and 1984 as the examples of drawn out primaries.  And Hillary is saying that because they have happened before, she is fine with forcing it to happen again.

    But as you recall, the Democratic candiate LOST EVERY ONE OF THOSE ELECTIONS!

  • on a comment on Clinton Steps Back over 5 years ago

    Exactly, 1968 is the only real example.

    1992 was winding down in April.  And she of all people knows it.

    Is she holding out 1968 and saying that her campaign is fine because 1968 convention wasn't that bad?  Hello?

    That's about the most charitable spin I can put on these comments.

  • on a comment on Next Up: MI & FL over 5 years ago

    She could go joementum and star in 527 ads for McCain.  That would be a complete nightmare scenario.

    The question is: would she be willing to pull out this threat?  would she be willing to actually do it?

    Dunno, she might.

  • on a comment on On the VP over 5 years ago

    I think Hillary is a very poor choice for VP.

    As the second on the ticket, she isn't going to have the strong draw from her support base that she would at the top of the ticket.

    However, the GOP base can be motivated against her even if she is 2nd on the ticket.  Take her high negatives, mix in racism and sexism, and right wing noise machine, and it's a tough road.

    If a female VP would bring help Obama with her core female supporters, I'm sure he could find one without the tensions and high negatives.

    May be a good plan.  Even with her on the ticket, he isn't going to be able to pull in the people who support Hillary due to her "hard working americans, white americans" viewpoint.  That's the part of her base that just isn't coming on board, no matter what.

  • on a comment on On the VP over 5 years ago

    If she or Jerome really cared, they would be pushing hard for release of all available information from the caucus states.  Really working hard to estimate the popular vote.

    But they don't even include WA state's beauty contest which was a lot more fair than MI primary.  And had the same level of advertised legitimacy.

    So it's obvious they don't care about the popular vote other than as an excuse.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads