AMERICAblog: MSNBC: If Obama wins more delegates, he really loses
aquarius2
· 1 year ago
John Kerry just dispelled this myth. Right now, Kerry is giving great break down of the math.
Amicus
· 1 year ago
*banging head against wall*
The hard truth is even harder: Obama can lose delegates tonight and STILL be winning, because he is ahead already. If you are on the homestretch and someone is rounding the back-turn really, really fast, you don't get worried about it...
Some energy-saving superdelegate was quoted on FirstRead as saying he'd have to reconsider if Obama didn't win by *enough* pledged delegates.
Savor that for a moment.
If your candidate is losing, it's not that the other is winning, unless they are winning by some imaginary, required handicap. That's right, at least one of energy-saving super wants Hillary to have a handicap in the race for pledged delegates ...
I'd think when this race started, it would have been *Hillary* who was passing out the handicaps to the others....
aquarius2
· 1 year ago
So Senator Brownback R KS doesn't "think" Rev Hagee will be an albatross for John McCain in the General Election. Hmm, if I were a betting person I would take bets against that.
kevinbgoode
· 1 year ago
This is just the media's way of reminding the public that it is the media which chooses our President - not the public.
naschkatzehussein
· 1 year ago
Obama will win big in NC, and Clinton will win small in IN. But NC will be glossed over, and Clinton for some reason no longer needs to win all ten primaries beginning with PA and she no longer needs to win by all by 20+ margins each. No siree, when the racists get riled up, they can change the parameters as quickly as you can say Clinton.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
Obama clearly wins tonight by getting more delegates and getting more popular vote than Clinton. It starts to get dicey if Obama somehows loses ground in the popular vote count, as it us clear that popular vote is one of the many (albeit one of the more effective) metrics Clinton will use to sway the SDs.
tlsintx
· 1 year ago
crack heads at msnbc...that's all i can figure.
Monrocsol
· 1 year ago
Come Hillary, put Obama AWAY!
Hillary 2008!
sconset
· 1 year ago
John: Who is spewing this crap on MSNBC? That network has some of the biggest tools for the republicon party working there. Seriously, who was it that made that stupid remark? Sounds like something that batshit crazy Buchanan or Scarborough would say. Possibly, the ice queen, Ahhhhhnnnnndrea Mitchell?
blksista
· 1 year ago
Wish I had cable to watch Keith and Rachel tonight. The fact that they have to share the same oxygen with Timmeh, Tweety, Buchanan and Scarborough only means that the time won't be half as stuffy and strangling...
sittenpretty
· 1 year ago
sconset 5 minutes ago 1 point Please login to rate.
John: Who is spewing this crap on MSNBC? That network has some of the biggest tools for the republicon party working there. Seriously, who was it that made that stupid remark? Sounds like something that batshit crazy Buchanan or Scarborough would say. Possibly, the ice queen, Ahhhhhnnnnndrea Mitchell? ------------------- NEVER FORGET NBC=GENERAL ELECTRIC biggest WAR machine profiteers
sittenpretty
· 1 year ago
OBAMA wants to END the WAR MACHINE profitts,and bring our kids home...HILL sez 30 to 50 years more is FAB
CDS2
· 1 year ago
sittenpretty
Didn';t he say he wanted to keep 80,000 troops in Iraq?
OlderAndWiser
· 1 year ago
MSNBC is full of shit. Now, for my voting experience...I live in a pretty conservative county--there were no Obama signs to be seen at the polling place and only 2 others and me were there at 9 a.m. After voting, got my hair cut, and 15 minutes into being home, the power went out...I was told by the elections board that the scanning machine had a 6 hr battery but the outage was only an hour.
One of my neighbors made the suggestion (as we were outside waiting around for the power to come back on) that perhaps someone had sabotaged a transformer to screw up the election! I've also learned that most of the early voting here was done by AAs (via state elections chair), but how he knew that just from the ballots is hard to determine. I'm going to try to contact someone at the Charlotte Obama headquarters to see if they can get some signs up here...so, later all.
ericgoldman
· 1 year ago
My guess is that they are referencing the Texas primary. Hilary won the popular vote, but Obama won more delegates. So, according to Americablog, Obama won Texas.
According to this metric, it won't be enough for Obama to win the delegate count, he actually has to win the popular vote.
Take it as a complement, maybe they're following Americablog's lead on its covering of the Texas primary.
John Aravosis
· 1 year ago
Eric, that doesn't make any sense. Obama won Texas because he won. He got the most delegates. That is how you win, by winning the delegates. It's just like Al Gore and George Bush. Putting aside the cheating, Bush had more electoral votes, that makes him the winner. It doesn't matter how many votes Gore got,if you don't win the electoral college,or in this case the delegate math, then you lose. You don't get to reinvent the rules of the game halfway through. And if the metric is popular vote,Obama is ahead there too, so again not understanding your point.
ericgoldman
· 1 year ago
John:
You're right, I was confused. Here's what I meant to say.
According to Wikipedia, Hilary Clinton got 1,459,824 votes in the Texas primary, or 50.89% of the popular vote. Barack Obama got 1,358,785 votes, or 47.37% of the popular vote. Yet Obama got more delegates in Texas.
So, according to Americablog, Hilary Clinton lost, and Barack Obama won, the Texas primary, because she only got more popular votes, not more delegates.
What the commentators are saying here is that it will not be enough for Barack Obama to win more delegates in North Carolina, he will also have to win the popular vote in North Carolina, and he will have to win the popular vote decisively.
Why are they saying that? Because until recently Obama was favored in NC by 20 points. If his lead in the popular vote is diminished so that he can only claim a win by delegate count, but not by popular vote, it will be a bad night for him, a hollow victory. Because Hilary will have closed a 20 point gap in popular vote.
Just as Hilary had to win the popular vote in Pennsylvania by double digits in order for it to be a "win," because she had enjoyed a 20 point lead there.
So, if we are going to take the position that a candidate with a 20 point lead (i.e., Clinton in PA) loses if they win by less than 10 points, without referencing the delegates won or lost, then it's hard to turn around and say that a candidate with a 20 point lead (i.e., Obama in NC) wins so long as that candidate gets more delegates. That, in my opinion, would be changing the rules in mid-stream.
Sorry for being confused before.
As for the 2000 election, I don't believe that you can make any argument about that election based on "putting aside the cheating;" Bush won the electoral college because he got the Florida electoral points without all the votes being counted. By cheating.
And as for changing the rules in mid-stream, here's where I get confused. My understanding is that the super-delegates were created as part of a check-and-balance system; to stop the party from nominating a popular but un-electable presidential candidate. Now, many people are saying that the super-delegates should serve a different function, to abandon their role in the check-and-balance system and merely ratify the will of the people. But no one seems to recognize that as changing the rules mid-stream; or that it's confusing.
For example, what are the Texas super-delegates supposed to do? Hilary Clinton won the popular vote, Barack Obama won the delegate count, and the super-delegates should ratify the will of the people. But is that the will of the people as measured by popular vote or by delegate count? And is that addressed anywhere in the Democratic Party nominating rules?
Bush_Bites
· 1 year ago
The Talking Heads better start praying for an end to this.
It's really starting to show their ignorance.
Soundboy_jeff_meanie
· 1 year ago
"Under this logic, how does Obama win tonight?"
---
FUBAR logic!!! my favorite thing!
lemme try one...
I'd hate to win a $100 million in the lotto, because I'd just wind up with more bills.
umm... okay... I'll try another one...
george bush has the lowest approval rating of any US President... but you really have to admire the loyalty of those that still think he's incredible.
see how FUBAR logic works? fun!!
dad
· 1 year ago
msnbc: mediaocre
Topher
· 1 year ago
Amicus: If your candidate is losing, it's not that the other is winning, unless they are winning by some imaginary, required handicap.
A quick comment: there is a real "hadicap," of sorts; it's the 2025 delegates needed to secure the nomination. Neither candidate has it, and the superdelegates are not bound to any primary or caucus results in making their decision. A lead in delegates after the last primary does not equate to a win, unless the candidate has 2025.
It seems legitimate to me that a superdelegate may look to the spread between the two candidates, and decide if they think it is significant or not. I could see a superdelegate coming to the conclusion that the spread between the two candidates is not wide or significant enough for it to be the deciding factor in who they cast their vote for at the convention. I could also very easily see a superdelegate coming to the opposite conclusion.
Mostly what I can see, though, is overall that the difference bewteen two horses in a race is significant when the race itself will not be determined by one crossing a finish line on his own ahead of the other.
ZachPruckowski
· 1 year ago
Actually, this is surprisingly accurate from MSNBC, if inadvertantly accurate. Obama needs to win both Indiana and North Carolina to force Hillary out of the race. Anything other than forcing Hillary out of the race doesn't change the status quo of "Hillary can't win but won't quit". Hillary quitting is the only way that this race will change.
If Obama and Clinton split (presumably Obama crushing in NC and a narrow HRC win in IN) the states, the discussion from the Obama side will be "Yeah, but we picked up delegates on the night, so it's a win for us", which is true, but accomplishes them nothing. The race at this point is about mindshare. To win, Barack Obama has to make it clear that he's the Democratic nominee, and that Hillary needs to drop out. In a perverse way, the rest of this nomination fight is about forcing pundits and superdelegates to line up behind the fact that Barack Obama is the legitimate Democratic nominee. To do that, there has to be no way that Clinton can claim any manner of victory. If she puts spinners on TV talking about how tonight was a victory for her (or a split decision) and they're not laughed off the set, she's not going to drop out on Wednesday.
Hillary's goal isn't to win enough pledged delegates to beat Obama (although every one of them helps). Hillary's plan is as follows:
1) Stay in the race until mid-June 2) ??? 3) Get the Nomination
Where ??? is a series of shenanigans (most of which we're all familiar with - destroy Obama, force an unfair FL/MI resolution, steal Obama pledged delegates, superdelegates, etc). This means that the actual pledged delegate counts and states won counts are only incidental. Thus, any time Hillary staves off an attempt to force her out, she's won that round. The only way to force Clinton to concede is to beat her in both states. Otherwise the race goes to the convention. Yes, it's stupid. Yes, I hate it. But that's the way it is.
ZachPruckowski
· 1 year ago
Topher - if the superdelegates pick the candidate that lost in terms of the popular vote, the pledged delegate count, and the number of states won, then the concept of the Democrats having a primary is essentially finished. It'll completely piss off the Democratic base, stall Democratic registration and growth, and discourage involvement with the party. It'll also get us mocked by pretty much everyone in the press, because we'll have held completely meaningless primaries and made a mockery of the word "democracy". The superdelegates realize this, and barring the complete destruction of Barack Obama (caught with a 16-year-old white girl or something), they're not going to contradict the will of the voters.
GrahamCrackerDC
· 1 year ago
And don't forget -- Obama is basing his win on an INCOMPLETE vote -- excluding Michigan and Florida.
Amicus
· 1 year ago
Obama is basing his win on an INCOMPLETE vote
Filed under "Keeping Up Appearances".
I'm sorry, but this is not true.
Obama's lead is substantial enough among elected delegates that he could seat the FL and MI pledged delegates as they will be sent, and still the only thing to decide tonight will be Clinton's margin of defeat among the elected delegates.
Total required to win goes up to 2180.5. Clintons must-do number is 390 out of 404 remaining. although that looks close, it is not. The number of delegates available after tonight will drop dramatically, to 332 after Indiana and then to 217 after North Carolina.
There is just simply not enough race left for her to win among the elected delegates.
She needs to stop running. Those who looked favorably on her campaign (including myself), need to grieve, but let the party get on with a nominee to fight a one-front war with McCain.
Amicus
· 1 year ago
It seems legitimate to me that a superdelegate may look to the spread between the two candidates, and decide if they think it is significant or not. I
This whole discussion is crazy and a contrivance forced on us all. The ONLY thing left to decide tonight is the MARGIN OF DEFEAT by Hillary among the elected delegates. She c.a.n. n.o.t. win, among the elected delegates. What's more, after tonight, the odds against her overtaking Obama's lead in pledged delegates well be near 11-to-4..
Supers can vote based on astrology, if they want. But winning the elected delegates race by just one vote is not a "technical" win. It's a win - a full scale, real win. As far as overturning the electorate, one vote is as many as dozens ...
Topher
· 1 year ago
Zach-
Don't get me wrong, I completely understand that position. At this point, though, it assumes facts that are not yet in the record (final vote counts--I'm not saying I think anything will change, I'm only saying we are apparently not done voting yet) and presumes to know what the superdelegates will do, in that they will vote for the candidate with a certain lead, although whatever lead can be ammassed will still not be enough to secure the nomination on its own. I understand what people would like for the superdelegates to do, but we simply do not know what will actually transpire.
And I've said before, I think there is a real difference between a general election and the Democratic Party picking its nominee. I think to the superdelegates the bar is much lower in terms of voting rights, concerns for democracy, etc. in the primaries. Sort of like the difference in burdens of proof in a criminal versus civil trial. [Note: I could be completely wrong on this point--I haven't done the research to know if there are legal distinctions between primaries and general elections, but I would guess there are.] So, to claim that a very tight win in terms of delegates reflect the infalible and untouchable "will of the people" of the Democratic Party is truthfully a bit of an overstatment, or at least does not provide a complete picture. Remember, under this construction in 2000 George Bush respresented the "will of the people" because he "won" the electoral college. And in 2004 he had a "mandate" because he pulled out a tight victory. I think the members of the Democratic Party have no real clear will at this time, and that is reflected in the superdelegates' continued holding pattern.
Whatever the outcome, I seriously doubt there will be any long term damage to the Democratic Party.
jr
· 1 year ago
General electric fun for the fuzzy math family
Topher
· 1 year ago
Amicus-But winning the elected delegates race by just one vote is not a "technical" win. It's a win - a full scale, real win.
The only proof you need to see that you are completely wrong is the fact that the candidate with a lead in delegates is not automatically declared the "winner" of the nomination, unless he has 2025. If your assertion were true, we would not even be having this conversation. Your excitement and support of Mr. Obama is obviously genuine and just the kind of involvement I think we need in the political process, but your grasp of the rules of the process we are going through is off.
OneManComotion
· 1 year ago
What is the worst part about all this is is that MSM, while hurting our party, does so at their profit. The more the horse race proceeds the better the ratings. And even worse then that is that real news gets further pushed out of sight.
GrahamCrackerDC
· 1 year ago
Unless Obama gets 2025 pledged delegates prior to the convention, it's going to go to the convention.
Superdelegates are not pledged until they vote at the convention.
vikki0007
· 1 year ago
I want to know how clinton think she can won Michigan? I heard on the radio (I live in chicago, IL) from a Michigan voter that Clinton did not win Michigan. She came in second. She got 49% of the vote and 51% of the vote went to other. Can some one tell me the excect figures!
CDS2
· 1 year ago
Seems to me that no one wins until one gets 2025 delagates?
All Comments
The hard truth is even harder: Obama can lose delegates tonight and STILL be winning, because he is ahead already. If you are on the homestretch and someone is rounding the back-turn really, really fast, you don't get worried about it...
Some energy-saving superdelegate was quoted on FirstRead as saying he'd have to reconsider if Obama didn't win by *enough* pledged delegates.
Savor that for a moment.
If your candidate is losing, it's not that the other is winning, unless they are winning by some imaginary, required handicap. That's right, at least one of energy-saving super wants Hillary to have a handicap in the race for pledged delegates ...
I'd think when this race started, it would have been *Hillary* who was passing out the handicaps to the others....
Hillary 2008!
Please login to rate.
John: Who is spewing this crap on MSNBC? That network has some of the biggest tools for the republicon party working there. Seriously, who was it that made that stupid remark? Sounds like something that batshit crazy Buchanan or Scarborough would say. Possibly, the ice queen, Ahhhhhnnnnndrea Mitchell?
-------------------
NEVER FORGET
NBC=GENERAL ELECTRIC biggest WAR machine profiteers
Didn';t he say he wanted to keep 80,000 troops in Iraq?
One of my neighbors made the suggestion (as we were outside waiting around for the power to come back on) that perhaps someone had sabotaged a transformer to screw up the election! I've also learned that most of the early voting here was done by AAs (via state elections chair), but how he knew that just from the ballots is hard to determine. I'm going to try to contact someone at the Charlotte Obama headquarters to see if they can get some signs up here...so, later all.
According to this metric, it won't be enough for Obama to win the delegate count, he actually has to win the popular vote.
Take it as a complement, maybe they're following Americablog's lead on its covering of the Texas primary.
You're right, I was confused. Here's what I meant to say.
According to Wikipedia, Hilary Clinton got 1,459,824 votes in the Texas primary, or 50.89% of the popular vote. Barack Obama got 1,358,785 votes, or 47.37% of the popular vote. Yet Obama got more delegates in Texas.
So, according to Americablog, Hilary Clinton lost, and Barack Obama won, the Texas primary, because she only got more popular votes, not more delegates.
What the commentators are saying here is that it will not be enough for Barack Obama to win more delegates in North Carolina, he will also have to win the popular vote in North Carolina, and he will have to win the popular vote decisively.
Why are they saying that? Because until recently Obama was favored in NC by 20 points. If his lead in the popular vote is diminished so that he can only claim a win by delegate count, but not by popular vote, it will be a bad night for him, a hollow victory. Because Hilary will have closed a 20 point gap in popular vote.
Just as Hilary had to win the popular vote in Pennsylvania by double digits in order for it to be a "win," because she had enjoyed a 20 point lead there.
So, if we are going to take the position that a candidate with a 20 point lead (i.e., Clinton in PA) loses if they win by less than 10 points, without referencing the delegates won or lost, then it's hard to turn around and say that a candidate with a 20 point lead (i.e., Obama in NC) wins so long as that candidate gets more delegates. That, in my opinion, would be changing the rules in mid-stream.
Sorry for being confused before.
As for the 2000 election, I don't believe that you can make any argument about that election based on "putting aside the cheating;" Bush won the electoral college because he got the Florida electoral points without all the votes being counted. By cheating.
And as for changing the rules in mid-stream, here's where I get confused. My understanding is that the super-delegates were created as part of a check-and-balance system; to stop the party from nominating a popular but un-electable presidential candidate. Now, many people are saying that the super-delegates should serve a different function, to abandon their role in the check-and-balance system and merely ratify the will of the people. But no one seems to recognize that as changing the rules mid-stream; or that it's confusing.
For example, what are the Texas super-delegates supposed to do? Hilary Clinton won the popular vote, Barack Obama won the delegate count, and the super-delegates should ratify the will of the people. But is that the will of the people as measured by popular vote or by delegate count? And is that addressed anywhere in the Democratic Party nominating rules?
It's really starting to show their ignorance.
---
FUBAR logic!!! my favorite thing!
lemme try one...
I'd hate to win a $100 million in the lotto, because I'd just wind up with more bills.
umm... okay... I'll try another one...
george bush has the lowest approval rating of any US President... but you really have to admire the loyalty of those that still think he's incredible.
see how FUBAR logic works? fun!!
A quick comment: there is a real "hadicap," of sorts; it's the 2025 delegates needed to secure the nomination. Neither candidate has it, and the superdelegates are not bound to any primary or caucus results in making their decision. A lead in delegates after the last primary does not equate to a win, unless the candidate has 2025.
It seems legitimate to me that a superdelegate may look to the spread between the two candidates, and decide if they think it is significant or not. I could see a superdelegate coming to the conclusion that the spread between the two candidates is not wide or significant enough for it to be the deciding factor in who they cast their vote for at the convention. I could also very easily see a superdelegate coming to the opposite conclusion.
Mostly what I can see, though, is overall that the difference bewteen two horses in a race is significant when the race itself will not be determined by one crossing a finish line on his own ahead of the other.
If Obama and Clinton split (presumably Obama crushing in NC and a narrow HRC win in IN) the states, the discussion from the Obama side will be "Yeah, but we picked up delegates on the night, so it's a win for us", which is true, but accomplishes them nothing. The race at this point is about mindshare. To win, Barack Obama has to make it clear that he's the Democratic nominee, and that Hillary needs to drop out. In a perverse way, the rest of this nomination fight is about forcing pundits and superdelegates to line up behind the fact that Barack Obama is the legitimate Democratic nominee. To do that, there has to be no way that Clinton can claim any manner of victory. If she puts spinners on TV talking about how tonight was a victory for her (or a split decision) and they're not laughed off the set, she's not going to drop out on Wednesday.
Hillary's goal isn't to win enough pledged delegates to beat Obama (although every one of them helps). Hillary's plan is as follows:
1) Stay in the race until mid-June
2) ???
3) Get the Nomination
Where ??? is a series of shenanigans (most of which we're all familiar with - destroy Obama, force an unfair FL/MI resolution, steal Obama pledged delegates, superdelegates, etc). This means that the actual pledged delegate counts and states won counts are only incidental. Thus, any time Hillary staves off an attempt to force her out, she's won that round. The only way to force Clinton to concede is to beat her in both states. Otherwise the race goes to the convention. Yes, it's stupid. Yes, I hate it. But that's the way it is.
Filed under "Keeping Up Appearances".
I'm sorry, but this is not true.
Obama's lead is substantial enough among elected delegates that he could seat the FL and MI pledged delegates as they will be sent, and still the only thing to decide tonight will be Clinton's margin of defeat among the elected delegates.
MI, Pledged
Clinton: +73
Obama (or "uncommitted"): +55
FL, Pledged
Clinton: +105
Obama: +67
Total required to win goes up to 2180.5. Clintons must-do number is 390 out of 404 remaining. although that looks close, it is not. The number of delegates available after tonight will drop dramatically, to 332 after Indiana and then to 217 after North Carolina.
There is just simply not enough race left for her to win among the elected delegates.
She needs to stop running. Those who looked favorably on her campaign (including myself), need to grieve, but let the party get on with a nominee to fight a one-front war with McCain.
This whole discussion is crazy and a contrivance forced on us all. The ONLY thing left to decide tonight is the MARGIN OF DEFEAT by Hillary among the elected delegates. She c.a.n. n.o.t. win, among the elected delegates. What's more, after tonight, the odds against her overtaking Obama's lead in pledged delegates well be near 11-to-4..
Supers can vote based on astrology, if they want. But winning the elected delegates race by just one vote is not a "technical" win. It's a win - a full scale, real win. As far as overturning the electorate, one vote is as many as dozens ...
Don't get me wrong, I completely understand that position. At this point, though, it assumes facts that are not yet in the record (final vote counts--I'm not saying I think anything will change, I'm only saying we are apparently not done voting yet) and presumes to know what the superdelegates will do, in that they will vote for the candidate with a certain lead, although whatever lead can be ammassed will still not be enough to secure the nomination on its own. I understand what people would like for the superdelegates to do, but we simply do not know what will actually transpire.
And I've said before, I think there is a real difference between a general election and the Democratic Party picking its nominee. I think to the superdelegates the bar is much lower in terms of voting rights, concerns for democracy, etc. in the primaries. Sort of like the difference in burdens of proof in a criminal versus civil trial. [Note: I could be completely wrong on this point--I haven't done the research to know if there are legal distinctions between primaries and general elections, but I would guess there are.] So, to claim that a very tight win in terms of delegates reflect the infalible and untouchable "will of the people" of the Democratic Party is truthfully a bit of an overstatment, or at least does not provide a complete picture. Remember, under this construction in 2000 George Bush respresented the "will of the people" because he "won" the electoral college. And in 2004 he had a "mandate" because he pulled out a tight victory. I think the members of the Democratic Party have no real clear will at this time, and that is reflected in the superdelegates' continued holding pattern.
Whatever the outcome, I seriously doubt there will be any long term damage to the Democratic Party.
The only proof you need to see that you are completely wrong is the fact that the candidate with a lead in delegates is not automatically declared the "winner" of the nomination, unless he has 2025. If your assertion were true, we would not even be having this conversation. Your excitement and support of Mr. Obama is obviously genuine and just the kind of involvement I think we need in the political process, but your grasp of the rules of the process we are going through is off.
Superdelegates are not pledged until they vote at the convention.