AMERICAblog: NBC's Chuck Todd: Impossible for Hillary to catch up
Dicksknee
· 1 year ago
It takes two to have a fight.
Obama campaigned on a change and being alternative to Bush.
Now, Obama is campaigning as an alternative to Clinton -- big mistake. Many Democrats have very fond memories of 1992 - 2000. I know I do.
I voted for Obama because I thought he would make a better President, and a greater change, than Clinton.
But that was a million years ago. Now, all I see is Obama trying not to lose, not trying to win. I don't see Obama presenting America with an image of change.
I still believe Obama will win the nomination -- but rather than uniting the party, Obama and many of his supporters have alienated too many possible supporters. The nomination may have been won, but the election may have been lost.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
Dicknsee,
Quit lying and wipe your face off as the personal brown of Clinton is showing on you repub and/or Clinton voting nose.
butchcjg
· 1 year ago
John - We need a LOT of posts pointing out that this so-called "popular vote" does NOT count every voter....it leaves out caucuses.
Popular vote is Hillary's only hope, since she's absolutely going to lose the delegate count and # of states won. But, this "popular vote" doesn't include a lot of the population! Please, we need this as a talking point, asap!
John Aravosis
· 1 year ago
Are you sure that when they say "popular vote" they're not including caucuses?
Filo
· 1 year ago
We need nothing other than continue to watch Hillary the Horrible self-immolate.
Stop getting so damn hyper!
kafka
· 1 year ago
Every time Russert mentions Obama he has to mention bitter and Rev Wright. He sucks.
Belinda
· 1 year ago
The catch is that Hillary has even lost the popular vote. She was trying to use that meme but it doesn't apply in the Primary. She's now grasping at straws like Gore did before he conceded. The 'popular vote' is a desperate meme these fools use just as they are about to lose big time. The damn MSM needs to remind people that the 'popular vote' is meaningless in these elections.
Nigel Elliott
· 1 year ago
Obama strongholds are still reporting. Pittsburgh only 4% reporting. Philly less than 50%. Delaware County less than 5% reporting. Hold your hats..... ;-)
Clinton hangs around hoping she can steal the nomination and thwart the will of the voters. The democratic deserves to fall apart if they allow this to happen,
grandma
· 1 year ago
RobinMarty - and according to americablog: NBC just noted Since Super Tuesday, Hillary has added 12 SuperDelegates, Obama has added 83.
A few PA counties that were leaning toward Clinton, are now too close to call--low vote counts. Let's wait and see what the delegate margin ends up. ;-)
Dicksknee
· 1 year ago
My God John, give it a rest.
As someone who voted for Obama many months ago, I now understand why this race is not over: Obama, his campaign, and his supporters don't know how to win.
Rather than moving on to starting the general election campaign after gathering enough delegates to win the nomination, the Obama camp had to keep fighting the Clinton camp. And who wins in that scenario? The Obama supporters are actually keeping Clinton in the race with their attacks, their obsession over everything except uniting the party.
Yes, Obama probably has enough delegates -- but he lost again. He will probably win Indiana and North Carolina, two states that he'll lose in November. But enough already.
God, Democrats are such losers. Even when they have a presumptive nominee that can't win.
Think about it: when Democrats control Congress they can't end the war; when Democrats control the committees they can't bring about impeachment or indict the criminals in the White House. What can modern Democrats do? They are the Italians of American politics -- too stupid to rally around their own nominee, too stupid to know when to stop fighting each other.
John Aravosis
· 1 year ago
Dick, and I can call you Dick, right? You think that the reason Hillary is still in the race is because we decided she was relevant? We should just ignore her while she makes every single swift boat issue about Obama legit news? Rather than give us platitudes,and Hillary's talking points, do tell us exactly what you propose we do. Ignore Hillary while she destroys the party?
naschkatzehussein
· 1 year ago
Clinton and Obama are not going to split IN and NC evenly in spite of what Todd says. NC has 134 delegates and Obama is up +25 there right now with 40 K votes in already. IN has 84 delegates, and the latest poll I saw on RealClearPolitics has her up by an average of 2.2. That doesn't translate into an even split of delegates to me. (BTW, Obama is up in some IN polls but she pulls ahead in the average because of 1 or 2 anomalously large poll numbers.
Dave of the Jungle
· 1 year ago
John, don't give it a rest.
maxstar212
· 1 year ago
Clinton worked hard for the Gay vote in New Hope in Bucks county and in downtown Penn. I think Gays went for her in a big way. Her victory tonight is a big win for the Gay Rights movement and a repudiation for McGlurkin and politicians who cozy up to homophobes.
lilybart
· 1 year ago
So why does everyone at Talk Left seem to think she can win? And they are pretty persuasive on the electability argument. I am an Obama girl, but I am afraid of the racism and the smears.
But the real question is: has anyone else seen the alternative universe at Talk Left? Are they all deluded?
Nigel Elliott
· 1 year ago
Wow. It looks like Pittsburgh (Allegheny County) went for Clinton. Not good. :-(
johnosahon
· 1 year ago
HILARY meet us at may 6th, meet us in north carolina and indiana. you hear me MEET US ON MAY 6th.
SHAME ON YOU HILARY, SHAME ON YOU.
Bush_Bites
· 1 year ago
Oh....I'm starting to smell a "unity ticket," which wouldn't be horrible if I didn't think Bill would sabotage the ticket all fall with his Hillbilly Crap.
SociologistTina
· 1 year ago
Yeah, I'm glad, and I'm glad he said it, but didn't we already know that?
naschkatzehussein
· 1 year ago
John, I seem to remember reading somewhere that it would be pretty difficult if not impossible to estimate how many votes make up some of the caucus results. It wouldn't be fair to cast either one the winner on the basis of popular votes just in the primaries. Someone said that Obama's popular vote is probably closer to 1 million over Clinton than the 800,000 which is shown if you could include the popular vote in the caucuses. The party agreed to delegate count being the sole parameter for the nominee. I've had it with these Clinton attempts to change the rules they agreed to, and I will not vote for her under any circumstance. (McCain neither though.)
ClintonHater
· 1 year ago
2 weeks from now Obama would have won North Carolina and Indiana and Hillary will be forced out. a month and a half from now Bill Richardson will be his running mate, and 3 months from now Billary will be an after thought. Everyone just needs to chill.
bill__free
· 1 year ago
Did anyone catch Chris Matthews on MSNBC at about 10:08 make a comment about Hillary getting the "regular people"?
HereinDC
· 1 year ago
Why do they keep showing Hillary winning Texas?
naschkatzehussein
· 1 year ago
Good question. I suppose they're ignoring the decision of the Democratic Party to count a win on the number of delegates received, and they (media, Clinton camp) are trying to say it's on popular vote.
Mike_H
· 1 year ago
Still doesn't matter, since Obama can't win without the superdelegates either.
Seriously, no matter how often you say she "can't" win it, you won't be right until the superdelegates are decided.
And the superdelegates could technically prove you wrong and give her the victory.
All this attention, to PA results and the rest of the remaining states, is sound and fury, signifying nothing. Obama won't win until enough superdelegates declare for him, and Clinton still has the ability to win if enough superdelegates declare for her.
Everything else is just a distraction.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
If the superdelegates technically steal the nomination for Clinton the dems could lose their majority in the house when the victims of theft leave the democratic party fpor elections to come.
Mike_H
· 1 year ago
tbhull -- sure, the dems COULD lose their majority in the house, but I find that an unlikely scenario. And it wouldn't be stealing, it's completely within the rules for the superdelegates to vote for whomever they wanted. Heck, all of the remaining superdelegates could cast their votes for Gravel if they wanted. It may FEEL like theft, but it won't be, technically, so the whole "it will be stealing" isn't really an issue.
I know people think it's unlikely the Super-D's will surge for Clinton, but then again -- if it is so unlikely, WHY HAVEN'T THE SUPERDELEGATES ALREADY DECLARED FOR OBAMA AND PUT AND END TO THIS???
Ask yourself this -- what are they waiting for? And why are they continuing to hold out this hope to the Clinton campaign? And why SHOULDN'T Clinton keep on campaigning when the uncommitted superdelegates are giving her this signal that she's still in the running?
None of the remaining primaries matter. At all. The ONLY thing that will put Obama (or Clinton!) over the top is the uncommitted superdelegates. And they COULD have ended this two months ago.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
It would be stealing, technically or not.
Just because the rules do expressly prohibit something does not mean it is allowed. I do not think the winning argument is that the SD rules were put in place to thwart the will of the voters by nominating someone who is behind in the delegate vote, behind in the popular vote and has lost more states than a still viable candidate like Obama.
If somehow she could win the popular votre, evewn if by 1 vote (not including Michigan or Florida unless a revoite is held) then she has some moral authority to justify the SDs giving her the nomination. Without some moral authgority, Hillary has nothing, morally or technically speaking.
Mike_H
· 1 year ago
Uhm, "if the rules do not expressly prohibit something" is pretty much the definition of "allowed". You aren't making any sense here.
I'm not talking "gut feeling", I'm talking logic, rules, etc. You can say it feels wrong to you, it feels like stealing, but your feelings don't MAKE it stealing.
The SD rule was put in expressly so that the party elites could override the popular vote if they felt the popular vote were going to an unelectable candidate. If they choose Clinton over Obama they will essentially be fulfilling the very purpose they were created for. It's not stealing in the least.
Now, again, we can argue about whether or not the SD rule is a good idea -- and I think it isn't -- but if they do what they were created to do, it's not stealing.
Think about this -- If the superdelegates were simply there to endorse whoever got the majority of regular delegates, there wouldn't be any use for them in the first place.
I think a lot of people are just upset because it's going against "their" candidate. I doubt you'd be arguing as vociferously if the positions were reversed, and Obama was behind in pledged delegates but the superdelegates might be close to swinging the nomination to him instead of Clinton.
And again, don't mistake my post to mean I approve of the SD rule! I'm just dealing with the reality of what the superdelegates were created for in the first place, for good or ill.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
It is not a feeling that says something is wroing. You have to look at why the rules were put in if they are not clearly allowing, which they are not, or clearly disallowing, which they are not. The rules are simply silent. Logically sdpeaking, your argument would certainly fail if Obama won every state by 60%-40% and the SDs all voted for Clinton. The rules do not expressly prohibit this nor do they expressly allow this. An express allowance of this would be the SDs can thwart the will of the voters by voting for a candidate even if the winning candidate is viable
I do not feel this is stealing the election, I think that it is strealing the election You may think otherwise. No matter how we think, this is an issue that a court of law will never touch, as this is clearly a political question. Thge voters however will react and I think a clear possibility exists that the dems lose the House and the White House if the party allows Clinton to steal the election.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
correction
It is not a feeling that says something is wroing. You have to look at why the rules were put in if they are not clearly allowing, which they are not, or clearly disallowing, which they are not. The rules are simply silent. Logically sdpeaking, your argument would certainly fail if Obama won every state by 60%-40% and the SDs all voted for Clinton. The rules do not expressly prohibit this nor do they expressly allow this. An express allowance of this would be the SDs can thwart the will of the voters by voting for a candidate even if the winning candidate (Obama) is viable (i.e. not nuts or otherwise incapcitated), is ahead in the pledged delegate count, is ahead in the popular vote and has won more states.
I do not feel this is stealing the election, I think that it is strealing the election You may think otherwise. No matter how we think, this is an issue that a court of law will never touch, as this is clearly a political question. Thge voters however will react and I think a clear possibility exists that the dems lose the House and the White House if the party allows Clinton to steal the election.
Mike_H
· 1 year ago
You can "feel" or "think" all you want, but I'm not trying to be mean. If it's not forbidden by the rules, it IS allowed. Period. By definition. You are twisting words to try to get it to say what you want it to.
The SDs very existence is BECAUSE the party WANTED the ability to "thwart the will of the people". You therefore cannot, logically, suggest that it's wrong for them to do the very thing they were created to do.
You can say it was a bad idea to create the SDs in the first place and give them this power -- and I'd agree with you wholeheartedly.
But to say it would be stealing for the SDs to swing the nomination to Clinton is simply wrong, factually, logically wrong.
Understand -- and this is the most important point I think you are missing -- this is the very thing SDs were created to do. All else follows from that rule.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
You are incorrect to say that facts and logic dictate your conclusion. Your mere thought is not therefore truth, though you may think so.
The Constitution does not spell out the right to privacy, yet one is found, but it has limits.
Defining the limits of what the SDs can do in the absence of an express grant and/or an express prohibition in the rules requires great thought and does not lend itself to a ready tv dinner/slide rule type conclusion. The fact open to thought eliminate a simpleton's desire to view this as a facile logical tautology. This is nuanced, like it or not. We can simply agreed to disagree in what we think the conclusion is given the facts at hand.
Mike_H
· 1 year ago
No, it's more than that, tbhull -- superdelegates EXIST because the party wanted the ability to overturn the popular vote if they thought the popular voted candidate couldn't win. You are continuing to miss the point -- it CANNOT be against the rules if that was their purpose to begin with.
The very act of inventing the SDs is what did EXPRESSLY GRANT their ability to vote however they wanted, including against the will of the popular vote.
So you are, in fact, very simply mistaken. It IS in the rules, because it is INHERENT in the creation of the superdelegates and their EXPRESS POWER to vote for whomever they want.
Period. It really is that simple.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
Your are incorrect again sir, as per the usual.
The SDs were created to give more power to the votes in the primary and to take away from the power exerted by the dem power establishment in selecting a nominee up to 1968.
With that said, how can the SDs bastardize and act contrary to their raison d'etre? The answer is they cannot unless they participate in stealing the nomination for Clinton.
The SDs were implemented to give more power to the vote and to argue that they were put in to "thwart the will of the people" is plainly wrong, but nonetheless it is the all too familiar refrain of those embracing a failed campaign.
Illogic notwithstanding admit it, Hillary cannot win unless the dems allow her to steal the nomination and thwart and overturn the voters. If this occurs a real chance exists that the dems will lose the House and White House. You are more than unpersuasive, you are wrong.
Mike_H
· 1 year ago
Ah, I see the problem now, you have it exactly backwards.
Superdelegates were created in 1982, because party leaders thought that the 1968 changes took too much power AWAY from party leaders.
It was the 1968 change that gave more power to the people, and the 1982 creation of superdelegates to take power away from the people and put it back with party leaders.
Since you had your initial premise wrong, your entire argument falls apart.
Seriously, go back and re-read the history, you've got it dead wrong.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
Though you are still wrong, I feel (not think) the capitalization made it a closer call.
Mike_H
· 1 year ago
Since you've got your basic facts and history wrong, you need to re-think your entire argument.
SDs are only doing what they were created to do if they swing the nomination to Clinton instead of Obama. It may feel like stealing, but is not against the rules or even against the purpose of the SDs.
I'm not the one being illogical here, honestly. You're the one who is wrong, and the proof is in your own post where you show that you've got the history of the SDs exactly backwards.
hawkseye
· 1 year ago
It's interesting to me that Todd is finally saying this. The math hasn't changed much over the last month. I guess NBC has decided to allow Todd to say it.
devis1
· 1 year ago
Dicksknee--past the primary, in addition to the fact that I think you are wrong about Obama backers being the source of disunity, Clinton brings along too much baggage for the country as a whole. I would like to see the whole country move away from the Bush-Clinton politics of the last 16 years. That's why I support Obama, and he wasn't my original choice, I liked Edwards or Dodd.
grandma
· 1 year ago
Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race. It is true that Senator Barack Obama outspent her 2-to-1. But Mrs. Clinton and her advisers should mainly blame themselves, because, as the political operatives say, they went heavily negative and ended up squandering a good part of what was once a 20-point lead.
Mrs. Clinton became the first Democratic candidate to wave the bloody shirt of 9/11. A Clinton television ad — torn right from Karl Rove’s playbook — evoked the 1929 stock market crash, Pearl Harbor, the Cuban missile crisis, the cold war and the 9/11 attacks, complete with video of Osama bin Laden. “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen,” the narrator intoned.
If that was supposed to bolster Mrs. Clinton’s argument that she is the better prepared to be president in a dangerous world, she sent the opposite message on Tuesday morning by declaring in an interview on ABC News that if Iran attacked Israel while she were president: “We would be able to totally obliterate them.”
the media should ignore HIllary. She lost the nomination and Barack Obama won. Period.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
The media need not ignore Hillary because ratings will drop. These folks are corporate Whores (not too unlike Clinton). The dem superdelgates should ignore Hillary because Obama won the pledged delegeates and will win the popular vote (not counting Michigan and Florida unless a revorte occurs.)
lfcitz
· 1 year ago
bill bennett said the same thing about texas.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
Not backward, just demoinstrating the dems took away the unfettered discretion of party insiders in '68. SDs arose as a result of the reconfiguration of how dem delegates were selected and how the delegates could vote. Their numbers were limited and still do not rpeesent more than 18-22% of all delegates. Why do you think this is?
Nothing in the SDs being or rules governing the same allowed (or, granted, disallowed them) them to overturn the will of the voters. Give paost '68 dem political history it is easy to argue that SDs can decide close contests, which this one is not close enough. I think it is an incorrect argument to make that Clinton, without stealing the election, acting contrary to dem principles and the SDs' reason for being, could invoke the SDs absent either a lead in the popular vote, staes won and/or pledged dlegate count. If she had any such claim (ehich she will not unless Obama is found having se with a Boy Scout in Utah) then the SDs could rightfully select her over Obama; otherwise, theft occurs.
Cite any express reasoning that the SDs were put in place placed in to thwart a states won. You cannot. Now look at history and thoughtful analysis dictactes that the SDs were there to help in close race where these metrics were split, not to defeat the popular vote, pledged delegates and state win leader. Did Carter or McGovern suffer from not leading in states won, pledged delegates won and/or popular vote when they took the '76 and '72 dem nomination?
tbhull
· 1 year ago
Correction,
1 point
Please login to rate.
Not backward nor no need to rethink. The dems took away the unfettered discretion of party insiders in '68. SDs arose as a result of the reconfiguration of how dem delegates were selected and how the delegates could vote. Their numbers were limited and still do not represent more than 18-22% of all delegates. Why do you think this is?
Nothing in the SDs being or rules governing the same allowed (or, granted, disallowed them) them to overturn the will of the voters. Give past '68 dem political history it is easy to argue that SDs can decide close contests, which this one is not close enough.
I think it is an incorrect argument to make that Clinton, without stealing the election, acting contrary to dem principles and the SDs' reason for being, could invoke the SDs to defeat Obama absent either a lead in the popular vote, states won and/or winning the pledged delegate count. If she had any such claim (which she will not unless Obama is found having sex with a Boy Scout in Utah) then the SDs could rightfully select her over Obama; otherwise, theft occurs.
Cite any express reasoning that the SDs were put in place placed in to thwart a states won. You cannot. Now look at history and thoughtful analysis dictates that the SDs were there to help in close race where these metrics were split, not to defeat the popular vote, pledged delegates and state win leader. Did Carter or McGovern suffer from not leading in states won, pledged delegates won and/or popular vote when they took the '76 and '72 dem nomination?
Measured_Response
· 1 year ago
"Hillary would have to win 69% to 70% of the delegates in every remaining state in order to catch Obama. He then says that if Obama and Clinton split Indiana and North Carolina on May 6, as expected, then she'd need to win 80% of the delegates in every remaining state."
John with all due respect, it's not about catching up, it's about who carries the big states and districts needed to win the general election. Have a look at the PA map and see where Clinton has won. You will see she carried about 90% of the state by district where Obama has carried the dense population of and close to Philly where there is a very strong black population. Clinton carried 68% of the Catholics , that's huge in the general election.
John Aravosis
· 1 year ago
With all due respect, Measured, your analysis is absurd. Your basic premise is that if Hillary wins a state, or a district, against Obama, then Obama will lose that state or district against McCain. I don't even know where to begin to counter this, since it's absurd on its face. To suggest that anyone who voted for Hillary, or anyone who voted for Obama, won't vote for the other is absurd. What matters is how many Rs there are versus how many Ds and which way the independents cut. Actually, what really matters is that Hillary lost the delegate count, the popular vote, the number of states, and in money raised from regular old citizens. If she's so electable, then why is she still losing by every measure? Crickets...
Measured_Response
· 1 year ago
" To suggest that anyone who voted for Hillary, or anyone who voted for Obama, won't vote for the other is absurd."
It's not absurd in the least John. I'm sure you already have seen the polling numbers where Obama and Clinton voters won't vote for each others candidate by margins of 17% to 25%, you can't ignore those numbers, they are not absurd, they are real numbers.
Clinton won 68% of the Catholics in PA John, that in itself shows Clinton can get moderate conservatives , where Obama is seen as too liberal to make inroads to the moderate conservatives. 68% is not absurd , those are also real numbers.
Did I forget to say that Clinton has a double digit lead in PA with 85% of votes counted?
Sugapea
· 1 year ago
Measured wrote: John with all due respect, it's not about catching up, it's about who carries the big states and districts needed to win the general election. Have a look at the PA map and see where Clinton has won. You will see she carried about 90% of the state by district where Obama has carried the dense population of and close to Philly where there is a very strong black population. Clinton carried 68% of the Catholics , that's huge in the general election. ===========================================
I'm surprised they your very fair-minded post has not been deleted. Every time I try to make a 'fair-minded' post...it is removed but can still remains at my profile. Why is 'balance' so unacceptable on this blog?
Measured_Response
· 1 year ago
Why would my post get removed? I have been honest in my opinion, I didn't swear or try and belittle anyone. I'm a quiet blogger most of the time, I have not posted in some time, I just thought some comments were not correct and some other comments were not fair. I don't begrudge John or his views in any way, sometimes I just don't agree. It's all good though. :)
Sugapea
· 1 year ago
Measured... My posts are all removed as well. (Funny how they still exist on my profile). I try to be fair, honest and respectful. This blog doesn't appreciate any opposing view whatsoever...just like the republican blogs!
All Comments
Obama campaigned on a change and being alternative to Bush.
Now, Obama is campaigning as an alternative to Clinton -- big mistake. Many Democrats have very fond memories of 1992 - 2000. I know I do.
I voted for Obama because I thought he would make a better President, and a greater change, than Clinton.
But that was a million years ago. Now, all I see is Obama trying not to lose, not trying to win. I don't see Obama presenting America with an image of change.
I still believe Obama will win the nomination -- but rather than uniting the party, Obama and many of his supporters have alienated too many possible supporters. The nomination may have been won, but the election may have been lost.
Quit lying and wipe your face off as the personal brown of Clinton is showing on you repub and/or Clinton voting nose.
Popular vote is Hillary's only hope, since she's absolutely going to lose the delegate count and # of states won. But, this "popular vote" doesn't include a lot of the population! Please, we need this as a talking point, asap!
Stop getting so damn hyper!
DESPERATE TIME CALL FOR DESPERATE MEASURES
NBC just noted Since Super Tuesday, Hillary has added 12 SuperDelegates, Obama has added 83.
http://minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diaryI...
As someone who voted for Obama many months ago, I now understand why this race is not over: Obama, his campaign, and his supporters don't know how to win.
Rather than moving on to starting the general election campaign after gathering enough delegates to win the nomination, the Obama camp had to keep fighting the Clinton camp. And who wins in that scenario? The Obama supporters are actually keeping Clinton in the race with their attacks, their obsession over everything except uniting the party.
Yes, Obama probably has enough delegates -- but he lost again. He will probably win Indiana and North Carolina, two states that he'll lose in November. But enough already.
God, Democrats are such losers. Even when they have a presumptive nominee that can't win.
Think about it: when Democrats control Congress they can't end the war; when Democrats control the committees they can't bring about impeachment or indict the criminals in the White House. What can modern Democrats do? They are the Italians of American politics -- too stupid to rally around their own nominee, too stupid to know when to stop fighting each other.
But the real question is: has anyone else seen the alternative universe at Talk Left? Are they all deluded?
SHAME ON YOU HILARY, SHAME ON YOU.
Seriously, no matter how often you say she "can't" win it, you won't be right until the superdelegates are decided.
And the superdelegates could technically prove you wrong and give her the victory.
All this attention, to PA results and the rest of the remaining states, is sound and fury, signifying nothing. Obama won't win until enough superdelegates declare for him, and Clinton still has the ability to win if enough superdelegates declare for her.
Everything else is just a distraction.
I know people think it's unlikely the Super-D's will surge for Clinton, but then again -- if it is so unlikely, WHY HAVEN'T THE SUPERDELEGATES ALREADY DECLARED FOR OBAMA AND PUT AND END TO THIS???
Ask yourself this -- what are they waiting for? And why are they continuing to hold out this hope to the Clinton campaign? And why SHOULDN'T Clinton keep on campaigning when the uncommitted superdelegates are giving her this signal that she's still in the running?
None of the remaining primaries matter. At all. The ONLY thing that will put Obama (or Clinton!) over the top is the uncommitted superdelegates. And they COULD have ended this two months ago.
Just because the rules do expressly prohibit something does not mean it is allowed. I do not think the winning argument is that the SD rules were put in place to thwart the will of the voters by nominating someone who is behind in the delegate vote, behind in the popular vote and has lost more states than a still viable candidate like Obama.
If somehow she could win the popular votre, evewn if by 1 vote (not including Michigan or Florida unless a revoite is held) then she has some moral authority to justify the SDs giving her the nomination. Without some moral authgority, Hillary has nothing, morally or technically speaking.
I'm not talking "gut feeling", I'm talking logic, rules, etc. You can say it feels wrong to you, it feels like stealing, but your feelings don't MAKE it stealing.
The SD rule was put in expressly so that the party elites could override the popular vote if they felt the popular vote were going to an unelectable candidate. If they choose Clinton over Obama they will essentially be fulfilling the very purpose they were created for. It's not stealing in the least.
Now, again, we can argue about whether or not the SD rule is a good idea -- and I think it isn't -- but if they do what they were created to do, it's not stealing.
Think about this -- If the superdelegates were simply there to endorse whoever got the majority of regular delegates, there wouldn't be any use for them in the first place.
I think a lot of people are just upset because it's going against "their" candidate. I doubt you'd be arguing as vociferously if the positions were reversed, and Obama was behind in pledged delegates but the superdelegates might be close to swinging the nomination to him instead of Clinton.
And again, don't mistake my post to mean I approve of the SD rule! I'm just dealing with the reality of what the superdelegates were created for in the first place, for good or ill.
I do not feel this is stealing the election, I think that it is strealing the election You may think otherwise. No matter how we think, this is an issue that a court of law will never touch, as this is clearly a political question. Thge voters however will react and I think a clear possibility exists that the dems lose the House and the White House if the party allows Clinton to steal the election.
It is not a feeling that says something is wroing. You have to look at why the rules were put in if they are not clearly allowing, which they are not, or clearly disallowing, which they are not. The rules are simply silent. Logically sdpeaking, your argument would certainly fail if Obama won every state by 60%-40% and the SDs all voted for Clinton. The rules do not expressly prohibit this nor do they expressly allow this. An express allowance of this would be the SDs can thwart the will of the voters by voting for a candidate even if the winning candidate (Obama) is viable (i.e. not nuts or otherwise incapcitated), is ahead in the pledged delegate count, is ahead in the popular vote and has won more states.
I do not feel this is stealing the election, I think that it is strealing the election You may think otherwise. No matter how we think, this is an issue that a court of law will never touch, as this is clearly a political question. Thge voters however will react and I think a clear possibility exists that the dems lose the House and the White House if the party allows Clinton to steal the election.
The SDs very existence is BECAUSE the party WANTED the ability to "thwart the will of the people". You therefore cannot, logically, suggest that it's wrong for them to do the very thing they were created to do.
You can say it was a bad idea to create the SDs in the first place and give them this power -- and I'd agree with you wholeheartedly.
But to say it would be stealing for the SDs to swing the nomination to Clinton is simply wrong, factually, logically wrong.
Understand -- and this is the most important point I think you are missing -- this is the very thing SDs were created to do. All else follows from that rule.
The Constitution does not spell out the right to privacy, yet one is found, but it has limits.
Defining the limits of what the SDs can do in the absence of an express grant and/or an express prohibition in the rules requires great thought and does not lend itself to a ready tv dinner/slide rule type conclusion. The fact open to thought eliminate a simpleton's desire to view this as a facile logical tautology. This is nuanced, like it or not. We can simply agreed to disagree in what we think the conclusion is given the facts at hand.
The very act of inventing the SDs is what did EXPRESSLY GRANT their ability to vote however they wanted, including against the will of the popular vote.
So you are, in fact, very simply mistaken. It IS in the rules, because it is INHERENT in the creation of the superdelegates and their EXPRESS POWER to vote for whomever they want.
Period. It really is that simple.
The SDs were created to give more power to the votes in the primary and to take away from the power exerted by the dem power establishment in selecting a nominee up to 1968.
With that said, how can the SDs bastardize and act contrary to their raison d'etre? The answer is they cannot unless they participate in stealing the nomination for Clinton.
The SDs were implemented to give more power to the vote and to argue that they were put in to "thwart the will of the people" is plainly wrong, but nonetheless it is the all too familiar refrain of those embracing a failed campaign.
Illogic notwithstanding admit it, Hillary cannot win unless the dems allow her to steal the nomination and thwart and overturn the voters. If this occurs a real chance exists that the dems will lose the House and White House. You are more than unpersuasive, you are wrong.
Superdelegates were created in 1982, because party leaders thought that the 1968 changes took too much power AWAY from party leaders.
It was the 1968 change that gave more power to the people, and the 1982 creation of superdelegates to take power away from the people and put it back with party leaders.
Since you had your initial premise wrong, your entire argument falls apart.
Seriously, go back and re-read the history, you've got it dead wrong.
SDs are only doing what they were created to do if they swing the nomination to Clinton instead of Obama. It may feel like stealing, but is not against the rules or even against the purpose of the SDs.
I'm not the one being illogical here, honestly. You're the one who is wrong, and the proof is in your own post where you show that you've got the history of the SDs exactly backwards.
Mrs. Clinton became the first Democratic candidate to wave the bloody shirt of 9/11. A Clinton television ad — torn right from Karl Rove’s playbook — evoked the 1929 stock market crash, Pearl Harbor, the Cuban missile crisis, the cold war and the 9/11 attacks, complete with video of Osama bin Laden. “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen,” the narrator intoned.
If that was supposed to bolster Mrs. Clinton’s argument that she is the better prepared to be president in a dangerous world, she sent the opposite message on Tuesday morning by declaring in an interview on ABC News that if Iran attacked Israel while she were president: “We would be able to totally obliterate them.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/opinion/23wed...
Nothing in the SDs being or rules governing the same allowed (or, granted, disallowed them) them to overturn the will of the voters. Give paost '68 dem political history it is easy to argue that SDs can decide close contests, which this one is not close enough. I think it is an incorrect argument to make that Clinton, without stealing the election, acting contrary to dem principles and the SDs' reason for being, could invoke the SDs absent either a lead in the popular vote, staes won and/or pledged dlegate count. If she had any such claim (ehich she will not unless Obama is found having se with a Boy Scout in Utah) then the SDs could rightfully select her over Obama; otherwise, theft occurs.
Cite any express reasoning that the SDs were put in place placed in to thwart a states won. You cannot. Now look at history and thoughtful analysis dictactes that the SDs were there to help in close race where these metrics were split, not to defeat the popular vote, pledged delegates and state win leader. Did Carter or McGovern suffer from not leading in states won, pledged delegates won and/or popular vote when they took the '76 and '72 dem nomination?
1 point
Please login to rate.
Not backward nor no need to rethink. The dems took away the unfettered discretion of party insiders in '68. SDs arose as a result of the reconfiguration of how dem delegates were selected and how the delegates could vote. Their numbers were limited and still do not represent more than 18-22% of all delegates. Why do you think this is?
Nothing in the SDs being or rules governing the same allowed (or, granted, disallowed them) them to overturn the will of the voters. Give past '68 dem political history it is easy to argue that SDs can decide close contests, which this one is not close enough.
I think it is an incorrect argument to make that Clinton, without stealing the election, acting contrary to dem principles and the SDs' reason for being, could invoke the SDs to defeat Obama absent either a lead in the popular vote, states won and/or winning the pledged delegate count. If she had any such claim (which she will not unless Obama is found having sex with a Boy Scout in Utah) then the SDs could rightfully select her over Obama; otherwise, theft occurs.
Cite any express reasoning that the SDs were put in place placed in to thwart a states won. You cannot. Now look at history and thoughtful analysis dictates that the SDs were there to help in close race where these metrics were split, not to defeat the popular vote, pledged delegates and state win leader. Did Carter or McGovern suffer from not leading in states won, pledged delegates won and/or popular vote when they took the '76 and '72 dem nomination?
John with all due respect, it's not about catching up, it's about who carries the big states and districts needed to win the general election. Have a look at the PA map and see where Clinton has won. You will see she carried about 90% of the state by district where Obama has carried the dense population of and close to Philly where there is a very strong black population. Clinton carried 68% of the Catholics , that's huge in the general election.
It's not absurd in the least John. I'm sure you already have seen the polling numbers where Obama and Clinton voters won't vote for each others candidate by margins of 17% to 25%, you can't ignore those numbers, they are not absurd, they are real numbers.
Clinton won 68% of the Catholics in PA John, that in itself shows Clinton can get moderate conservatives , where Obama is seen as too liberal to make inroads to the moderate conservatives. 68% is not absurd , those are also real numbers.
Did I forget to say that Clinton has a double digit lead in PA with 85% of votes counted?
John with all due respect, it's not about catching up, it's about who carries the big states and districts needed to win the general election. Have a look at the PA map and see where Clinton has won. You will see she carried about 90% of the state by district where Obama has carried the dense population of and close to Philly where there is a very strong black population. Clinton carried 68% of the Catholics , that's huge in the general election.
===========================================
I'm surprised they your very fair-minded post has not been deleted.
Every time I try to make a 'fair-minded' post...it is removed but can still remains at my profile.
Why is 'balance' so unacceptable on this blog?
My posts are all removed as well. (Funny how they still exist on my profile).
I try to be fair, honest and respectful.
This blog doesn't appreciate any opposing view whatsoever...just like the republican blogs!