Hillary Democrats to the Floor!

It's projected that Hillary Clinton will have more popular votes than Barack Obama on June 3rd.  Some news organizations have already declared her the popular vote leader.  

Yet many party officials seem anxious to coronate Barack Obama prior to the Democratic convention.  They must have short memories, and have forgotten the sense of outrage and injustice we (the Democrats) experienced when Al Gore was robbed of his election mandate 8 years ago.

"Hillary Democrats" will feel aggrieved if the Superdelegates over-turn their votes.  It's naive to assume that they'll jump on the Unity Express to join forces against Republican enemies in November.  Millions of Democrats (and some others too) -- the majority of whom belong to that key demographic called women -- are already steaming mad at how Clinton is being treated by her colleagues, aided by a misogynist mass media.

As a reminder, Hillary Clinton has dedicated decades of her life to fighting for progressive causes and Democratic candidates.  She is a 2-term Senator from the 3rd largest state in the union, and a major voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee.  At the end of this primary process, she will have inspired nearly 20 million people to get out and vote for her.  Millions of them are just like me -- actively campaigning and donating for the first time in our lives.

Now, this takes nothing away from Senator Obama, as he has also inspired millions of people.  But he's getting the respect due from Democratic peers while Hillary Clinton -- champion of children and sick people and veterans and women -- is being treated like a nuisance. Some have even attacked her character and dignity, such as Obama surrogate Ted Kennedy who recently said that Clinton is not "in tune with...the nobler aspirations of the American people."

In the absence of a rational explanation for this abuse, millions of women (and men too) are fuming because, frankly, it reeks of good ole fashioned back-slapping sexism.  I'm not alone in wondering out loud whether a man in Clinton's position -- that is, a serious contender for the presidential nomination who has won swing states (most recently by 41%) and built a formidable coalition needed to win the White House -- would be taunted, ridiculed, and treated like an outcast.

As a woman who has been on the receiving end of double standards, and one who happens to believe that Hillary Clinton will be the best President of my lifetime, I want to urge Senator Clinton to take her campaign all the way to the convention floor.  By earning more than half the votes cast, she has every right to make her case directly to party representatives in the proper venue, and even a responsibility to the voters.

See, this is the way it is for Clinton supporters.  If you throw Hillary under the bus, we go with her.  And although our leader would be gracious in asking us to disregard the injustice, millions of "Hillary Democrats" will be unable to do so.  "Backlash" is a real social and psychological phenomenon.  Don't say I didn't warn you.

Note:  please don't shoot the messenger.



Cross posted at texasdarlin and Taylor Marsh

TexasDarlin, all rights reserved
Not affiliated with the Hillary Clinton campaign



Display:


Re: Hillary Democrats to the Floor! (2.00 / 31)

It's not a beauty pageant.  We're electing a President.   To the convention, Democrats!


TexasDarlin blog
by TexasDarlin on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:05:25 PM EST

It sure isn't (1.93 / 15)

that's why nobody will count FL and MI.  Sorry.


by JJE on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:09:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Desperate Pushing Of Obama (none / 0)

I had a post on this but I'm going to turn it into a diary..


http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Ep isode.aspx?sched=1242
Confused by the 'Bailout' Lies?
Listen to NPR's The Giant Pool of Money
by architek on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:56:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

is diary divisive? (1.65 / 23)

wow.  it even includes threats.

I'm shocked at this diary's divisiveness!


"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!
by Al Rodgers on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:12:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: is diary divisive? (2.00 / 3)

Agreed.

Are we going to see one of these every day until August?


"The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy."
by AK Democrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:31:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: is diary divisive? (2.00 / 2)

Not exactly.  Soon the "delegates don't really vote until the convention" diaries will outnumber the "Hillary won the popular vote" diaries.



Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:06:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: is diary divisive? (2.00 / 7)

Followed by the "Draft Hillary, even if she dropped out" diaries, and the "She suspended, she didn't drop out" diaries and the "If he doesn't pick Hillary for VP, I'm leaving the party" diaries.

Hopefully to be followed by the "I was wrong" diaries


John McCain wants to make abortion illegal
by Lost Thought on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:10:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: is diary divisive? (2.00 / 2)

At the risk of stating the obvious, I think the "I was wrong" diaries will be something we see in November, not necessarily sooner.

It's hard to say who will be writing them though.

;-)


Lifelong Democrat, civil rights advocate, former volunteer for Dem candidates. Now Independent.
by BPK80 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:33:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: is diary divisive? (2.00 / 1)

We'll see those two years into a McCain presidency, assuming the Clinton cultists own up to what they did.


Unable to rec or rate. But I've got phantom mojos for miles.
by Agent77 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:32:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary caused McCain to beat Obama ? Racist! (1.00 / 0)

She did it by being a far superior fit for the job of President.  Most of the primary voters, most of the Democrats how don't do primaries all agreed she would be so much better in the job that Obama lost.

Maybe the Obama people are so eager to end the campaign because they are noticing that his numbers are dropping, he does not have a broad enough coalition to be a winner and, oh yes, he has no experience and is tememperamentally totally unsuited to handle the respondibility of the Presidency and he cries 'racist' at every turn and always refuses to take responsibility for his mistakes but is very quick to take responsibility for others acheivements and ideas and speeches.  Start with his pre-law school "community organizer" job and google it.

Try to find an acomplishment he actually did the work for or contributed his dues to.  Maybe a lot of people are seeing this coming and really sorry he got such a good head start in the primaries.

 Can't imagine what anybody thought qualified him for President except his self annointing and the money.


by itsadryheat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:25:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary caused McCain to beat Obama ? Racist! (2.00 / 0)

And all that money came from who?  Oh yes, millions of people who think he will be a good president.  Remind me how many thought Hillary would be so good that they bothered to donate to her?


by interestedbystander on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:35:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You mean the fabled 1.5 million donors? (1.25 / 4)

Have you done any research on the investigation of the under $200 donors who don't have to be reported and who make up the bulk of Obama's  1.5 million 'donors'. Are you familiar with the way things are done with money in Chicago campaigns?  You might want to check out some of the articles in the Chicago press.  The Republicans already have.

Obama does have John Kerry's list of 3 million donors from the 2004 campaign and has been using it to "share" with friendly superdelegates as a reward.  But...nevermind.

If you are interested in the subject, start with the Sun-Times archives.  You can google Chicago Board Games or the current Fitzgerald Investigations on money and political coruption in Chicago involving Obama donors. Also the NY Times had a revealing summary piece July 30, 2007 on Obama in Chicago.  


by itsadryheat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:52:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You mean the fabled 1.5 million donors? (none / 0)

Is it possible for you to give him even the slightest credit for running an amazing fundraising machine - or must you smear every achievement?


by interestedbystander on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:31:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You mean the fabled 1.5 million donors? (2.00 / 1)

I vote for "must smear every achievement".  Honestly - popping over here from a link on the Big Orange is - alarming.  The logic being applied is illogical.

I"m in la-la land!!  Go Obama!


by RenaRF on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:35:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You mean the fabled 1.5 million donors? (none / 0)

Can we have one diary on the rec list hat does not manage to have a comment that throws the city of Chicago under the bus...?  It really IS a nice town...


McCain/Palin... even scarier than Bush/Cheney... and that's saying something!
by JenKinFLA on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:58:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My kind of town, Chicago is. Wunnerful town! (none / 0)


by itsadryheat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:35:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Right, cause it's always the bitches fault (1.50 / 2)

When the inexperienced male novice fails.


Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are. - Franklin Delano Roosevelt
by anna belle on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:34:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right, cause it's always the bitches fault (none / 0)

The political process starts with lots of Presidential hopefuls and winds its way to November when there are 2 candidates with a chance, 1 or more candidates with no chance, and ultimately a winner is determined.

Blame and credit are assigned willy nilly - and can be pretty much ignored because most are completely useless hysterical gum-flapping.

I will a while longer before I decide who's to blame for Hillary's failure to capitalize on her early inevitability.


by xdem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:43:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right, cause it's always the bitches fault (none / 0)

yeah keep playing that pathetic card...go cry your tears at taylormarsh.


Congratulations Steny Hoyer! Our 2008 Chickenshit Leader Of The Year!
by RockvilleLiberal2 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:51:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right, cause it's always the bitches fault (1.50 / 2)

I know gender-baiting when I see it.

And "bitches"?  Grow up.  If McCain wins it'll be the fault of the people who voted for him.  The diarist says a lot of people will do that as revenge against the voters.

It's not blaming Hillary.  It's quoting the diarist.


I have that readiness.
by Jess81 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:04:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: is diary divisive? (2.00 / 1)

And, of course, the resident troll strikes again in all his divisive glory, complete with a picture of himself.


The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -- Thomas Jefferson
by pollbuster on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:03:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Michigan and Florida (2.00 / 13)

"9/1/2007 - Clinton Campaign Statement on the Four State Pledge The following is a statement by Clinton Campaign Manager Patti Solis Doyle.
    "We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process. And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar.""
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/relea se/view/?id=3134


"You know, it's clear this election they're having isn't going to count for anything." [Hillary Clinton - NHPR Interview, 10/11/07]"
by Virginia Liberal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:26:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Michigan and Florida (2.00 / 1)

God, shut up with these facts already.


John McCain is surprisingly bad for this country
by minnesotaryan on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:50:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Michigan and Florida (2.00 / 1)

Obama learned something from the MI/FL pledge signing that the candidates did.  He learned that you never, ever, ever trust Hillary Clinton.  She says one thing and does another, every f*ing time.  

Never trust her.  She'll keep insisting on changing the rules in this contest so that she comes out the winner, until the DNC puts a stop to it.

Someone at some point will have to tell the Clintons that they are no longer the center of the universe.  All the candidates knew the rules.  Obama was smart enough to win within the rules.  Hillary wasn't. It's as simple as that.

Hillary lost.  Obama won.  


"It's time to pass the baton to the next generation." Ken Jacobson, WA state senator.
by tibbs on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:26:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe you should check what really happened. (none / 0)


by itsadryheat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:31:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe you should check what really happened. (none / 0)

Here's what happened:

Clinton pledged to not participate, then she participated.
Then she claimed that those votes wouldn't count for anything, and now she's claiming that they did indeed count.
In the meantime she experienced sniper fire in Bosnia while being read a poem by a little girl.

Never trust a Clinton.


by Aris Katsaris on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:51:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton did as agreed. Obama didn't. (none / 0)

Fundraising was allowed.  Press conferences and ads were not. Obama ran ads for two weeks in both states and held at least one press conference when HE was in FL fundraising.  They also ran a campaign to get voters out in MI to vote uncommitted..a pr campaign.
Hillary didn't speak to
Floridians till the primary was closed.  Violation fo this agree was supposed to cause the violator to forfit his delegates won in the primary.  When will we see that honored?
by itsadryheat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:44:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

[citation needed] (2.00 / 10)

"Some news organizations have already declared her the popular vote leader."

Such as?


John McCain: He flunked ECON 101.
by Shem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:29:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: [citation needed] (2.00 / 3)

Skywatch Media [pretty big snark]


John McCain is surprisingly bad for this country
by minnesotaryan on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:51:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: [citation needed] (2.00 / 1)

Nice....You nailed that one!


On Nov 4th, Barack Obama officially ends the Southern Strategy....
by WashStateBlue on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:45:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: [citation needed] (2.00 / 1)

The Twilight Zone Gazette?


Let the children lose it Let the children use it Let all the children boogie
by toyomama on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:26:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: [citation needed] (2.00 / 1)

The EIB Network?


Unable to rec or rate. But I've got phantom mojos for miles.
by Agent77 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:33:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: [citation needed] (2.00 / 1)

taylormarsh.com


by N in Seattle on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:36:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

ABC News (2.00 / 1)


by itsadryheat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:32:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Because that's easily verifiable (none / 0)

Oops. Even ABC knows to break out the MI/FL vote since it has yet to be deemed a legitimate vote.

Photobucket


by bookish on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:27:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

How can you count ZERO FOR OBAMA??? (none / 0)

How can you count ZERO VOTES FOR OBAMA in MI?

TexasDarlin - you are making me rip my hair out by the roots! How can you POSSIBLY make an argument based on the "popular vote total" when you're counting ZERO VOTES for Obama?

Have you no shame?


McCain housing policy shaped by lobbyist.
by obsessed on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:57:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How can you count ZERO FOR OBAMA??? (none / 0)

When one is desperate, they grasp at Desperate straws.  And I wonder if those numbers include Caucuses.  

You don't want to count Causues or give Obama his extrapolated share in Mich, then fine?  But then we don't count contests where they both didn't campaign... OOOPS YOU LOSE!


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:48:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, and their count (2.00 / 2)

doesn't include the "disenfranchised" caucus voters in four states.


by bookish on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:29:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, and their count (2.00 / 2)

Nor the "disenfranchised" 40% in Michigan.


No Way. No How. No McCain-Palin!
by Texas Gray Wolf on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:08:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Democrats to the Floor! (2.00 / 3)

I'm sorry to break it to you, but West Virginia is NOT a "swing state".

The latest poll I saw of WV had McCain leading Hillary there by 14 points or something like that. Which is another reason why the Electoral Vote counter on the front page is wrong, btw.


by Deano963 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:53:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Democrats to the Floor! (none / 0)

post the link. WV is actually a Democratic state.


You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat
by indydem99 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:00:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Democrats to the Floor! (2.00 / 3)

NOT at the Presidential level. Sorry to burst your Hillary-bubble. It is not a state a Democrat needs to carry to win the White House. Just b/c Bill Clinton won it in '92 and '96 dosent mean he NEEDED it to win. Kerry could have won it in '04 and it wouldnt have made a difference.

All of the Hillary supporters conveniently overlook that fact.


by Deano963 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:15:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Democrats to the Floor! (none / 0)

Not a swing state...
It went blue in '88, '92, and '96!

Plus; most recent poll show Hillary beating McCain by 5% and McCain beating Obama by 19%

Read and weep
http://www.270towin.com/states/west+virg inia


by LDFan on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:04:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Democrats to the Floor! (2.00 / 1)

Oh where oh where can Obama make up those 5 electoral votes... Well there is Missouri, Nebraska, Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, etc.

Not to mention Hillary is flirting with losing Washington a state worth more than twice West Virginia.  

You can treat WV as the end all and be all but Obama's map is much different than Hillary's, there are many states he is competitive in that she doesn't have a hope in hell of getting.  

Hillary may need WV to win the nomination but Obama has many more options in play.


by matchles on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:31:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Your "most recent poll" (none / 0)

was taken in February. I'm not sure it qualifies as up to date.


by bookish on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:31:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, it is a swing state (none / 0)

You just have to know the history of the state in pres. elections.  Also note: a Dem governor, two Dem senators, two out of three Dems in House.  Most certainly a swing state and we should be able to compete there.


by Thaddeus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:37:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, it is a swing state (2.00 / 2)

Just like Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisonsin, Maine and even MAryland are'nt swing states with Hillary.

With Obama they are solid Dem.

Just like Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado are leadn dem with Obama.

With Hillary they are lean McCain.

She's a weak GE candidate.


by Deano963 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:19:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, it is a swing state (none / 0)

Not that it matters with Obama already heaving the nomination wrapped up but both candidates are running about equal in GE electability.

So lets stop this non debate from both sides.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:54:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, it is a swing state (none / 0)

Actually, having both of them in makes those polls absolutely useless.  Unless you could find a sufficient poll sample for each candidate that was amnesiacally unaware of the other candidate.

I'm just sayin; as long as people perceive another option (dem candidate) the sample is skewed.


by steampunkx on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:36:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, it is a swing state (none / 0)

No not really. We know what percentage is influenced by that. And as both candidates suffer from roughly the same bias it doesn't affect their relative electability compared to each other.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:46:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

A bet then! (none / 0)

Ernst,

Tell you what, once (say October?) we have a single nominee, let's see what happens to those comparability numbers.

Then you and I can compare our polling techniques.  That sounds so wrong.


by steampunkx on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:07:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A bet then! (none / 0)

I'm sorry for my lack of comprehension, currently I can't make head or tails of your comment.

Of course they will chance quite drastically once we have a single nominee as one will have won and continue campaigning and the other will have lost and will stop campaigning. Both winning and losing effect the numbers as does whether or not you are in the race at all.

Your comment right now seems to be that a candidate that would be actually in the race would stand a better chance to be elected then a person that isn't a candidate? That seems rather obvious and well, irrelevant to the discussion we were having, namely that Clinton and Obama were running about equally in the general match up when that the situation was equal.

(not anymore though, now that more and more people have recognized that Obama has clinched the nomination and that Clinton is not going to be on the ballot in November.)

The only way we could measure their general performance after a single nominee has been chosen if both were in the same situation. That can't happen without a universe safe function that would allow us to let both candidates run against mcCain as a single nominee.

Could you explain what you did try to get across? Because this is all so generally know that I don't believe you could mean this.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:33:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A bet then! (none / 0)

My original and, if you follow my comments around the nets, constant position is that head-to-head polls are useless when one nominee is still contested.  Until that is settled, and the public has time to absorb it, you will get false results.

It annoys me when activists of ALL stripes use these as evidence of, well, anything but what the results are, without predictive power.


by steampunkx on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:09:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, it is a swing state (none / 0)

Good call!


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:53:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Democrats to the Floor! (2.00 / 1)

Let's do it 1980 Ted Kennedy style...open rule motion!


by Caldonia on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:34:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Democrats to the Floor! (2.00 / 2)

yes, that's a great idea--considering that neither Kennedy nor Carter nor any other Democrat won the GE that year.


by 2501 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:03:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Democrats to the Floor! (2.00 / 2)

So are we going to again have a member of a powerful Democratic family go "to the Floor!" and thereby make sure we elect a very old Republican?


No Way. No How. No McCain-Palin!
by Texas Gray Wolf on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:17:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Delusional much? (none / 0)

Current standings. Apologies for the formatting, but I'd rather put this out there in the clear, as I'm surprised no one else has.

Popular Vote Total   
Obama +593,610    +1.8%

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA*
Obama +703,832    +2.1%

Popular Vote (w/FL)       
Obama +298,838    +0.8%

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA*             Obama +409,060    +1.2%

Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)*            Clinton +29,471    +0.08%

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA
Obama +80,751    +0.22%

Source: realclearpolitics.com

Delegates:    Pledged    Super    Total    Needed
Obama    1,601.5    291.5    1,893        132
Clinton    1,444.5    271.5    1,716            309

Source: demconwatch (via great satan)


by kyle in philly on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:27:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delusional much? (2.00 / 1)

But as we all know it is much more important to include a state where one of the competitors wasn't on the ballot than include those that don't tally a popular vote.  Haven't you heard of the "46 state + Puerto Rico" strategy?


by matchles on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:35:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

McCain removes name from MI ballot? (none / 0)

I don't understand how anyone thinks counting MI in the popular vote is helpful.  Since the nomination process is a race for delegates, the popular vote is only useful as a guide to the superdelegates in determining that all important 'electability'.  The current MI results are only useful in that regard if we can convince McCain to keep his name off the ballot in November.  Then there is the whole ambiguity around caucus states and what sort of popular vote there 'might' have been if they had primaries instead.

Here is an interesting experiment... take the percentage difference in the caucus vs primary results in Texas.  Now apply that same adjustment to the percentage results from all the caucus states and multiply by the projected turnout in each state if they had gone with primaries.  Guess what happens to Obama's popular vote lead.  IT GOES UP.  Is that what really would have happened if primaries had been the norm? Nobody knows for certain.  In essence, it means the popular vote is pretty much useless in determining 'electability' or the will of the people.


by protothad on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:39:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delusional much? (2.00 / 1)

So, is it safe to assume that in this formula that includes Michigan that Obama gets zero votes since his name wasn't on the ballot?

So, since their were four candidates that removed their names from the ballot in Michigan (Obama, Richardson, Biden, and Edwards), let's, for the sake of argument give each candidate 1/4 of the "uncommitted" popular vote (even though everyone in their right mind knows Obama was the intended recipient of more than 25% of the "uncommitted" vote).

238,168 people voted uncommitted in Michigan.  Divide that by four, and you've got 59,542.

Add that on to Obama's popular vote count "including Michigan," and here are the totals:

Obama - 16,740,369
Clinton - 16,710,298   

Sorry folks, no matter which way you slice it, Obama is winning.


by doschi on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:52:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delusional much? (2.00 / 1)

It should also be noted that this does not include the estimated popular vote totals of Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington.

When those totals are included and Obama STILL receives ZERO votes from Michigan, he is leading by 80,751.

Add on 1/4 of those uncommitteds, and we're talking a 140,293 vote lead for Obama.

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


by doschi on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:59:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delusional much? (2.00 / 1)

Didn't the exit polls say he would have gotten a third of the total vote?

So the estimate would increase to well above 200.000.

Obama is winning according to all the metrics.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:01:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Democrats to the Floor! (none / 0)

Cross posted at:
http://s2.excoboard.com/exco/thread.php? forumid=154972&threadid=1838439
The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -- Thomas Jefferson
by pollbuster on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:28:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And the only winning Dem in 30 years picks Hillary (2.00 / 1)


by itsadryheat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:39:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Democrats to the Floor! (none / 0)

Also - most of the losing former Dem presidential candidates are supporting Obama.
McGovern, Carter, Kennedy, Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry, Edwards....great lineup of losers - also backed by the Washington establishment.

Well, at least those folks won the Democratic Primary.....


by RP McMurphy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:30:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Democrats to the Floor! (none / 0)

Maybe that goes to show that being the party's nominee doesn't necessarily mean that they are the most likely to win the G/E - And in the end that is what really matters longterm, isn't it now?


by jrsygrl on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:58:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Democrats to the Floor! (2.00 / 2)

Each and every one of those is worthy of enormous respect.

We might want that they were worthy of even more respect as ex-presidents instead of ex-nominees, but every one of those is a good Democrat that tried to improve this country.

Lost they may have, losers they aren't.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:04:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Democrats to the Floor! (none / 0)

 What will the Clinton supporters say if their leader bows out? Will they attack her as they have everyone else who has smelled the coffee?


by xdem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:34:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Democrats to the Floor! (2.00 / 2)

Hi, TD.

You write:

'"Hillary Democrats" will feel aggrieved if the Superdelegates over-turn their votes."

And yet, a few short months ago, when it seemed as if superdelegates would be Clinton's only path to the nomination, you wrote:

"But there's more good news for Clinton:  Many of those same party leaders acknowledge that their duty as super delegates is to exercise independent judgment."

So superdelegates overturning the will of the voters by exercising their independent judgment is okay when it helps your candidate, right?

Here's the cite:

http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/04 03/hillarys-winning-coalition-mydd-reco mmended-list-selected-for-hillaryhubcom

Enjoy the day,
--Koan


What is The October Protocol?
by Koan on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:20:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Democrats to the Floor! (2.00 / 2)

Ooh, here's an even better one, giddy about the prospects of SD's overturning the will of voters!  Note how excited you were at the idea of having Brazile in your camp, too.  

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/04/28/ brazile-for-hillary/

Cheers.


What is The October Protocol?
by Koan on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:40:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Democrats to the Floor! (none / 0)

Texas Darlin for Secretary of Defense!


by dawolfe on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:00:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Please send this diary to USDs! (2.00 / 5)

If there's one thing that gets them endorsing Obama, it's H44esque threats of sedition!


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:06:36 PM EST

Re: Please send this diary to USDs! (none / 0)

I actually meant secession, but what the hey, sedition works too!


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:07:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please send this (2.00 / 4)

democracy isn't for wusses.  We'll see if this sends a groundswell of super's to your guy, otherwise, you'll be proven wrong. they're waiting cause they want to make sure the one they back will win the GE and take the house with her or him. She's clearly a winner in the GE, but he might get his momentum back, it isn't so likely but it's still possible. he needs to debate her again.  


Hillary - alternative energy
by anna shane on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:09:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clear GE winner (none / 0)

You can keep saying that, but it won't make it true.  The supers haven't bought it for months.  Why would they buy it now, especially when O is about to get a double-digit win in Oregon, an actual swing state?


by JJE on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:12:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clear GE winner (2.00 / 1)

Dude, Clinton is only down by like 12 to McCain in Kentucky!  Total swing state.


John McCain is surprisingly bad for this country
by minnesotaryan on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:53:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And don't forget Arkansas! (none / 0)


by JJE on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:57:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please send this (2.00 / 3)

The supers have been endorsing Obama to Clinton at a 3+ to 1 ratio for the past month. This isn't golf; the candidate with the fewest delegates doesn't get the nomination.

And Obama's got as much reason to debate Clinton as McCain has to debate Huckabee at this point.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:12:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please send this (2.00 / 3)

Obama's gotten 35.5 SDs since IN/NC...Hillary's gotten 1.5.


John McCain hates terrorists, except the ones that hate women. Those are just swell.
by terra on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:22:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please send this (none / 0)

If Obama loses 10% Democrats he would lose in a landslide to McCain. You better quit comparing Hillary to Huckabee.


You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat
by indydem99 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:04:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please send this (none / 0)

Gore lost 11% of Democrats to Bush. Kerry lost 11% of Democrats to Bush. Those elections were not landslides

Given that there are way more Democrats than Republicans this cycle, if Obama loses 10% of Democrats to McCain, there will be a landslide but it will be in Obama's favor.


John McCain supports dismantling Social Security
by DesideriusErasmus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:35:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please send this (1.00 / 7)

ho, ho, ho.....Barry won't go to another debate.  Questions bore him.  And he can't smoke.


by Tolstoy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:17:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please send this (2.00 / 2)

Of course he won't do another debate. He's way ahead and has money and his opponent is broke and far behind.  When has there ever been an agreement to debate in similar circumstances?  Hillary certainly didn't debate when she was in the same place in the NY Senate races over her weaker, more poorly financed opponent.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:21:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary's broke? Um last time I checked she (none / 0)

had over 100 million in the bank. Obama's 30 million cash on hand is peanuts


by 79blondini on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:42:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's broke? Um last time I checked she (none / 0)

We're talking campaign cash here.  Please try to keep up.


by doschi on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:17:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, good (none / 0)

then I hope this means she won't be asking Obama supporters to pony up and cover her personal debt after May 30.


by bookish on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:36:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please send this (none / 0)

Your lame attempt at humor bores me.


by The Distillery on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:11:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please send this (none / 0)

I know... Even Hillary debated her Senate primary opponent Tasini when it was clear he couldn't beat her...

didn't she?


by Pragmatic Left on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:57:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

groundswell? (2.00 / 1)

Obama gained 13 delegates today. 4 supers and 9 pledged. Hillary lost 1.


John McCain supports privatizing Social Security.
by Travis Stark on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:42:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please send this (2.00 / 1)

I think it is much more likely that they are waiting to a) allow all states to vote rather than stopping at 45 (or whatever we are at now), and b) to avoid the appearance of pushing Hillary out the door.


by ProgressiveDL on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:37:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please send this (none / 0)

It's all over but the crying. And boy, what a flood of tears.


by Rationalisto on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:19:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Earth to Anna (2.00 / 0)

It's over.

O
V
E
R



McCain
by Black Anus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:32:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please send this (2.00 / 0)

Have you checked the head-to-head polls lately?  He's surging ahead of Hillary and McCain.  And he's releasing a handful of supers a day - releasing as in they have privately committed to Obama and he's feeding them to the media on his own terms.


by interestedbystander on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:39:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Democrats to the Floor! (2.00 / 7)

It's over, let's get behind Obama


by Bargeron on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:07:48 PM EST

Re: Hillary Democrats to the Floor! (2.00 / 4)

it is, then why haven't the deciding super's declared? Oh, yeah, it isn't over. Even Barack says it isn't over, and he's wanting you guys to tone it down, didn't you hear?  


Hillary - alternative energy
by anna shane on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:10:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Democrats to the Floor! (2.00 / 2)

The race is not "over", but the outcome is known.

Obama and most supers are posturing for the best way to declare victory. Some ways are more likely to bring the party together (not forcing Clinton out) and not embarrass Obama (like declaring before WV).

Also, it doesn't hurt at this point to let the voting play out, so I wouldn't be too surprised if Obama doesn't declare victory until after June 3rd.


by gcensr on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:20:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Democrats to the Floor! (2.00 / 1)

I heard that too.  Say it's not so. And say  say he hasn't actually hired 400 bloggers to kiss up to Hilaary supporters.  Yuck.  I can just see those diaries:  "Dear Sweeties..................."


by Tolstoy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:21:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Democrats to the Floor! (2.00 / 6)

Obama doesn't need to hire any bloggers. He has over a million of half people who have taken their money and sent it to him. They are highly motivated and blog on their own.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:22:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Democrats to the Floor! (2.00 / 2)

Hey, I only know what they say on TV.  I heard he hired 400 bloggers.  And no, I'm not going to find a link for you.  If  you're interested you can look it up yourself.


by Tolstoy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:40:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You can't link because it's not true (2.00 / 6)

The story exists on Taylor Marsh and HillBuzz, but nowhere in reality.


John McCain supports privatizing Social Security.
by Travis Stark on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:46:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Democrats to the Floor! (2.00 / 3)

You can't look things up that don't exist.

I think there's a Zen koan about that.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:46:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The sound of one hand typing (2.00 / 1)

If a non-existent blogger is typing in the woods and no one is there to hear it, is there a noise?


by emptythreatsfarm on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:58:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There sure is (none / 0)

it goes "fap fap fap fap fap"


by JJE on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:00:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There sure is (none / 0)

Is that the sound of the black helicopters I used to hear about?


by zadura on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:57:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Guess what I heard? (2.00 / 3)

I heard he kicks grandmothers down the stairs and punches babies in the face in his free time.  No, I'm not going to give you a source.  If you're interested you can find it yourself.


by JJE on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:59:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Guess what I heard? (none / 0)

I thought grandmothers went under the bus?


Stop the racism. Fight the smears.
by CrazyDrumGuy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:32:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, after he snipes them (none / 0)

"thp" "thp" "thp"


by KLRinLA on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:12:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Democrats to the Floor! (none / 0)

I would stop promoting this lie if I were you - even the mighty Alegra has been forced to delete the smear from her diary.  So either prove it or shut the fuck up.


by interestedbystander on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:36:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Democrats to the Floor! (none / 0)

you do not seem to understand the dynamics of a GE. Obama needs all the supporters of Hillary. If he loses even 5% it is all over for Obama. How close do you think the GE is going to be in the swing states.  


You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat
by indydem99 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:09:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Democrats to the Floor! (none / 0)

I thought you said 10% earlier..


I can see Lake Erie from where I live, so can I please run the Navy?
by hootie4170 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:28:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Democrats to the Floor! (none / 0)

Anywhere from 5 to 10. As Hillary says "What ever our diffrences are they are nothing compared to the Republicans"


You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat
by indydem99 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:33:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If the only thing Obama can do to gain... (2.00 / 1)

Hillary supporters is to give the nomination to her, then I fail to see how that helps his chances in November.

We're all willing to let this play out to June 3, and Obama supporters, for the most part, have been as welcoming to Clinton supporters as possible, and will continue to be so. But if the argument is a convention debacle that loses us the election, or threats of tantrums, then there really is no arguing with that is there. Hopefully, there are enough people in the party who care about the principles that both Hillary and Obama have fought for and will vote for the Democratic nominee. If not, we'll have a President McCain and at least 4 more effective years of the Bush administration.


John McCain supports privatizing Social Security.
by Travis Stark on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:19:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not having a qualified nominee might lose it, but (none / 0)

not a convention fight!  The convention was designed to be the place a nominee was chosen.

 It's in the RULES!


by itsadryheat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:52:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not having a qualified nominee might lose it, (none / 0)

Last I checked, the nominee was chosen during the primaries and caucuses, and then formalized during the convention. All a fight at the convention will do is keep us mad at each other longer, and give Clinton supporters more motivation to vote McCain. How can you pretend that's worth it?


by Okamifujutsu on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:15:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not having a qualified nominee might lose it, (none / 0)

So your saying that the activities of the Convention are no more than a formality?


by devoted1 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:41:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not having a qualified nominee might lose it, (none / 0)

Yes, that's exactly what they are.