Even the popular vote doesn't add up

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Bird222

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: daveymark
MI and FL deserve to have their voice heard. obama can't win the big states. therefore, hillary has the best chance to win. THis is how hillary will convince the superdelegates to nominate her.

Rules are rules. Enough of this malarkey about counting states that WERE TOLD their votes would NOT count if they moved their primaries. But I guess the whole idea of counting them is representative of our society - people don't want to accept responsibility for their actions.

QFMFT!!!!!

Hey Rules are Rules. So the supers can vote for whomever they feel is best for the party in November without being called destroyers of the party, which is why Superdelegates were created in the first place. Rules are Rules.

Look, I cannot imagine the supers doing any such thing, but blind adherence to rules without looking at practical effects is short sighted and stupid. Telling FL/MI that they won't be seated because they broke the rules is a flat out horrible idea b/c it pisses off voters in two vital states come the fall. So go and follow your "rules" and lose the general election. Smart move.

 

[Bird222]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Hey Rules are Rules. So the supers can vote for whomever they feel is best for the party in November without being called destroyers of the party, which is why Superdelegates were created in the first place. Rules are Rules.

Look, I cannot imagine the supers doing any such thing, but blind adherence to rules without looking at practical effects is short sighted and stupid. Telling FL/MI that they won't be seated because they broke the rules is a flat out horrible idea b/c it pisses off voters in two vital states come the fall. So go and follow your "rules" and lose the general election. Smart move.

Yes, superdelegates can vote for whomever they want. No, they can't guarantee they won't be called 'destroyers of the party'. Look, Hillary has every 'right' to stay in the race but it is not good for the party. Here are a couple of my problems with the arguments that FL & MI should count. 1. The states should have considered what it would mean in the general election if their votes didn't count in the primary and made sure that they would count. They played chicken with the DNC and lost, tough. 2. Hillary didn't give a damn (and probably most Hillary supporters) about this issue until she needed them to possibly win, that is just plain disingenuous. 3. She agreed they wouldn't count. Does her word mean anything?

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Triumph

You are forgetting that their votes were taken away from them by their own party, not by some government entity. Remember that the DNC and RNC are not the "government", they are sovereign groups exercising their 1st amendment right to peaceably assemble. They are private entities engaged in making the choice of who they will put on the ballot for the general election in November (at which time *everyone* has the right to vote). But for right now, it is akin to members of the Elks, VFW, Knights of Columbus, or the Ku Klux Klan voting for their own leadership. As far as I'm concerned.

So in all honesty, because I am not a registered democrat I really don't have a say in the matter.

Well, KKK leadership don't go on and run for the POTUS. The fact is that if a democrat or republican for that matter, can't vote for his/her party's presidential nominee, they lost their right to determine the person who is gonna represent them as the president of the country. Democrats have the right to make rules for their own party, but that doesn't mean the rules are always right or just or helpful to their own party. In this case, the rule suck big time and it will hurt themselves in the end.

and your premise is wrong, it wasn't about the voters and them taking responsibility for their action. It's about a stupid rule made up by a selected few.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Bird222

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Hey Rules are Rules. So the supers can vote for whomever they feel is best for the party in November without being called destroyers of the party, which is why Superdelegates were created in the first place. Rules are Rules.

Look, I cannot imagine the supers doing any such thing, but blind adherence to rules without looking at practical effects is short sighted and stupid. Telling FL/MI that they won't be seated because they broke the rules is a flat out horrible idea b/c it pisses off voters in two vital states come the fall. So go and follow your "rules" and lose the general election. Smart move.

Look, Hillary has every 'right' to stay in the race

Yes she does, so get used to it.

The race is virtually tied and I don't beleive she has any interest in being VP, so why should she quit? Because Obama supporters say so?? :laugh:

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Bird222

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Hey Rules are Rules. So the supers can vote for whomever they feel is best for the party in November without being called destroyers of the party, which is why Superdelegates were created in the first place. Rules are Rules.

Look, I cannot imagine the supers doing any such thing, but blind adherence to rules without looking at practical effects is short sighted and stupid. Telling FL/MI that they won't be seated because they broke the rules is a flat out horrible idea b/c it pisses off voters in two vital states come the fall. So go and follow your "rules" and lose the general election. Smart move.

Yes, superdelegates can vote for whomever they want. No, they can't guarantee they won't be called 'destroyers of the party'. Look, Hillary has every 'right' to stay in the race but it is not good for the party. Here are a couple of my problems with the arguments that FL & MI should count. 1. The states should have considered what it would mean in the general election if their votes didn't count in the primary and made sure that they would count. They played chicken with the DNC and lost, tough. 2. Hillary didn't give a damn (and probably most Hillary supporters) about this issue until she needed them to possibly win, that is just plain disingenuous. 3. She agreed they wouldn't count. Does her word mean anything?

You again ignore the consequences I raised of blind adherence to the rules. Lose FL/MI, lose the presidency. Forest, trees, see?

 

[spacejamz]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Triumph

It's about a stupid rule made up by a selected few Democrats.

fixed...

 

[Bird222]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Yes she does, so get used to it.

The race is virtually tied and I don't beleive she has any interest in being VP, so why should she quit? Because Obama supporters say so?? :laugh:

My concern is bigger than Obama. It is the party and country. It is my belief that the way her campaign is going, it is hurting the party's chances in November. I think we have been seeing evidence of that. I have already said that if she goes positive sure stay in but that is not happening. It is getting worse and worse. You know what a Duke and North Carolina basketball score of 51 to 50 is a virtual "tie" but only one team is winning.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
The race is virtually tied

That's news to me. She has a nearly insurmountable gap in pledged delegates (which decides the nomination) and popular vote.

The only situations that would lead to her nomination would require lopsided wins that are at the edge of reality.

Her one and only move to secure the nomination is to convince nearly ALL Super Delegates to nominate her; and by nearly all, I mean over 80%. Even that scenario is on the edge of reality. If the past few weeks of being attacked non-stop with Wright and 'Bitter' only caused a 10 point loss in PA (down from a 20 point gap weeks earlier), none of Hillary's winning scenarios will flesh out unless she has a few more weeks of fresh ammunition against Obama.

The huge problem for Hillary is that in the two largest remaining contests (Indiana and North Carolina), she is starting the race on nearly equal footing in the case of the former, and at a significant disadvantage in the case of the latter. Obama can still lose those two states by close margins and it will be enough to seal Hillary's fate. She needs to pull out two more 10+ point wins if she wants to stay on life support.

 

[Bird222]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

You again ignore the consequences I raised of blind adherence to the rules. Lose FL/MI, lose the presidency. Forest, trees, see?

No, I totally see that and it is a big problem, but at the same time when you set rules of the race before everybody starts you can't just change them either. Plus you have to look at "more forest" if the rules are not followed, then the DNC loses all credibility and future contests are in jeopardy. Look, I think the electoral college needs changing too but that needs to happen BEFORE the votes start coming in not during.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
The race is virtually tied

That's news to me. She has a nearly insurmountable gap in pledged delegates (which decides the nomination) and popular vote.

The only situations that would lead to her nomination would require lopsided wins that are at the edge of reality.

Her one and only move to secure the nomination is to convince nearly ALL Super Delegates to nominate her; and by nearly all, I mean over 80%. Even that scenario is on the edge of reality. If the past few weeks of being attacked non-stop with Wright and 'Bitter' only caused a 10 point loss in PA (down from a 20 point gap weeks earlier), none of Hillary's winning scenarios will flesh out unless she has a few more weeks of fresh ammunition against Obama.

The huge problem for Hillary is that in the two largest remaining contests (Indiana and North Carolina), she is starting the race on nearly equal footing in the case of the former, and at a significant disadvantage in the case of the latter. Obama can still lose those two states by close margins and it will be enough to seal Hillary's fate. She needs to pull out two more 10+ point wins if she wants to stay on life support.

Or she can continue to campaign and run again in the 2012 election.

Remember, Obama outspent Hillary 3 to 1 in PA and still lost by 10 points. Even if Obama does win the primary I don't beleive he can win the general, so her continued campaigning and strong support could be just what SAVES the Dem party in 2012. I see NO reason for Hillary to quit.

If Obama and his supporters were really worried about the party then they would have encouraged him to accept the VP spot. They decided to go for the whole enchillada, so now they have to live with the consequences of that decision.

/thread

 

[RY62]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
The race is virtually tied

That's news to me. She has a nearly insurmountable gap in pledged delegates (which decides the nomination) and popular vote.

Can't you see that he also has a nearly insurmountable gap in pledged delegates, to reach the required number for a win. Unless the rules have changed again, being ahead does not guarantee a win.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Bird222

Originally posted by: sirjonk

You again ignore the consequences I raised of blind adherence to the rules. Lose FL/MI, lose the presidency. Forest, trees, see?

No, I totally see that and it is a big problem, but at the same time when you set rules of the race before everybody starts you can't just change them either. Plus you have to look at "more forest" if the rules are not followed, then the DNC loses all credibility and future contests are in jeopardy. Look, I think the electoral college needs changing too but that needs to happen BEFORE the votes start coming in not during.

So you fix it in 2012, not in 2008. In 08 when the entire country is leaning dem you don't sabotage your key swing-states because of a primary timing. I'm not saying seat them according to the results in the contests that were held, but you had better seat them in some reasonable proportion one way or another. This is almost universally agreed upon in dem party circles.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Can't you see that he also has a nearly insurmountable gap in pledged delegates, to reach the required number for a win. Unless the rules have changed again, being ahead does not guarantee a win.

Being ahead usually, typically and quite justifiably constitutes a win...the superdelegates are in place for such a scenario, but the emotions surrounding this thing are so high, that there is no solution.

 

[Bird222]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Or she can continue to campaign and run again in the 2012 election.

Remember, Obama outspent Hillary 3 to 1 in PA and still lost by 10 points. Even if Obama does win the primary I don't beleive he can win the general, so her continued campaigning and strong support could be just what SAVES the Dem party in 2012. I see NO reason for Hillary to quit.

Remember that she was ahead by 20+ points, had all the leadership on her side, had the 'Clinton' name, had all the demographics on her side and could only beat a NEWCOMER by 9 points. I don't understand your reasoning on how her continued campaigning SAVES the dems in 2012? I see Obama's campaign exciting voters and bringing MANY new ones in the process saving the party and more importantly the country in 2008.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
The race is virtually tied

That's news to me. She has a nearly insurmountable gap in pledged delegates (which decides the nomination) and popular vote.

Can't you see that he also has a nearly insurmountable gap in pledged delegates, to reach the required number for a win. Unless the rules have changed again, being ahead does not guarantee a win.

It's already a forgone conclusion that neither one can reach a pledged delegate win, but that doesn't matter given that most un-pledged Super Delegates have already stated they will vote for the pledged delegate leader at the end of the primary season.

Obama doesn't even need to convince very many un-pledged Supers to go his way; if he nets ~ 18%, he has mathematically shut Hillary out. Hillary has the daunting task of convincing 82% of un-pledged Supers to vote for her.

And since the PA primary ended? Obama has netted 2 Supers; Hillary 0. Game over.

 

[RY62]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
The race is virtually tied

That's news to me. She has a nearly insurmountable gap in pledged delegates (which decides the nomination) and popular vote.

Can't you see that he also has a nearly insurmountable gap in pledged delegates, to reach the required number for a win. Unless the rules have changed again, being ahead does not guarantee a win.

It's already a forgone conclusion that neither one can reach a pledged delegate win, but that doesn't matter given that most un-pledged Super Delegates have already stated they will vote for the pledged delegate leader at the end of the primary season.

Obama doesn't even need to convince very many un-pledged Supers to go his way; if he nets ~ 18%, he has mathematically shut Hillary out. Hillary has the daunting task of convincing 82% of un-pledged Supers to vote for her.

And since the PA primary ended? Obama has netted 2 Supers; Hillary 0. Game over.

If only it were that simple. LOL

 

[maziwanka]

Originally posted by: daveshel
Unfortunately, this won't stop the obstinate Clinton from handing the general election to McCain. She ain't listening.

i dont even blame her anymore. i blame the stupid fucking superdelegates. they have the chance to end this crap NOW and they won't.

fuck them and fuck the stupid pos situation we're in now.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: RY62
If only it were that simple. LOL

I'd love to hear your analysis of the situation.

 

[Bird222]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
So you fix it in 2012, not in 2008. In 08 when the entire country is leaning dem you don't sabotage your key swing-states because of a primary timing. I'm not saying seat them according to the results in the contests that were held, but you had better seat them in some reasonable proportion one way or another. This is almost universally agreed upon in dem party circles.

And what exactly would either fix be? What kind of scheme can you come up with that seats delegates in states where noone campaigned and people didn't vote because it wouldn't count? What fix for the DNC rules are there gonna be in 2012 when the DNC has already shown in 2008 that it will cave in whenever somebody decides to break their rules? This is a big problem no doubt, but I think having the losing candidate drop out (not being forced out) will help make it easier to deal with FL and MI.

 

[Bird222]

Originally posted by: maziwanka

Originally posted by: daveshel
Unfortunately, this won't stop the obstinate Clinton from handing the general election to McCain. She ain't listening.

i dont even blame her anymore. i blame the stupid fucking superdelegates. they have the chance to end this crap NOW and they won't.

fuck them and fuck the stupid pos situation we're in now.

That is true. They do need to put a stop to this madness.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: Bird222

Originally posted by: sirjonk
So you fix it in 2012, not in 2008. In 08 when the entire country is leaning dem you don't sabotage your key swing-states because of a primary timing. I'm not saying seat them according to the results in the contests that were held, but you had better seat them in some reasonable proportion one way or another. This is almost universally agreed upon in dem party circles.

And what exactly would either fix be? What kind of scheme can you come up with that seats delegates in states where noone campaigned and people didn't vote because it wouldn't count? What fix for the DNC rules are there gonna be in 2012 when the DNC has already shown in 2008 that it will cave in whenever somebody decides to break their rules? This is a big problem no doubt, but I think having the losing candidate drop out (not being forced out) will help make it easier to deal with FL and MI.

dems proved in 2000 that they don't care about the rules unless it's in their favor. hence the reason for the misery, and I wouldn't be surprised if they took this issue to court as well.

 

[Bird222]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: RY62
If only it were that simple. LOL

I'd love to hear your analysis of the situation.

I would too. By every metric it has gotten virtually impossible for her to win, but yet she stays and does more damage to the party. Any rational person can see these numbers are just too big for her to overcome and it has just gotten worse for her with each contest. I guess we should let John Edwards come back and if he wins 100% of the vote of the remaining contests and convinces 100% of the superdelegates to vote for him, he could win also.

 

[ScottMac]

I heard on the radio (I think Newt was explaining it):

Hillary leads the count in the Electoral College, with or without Michigan and Florida.
Primary popular vote or delegates don't count, not even a little, if the candidate can't carry the general election.

If they decide to add the FL and MI delegates, then spit 'em 50/50 and drop 'em into the count. The delegates get seated, but they have no effect in the relative counts.

 

[RY62]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: RY62
If only it were that simple. LOL

I'd love to hear your analysis of the situation.

I'd just be doing the same thing you are. Taking a wild guess, based on the situation as it stands today. It's easier for me to say what I don't think will happen.

I don't see either candidate reaching the required number of pledged delegates for a win.
I don't see the supers rushing in to end it before all of the primaries are over.
I don't see Florida and Michigan not coming into play somewhere.

Any speculation today is just a guess. I don't think anything will be decided until all of the primaries are finished. By that time it may become clear that one or the other has a better chance in Nov. The chance of winning the general will be, IMO, the most important factor.

Less likely but still possible twists:
I would not be surprised to see it go to the convention. I would not be surprised, if it did go to the convention, to see it go past the first round of voting. After that, all bets are off and anything can happen.

 

[Bird222]

Originally posted by: ScottMac
I heard on the radio (I think Newt was explaining it):

Hillary leads the count in the Electoral College, with or without Michigan and Florida.
Primary popular vote or delegates don't count, not even a little, if the candidate can't carry the general election.

If they decide to add the FL and MI delegates, then spit 'em 50/50 and drop 'em into the count. The delegates get seated, but they have no effect in the relative counts.

The electoral college argument doesn't make sense comparing the two dems to each other. Some of these states are gonna go to the dems regardless of who the nominee is. I agree the 50/50 split is the only way they can go, but the question is how much will that 'trickery' pacify the voters.