• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Spinnsylvania: Clinton Cooks The Books To Claim Lead

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,387
141
116
Text

Hey guys, did you hear? As of today, Hillary has more votes! How you ask?

Well first, start with counting all the votes from all the legal primaries done so far. Obama's still in the lead.

Then add the votes from Florida to each candidate's total. Obama's still in the lead.

Now add the votes from Michigan to each candidate's total (giving Obama the undecided votes since his name wasn't on the ballot). Obama's still in the lead.

Wait, back up. Don't give Obama any votes from Michigan. Only give Clinton votes from Michigan. NOW Clinton is in the lead in votes.

But she's still behind in the only thing that matters: delegate count.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Jpeyton has somewhat hit the ultimate democratic nightmare which is Hillary making a floor fight at the democratic convention in late August over the disputed delegates in Michigan and Florida.

But still not that likely. Right Now Obama is about 300 or so delegates shy of the the 2025 needed to win by most counts. With 408 pledged delegates left to win and some 300 super delegates left unpledged, the math looks very bad for Hillary now. Almost half of those 408 to win will go on May 6 and Obama is likely to win North Carolina big. Assuming a 60 40 split in North Carolina over their 115 delegates, that adds 69 Obama delegates. Even assuming a 55 45 Hillary split in Indiana, Obama picks up another 32, leaving him 198 delegates short of 2025. With 300 supers still unpledged and still 221 pledged delegates remaining to win, Obama needs only 38% of them to win. At a certain point
I think the super delegates will see its time to end it and put Obama over the top. Making Michigan and Florida moot with some grand face saving gestures at the convention to seat them so they too can ratify Obama.

Hillary is still a political realists and the notion she will fight past her time is just a GOP dream in MHO. Meanwhile she fights on, and I for one, cannot blame her.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,268
4
0
The Democrats are headed for a nightmare in Denver.

IF Hillary can take the popular vote leading by just using Florida then all hell breaks loose.

She can then stand up and say "Just like Al Gore I won more votes than my opponent, but you are going to 'give' him the election anyway?"
Will be ugly.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,912
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Jpeyton has somewhat hit the ultimate democratic nightmare which is Hillary making a floor fight at the democratic convention in late August over the disputed delegates in Michigan and Florida.

But still not that likely. Right Now Obama is about 300 or so delegates shy of the the 2025 needed to win by most counts. With 408 pledged delegates left to win and some 300 super delegates left unpledged, the math looks very bad for Hillary now. Almost half of those 408 to win will go on May 6 and Obama is likely to win North Carolina big. Assuming a 60 40 split in North Carolina over their 115 delegates, that adds 69 Obama delegates. Even assuming a 55 45 Hillary split in Indiana, Obama picks up another 32, leaving him 198 delegates short of 2025. With 300 supers still unpledged and still 221 pledged delegates remaining to win, Obama needs only 38% of them to win. At a certain point
I think the super delegates will see its time to end it and put Obama over the top. Making Michigan and Florida moot with some grand face saving gestures at the convention to seat them so they too can ratify Obama.

Hillary is still a political realists and the notion she will fight past her time is just a GOP dream in MHO. Meanwhile she fights on, and I for one, cannot blame her.
She made it interesting but she is done much to the chagrin of many of the radicals such as Rush, Hannity and their supporters on here.
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,850
0
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Text

Hey guys, did you hear? As of today, Hillary has more votes! How you ask?

Well first, start with counting all the votes from all the legal primaries done so far. Obama's still in the lead.

Then add the votes from Florida to each candidate's total. Obama's still in the lead.

Now add the votes from Michigan to each candidate's total (giving Obama the undecided votes since his name wasn't on the ballot). Obama's still in the lead.

Wait, back up. Don't give Obama any votes from Michigan. Only give Clinton votes from Michigan. NOW Clinton is in the lead in votes.

But she's still behind in the only thing that matters: delegate count.
hehe sure, all the undecided votes automatically goes to Obama even tho Edwards was also on the ballot and just because those undecided didn't bother to go and vote it mean they didn't support Clinton.

At least Clinton based her claim on people who actually put her name on the ballot. You people are talking about who didn't put down ANY names must supported Obama. Who is cooking the book?
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,926
18
81
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: loki8481
who cares? Hillary doesn't have a chance. we've known this since February.
Still, fun to watch the Obama fans run around like insane people. Though if I were Obama and I kept getting asked questions by the media about why haven't I won this thing yet, I'd probably pull out a gun and start shooting. "WTF? Theres NO WAY she can beat me! You've all done the math the chrissake! I've seen your shows, you know unless she pulls in 70% of the remaining votes (Sure!) that I win this thing. Can you stop pretending we're in a real race?"

But keep posting story after story, all it does is make you guys look worried. Obama hasn't looked presidential in a while. If I were him I'd ignore Hillary completely. Just don't acknowledge her existence. There's ZERO chance of the supers giving her the nom. It just will not happen. When the crazy homeless guy you pass on the street calls you a nazi do you debate with him or just keep walking?
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,471
1
0
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Text

Hey guys, did you hear? As of today, Hillary has more votes! How you ask?

Well first, start with counting all the votes from all the legal primaries done so far. Obama's still in the lead.

Then add the votes from Florida to each candidate's total. Obama's still in the lead.

Now add the votes from Michigan to each candidate's total (giving Obama the undecided votes since his name wasn't on the ballot). Obama's still in the lead.

Wait, back up. Don't give Obama any votes from Michigan. Only give Clinton votes from Michigan. NOW Clinton is in the lead in votes.

But she's still behind in the only thing that matters: delegate count.
hehe sure, all the undecided votes automatically goes to Obama even tho Edwards was also on the ballot and just because those undecided didn't bother to go and vote it mean they didn't support Clinton.

At least Clinton based her claim on people who actually put her name on the ballot. You people are talking about who didn't put down ANY names must supported Obama. Who is cooking the book?
Really? Do HRC supporters really claim the Michigan victory as a point of pride?

On the morning of January 15, hundreds thousands of Michigan Democrats woke up knowing that their vote wouldn't count and that their preferred candidate wasn't even on the ballot and they still took time out of their day to get to the polls and vote against Hillary Clinton.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
No dummies, Michigan and Florida do not count. Period end of story.

Now if we want to make Florida and Michigan count at this late date, we are talking about a brand new primary for each. End of story.

In the case of Michigan its their own fool fault, in the case of Florida, its the GOP who done it for the whole State.

Now if any of us geniuses want to suggest a mutually acceptable way to re vote the two, we might have something.

Otherwise, one can't cook the books without a book to cook.
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,850
0
0
Originally posted by: b0mbrman


Really? Do HRC supporters really claim the Michigan victory as a point of pride?

On the morning of January 15, hundreds thousands of Michigan Democrats woke up knowing that their vote wouldn't count and that their preferred candidate wasn't even on the ballot and they still took time out of their day to get to the polls and vote against Hillary Clinton.
It's not about pride, it's about fact. The fact that people who put down HRC's name on the ballot out numbers people who put down Obama's name on the ballot.

And how do you know those uncommitted vote is a vote against Hillary Clinton and not against DNC's decision? And how do you know all those votes goes to Obama and not Edwards. John Edwards didn't quit until Jan 30, and midwest blue collar area is typically Edwards territory.

Clinton's exact word. "I'm very proud that as of today, I have received more votes by the people who have voted than anyone else," She didn't claim that she received more votes that actually counted and she didn't claim she leads popular vote that counted by DNC. She is just stating a fact, fact about people in Florida/Michigan and the rest of the country who went out and vote and put her name on the ballot. A fact that you Obama supporter may not like, but it's a fact.
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,471
1
0
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: b0mbrman


Really? Do HRC supporters really claim the Michigan victory as a point of pride?

On the morning of January 15, hundreds thousands of Michigan Democrats woke up knowing that their vote wouldn't count and that their preferred candidate wasn't even on the ballot and they still took time out of their day to get to the polls and vote against Hillary Clinton.
It's not about pride, it's about fact. The fact that people who put down HRC's name on the ballot out numbers people who put down Obama's name on the ballot.

And how do you know those uncommitted vote is a vote against Hillary Clinton and not against DNC's decision? And how do you know all those votes goes to Obama and not Edwards. John Edwards didn't quit until Jan 30, and midwest blue collar area is typically Edwards territory.

Clinton's exact word. "I'm very proud that as of today, I have received more votes by the people who have voted than anyone else," She didn't claim that she received more votes that actually counted and she didn't claim she leads popular vote that counted by DNC. She is just stating a fact, fact about people in Florida/Michigan and the rest of the country who went out and vote and put her name on the ballot. A fact that you Obama supporter may not like, but it's a fact.
Well that's certainly an admirable display of parsing.

I suppose my problem wa that I thought you were actually forming an argument for why Hillary Clinton deserved the Democratic nomination, but it seems that all you were doing was complimenting her on her diction.

My mistake ;)
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,850
0
0
Originally posted by: b0mbrman


Well that's certainly an admirable display of parsing.

I suppose my problem wa that I thought you were actually forming an argument for why Hillary Clinton deserved the Democratic nomination, but it seems that all you were doing was complimenting her on her diction.

My mistake ;)
Well that all depends if Democrats give a $hit about Florida and Michigan doesn't it.
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,471
1
0
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: b0mbrman


Well that's certainly an admirable display of parsing.

I suppose my problem wa that I thought you were actually forming an argument for why Hillary Clinton deserved the Democratic nomination, but it seems that all you were doing was complimenting her on her diction.

My mistake ;)
Well that all depends if Democrats give a $hit about Florida and Michigan doesn't it.
I'm not sure how you pulled Florida into the discussion of whether or not Obama deserves all the uncommitted votes from Michigan...

Anyhow, you're missing a bit from the end of that sentence. It all depends on whether or not Democrats give a s**t about Michigan and whether or not Michigan voters will necessarily blame Obama for any talk of leaving them out of the all-important popular vote.

For the latter, I present these two graphs:
Obama +1.3
Clinton -2.8

As for whether or not Dems "give a s**t," I don't know, but I'll let Terry McAuliffe (c. 2004) talk for a bit:
"I'm going outside the primary window," [Michigan Sen. Carl Levin] told me [-- then DNC chairman Terry McAulffe --] definitively.

"If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses," I said. "We will have chaos. I let you make your case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously and you lost."

He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.

"You won't deny us seats at the convention," he said.

"Carl, take it to the bank," I said. "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."

We glared at each other some more, but there was nothing much left to say. I was holding all the cards and Levin knew it.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Interesting graphs bOmbrman.

Can't miss the fact that with Obama McCain, both candidates support trend downward in the latest polls, yet with McCain Hillary, McCain is trending up while Hillary trends down.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,917
173
106
Originally posted by: Lemon law
No dummies, Michigan and Florida do not count. Period end of story.

Now if we want to make Florida and Michigan count at this late date, we are talking about a brand new primary for each. End of story.

In the case of Michigan its their own fool fault, in the case of Florida, its the GOP who done it for the whole State.

Now if any of us geniuses want to suggest a mutually acceptable way to re vote the two, we might have something.

Otherwise, one can't cook the books without a book to cook.
See bolded portion above - Why do people persist in this myth?

The FL Dems did it to themselves.

To persist with this myth also implies how utterly stupid the DNC would have to be to allow FL Repubs to fvck up their primary.

The FL Dems rebeled against the DNC, mocked thr DNC and proceeded. That's why they punsihed so harshly (and foolishly excessively IMO).

Fern
 

SirStev0

Lifer
Nov 13, 2003
10,453
4
81
Don't forget that she one by 10% in Pennsylvania. Oh. Wait. Unless you round their totals before comparison she only one by 9.4%... You can't even round that to 10.
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,471
1
0
Originally posted by: SirStev0
Don't forget that she one by 10% in Pennsylvania. Oh. Wait. Unless you round their totals before comparison she only one by 9.4%... You can't even round that to 10.
9.2% actually

Which makes it that much sweeter that I can round 54.6 to 55 and I can round 45.4 to 45.

"On April 22, Hilary Clinton won the Democratic primary 55% to 45%"

If you do the math in your head, that's your own fault.
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,850
0
0
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: b0mbrman


Well that's certainly an admirable display of parsing.

I suppose my problem wa that I thought you were actually forming an argument for why Hillary Clinton deserved the Democratic nomination, but it seems that all you were doing was complimenting her on her diction.

My mistake ;)
Well that all depends if Democrats give a $hit about Florida and Michigan doesn't it.
I'm not sure how you pulled Florida into the discussion of whether or not Obama deserves all the uncommitted votes from Michigan...

Anyhow, you're missing a bit from the end of that sentence. It all depends on whether or not Democrats give a s**t about Michigan and whether or not Michigan voters will necessarily blame Obama for any talk of leaving them out of the all-important popular vote.

For the latter, I present these two graphs:
Obama +1.3
Clinton -2.8

As for whether or not Dems "give a s**t," I don't know, but I'll let Terry McAuliffe (c. 2004) talk for a bit:
"I'm going outside the primary window," [Michigan Sen. Carl Levin] told me [-- then DNC chairman Terry McAulffe --] definitively.

"If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses," I said. "We will have chaos. I let you make your case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously and you lost."

He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.

"You won't deny us seats at the convention," he said.

"Carl, take it to the bank," I said. "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."

We glared at each other some more, but there was nothing much left to say. I was holding all the cards and Levin knew it.
Nice graph, but if we based everything on polls and graph, Giuliani would have been running today and not McCain. In the end, it's what's on the ballot that counts, so you either take the result back in Jan. or have a re-vote.

Terry McAuliffe may hold all the card, but it's fvcking politician like him who screwed the whole party with inept management that led to two losses over the last eight years even tho there were lots going for the democrats. Let's see if he and people like him will screw the party again this year.
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,471
1
0
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: b0mbrman


Well that's certainly an admirable display of parsing.

I suppose my problem wa that I thought you were actually forming an argument for why Hillary Clinton deserved the Democratic nomination, but it seems that all you were doing was complimenting her on her diction.

My mistake ;)
Well that all depends if Democrats give a $hit about Florida and Michigan doesn't it.
I'm not sure how you pulled Florida into the discussion of whether or not Obama deserves all the uncommitted votes from Michigan...

Anyhow, you're missing a bit from the end of that sentence. It all depends on whether or not Democrats give a s**t about Michigan and whether or not Michigan voters will necessarily blame Obama for any talk of leaving them out of the all-important popular vote.

For the latter, I present these two graphs:
Obama +1.3
Clinton -2.8

As for whether or not Dems "give a s**t," I don't know, but I'll let Terry McAuliffe (c. 2004) talk for a bit:
"I'm going outside the primary window," [Michigan Sen. Carl Levin] told me [-- then DNC chairman Terry McAulffe --] definitively.

"If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses," I said. "We will have chaos. I let you make your case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously and you lost."

He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.

"You won't deny us seats at the convention," he said.

"Carl, take it to the bank," I said. "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."

We glared at each other some more, but there was nothing much left to say. I was holding all the cards and Levin knew it.
Nice graph, but if we based everything on polls and graph, Giuliani would have been running today and not McCain. In the end, it's what's on the ballot that counts, so you either take the result back in Jan. or have a re-vote.

Terry McAuliffe may hold all the card, but it's fvcking politician like him who screwed the whole party with inept management that led to two losses over the last eight years even tho there were lots going for the democrats. Let's see if he and people like him will screw the party again this year.
You've missed the point.

The polls the graphs are based on aren't there to argue that Obama would win a contested Michigan primary against Clinton, but to predict that he'd do better in a general election against McCain than Clinton.
 

Rio Rebel

Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,195
0
0
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Text

Hey guys, did you hear? As of today, Hillary has more votes! How you ask?

Well first, start with counting all the votes from all the legal primaries done so far. Obama's still in the lead.

Then add the votes from Florida to each candidate's total. Obama's still in the lead.

Now add the votes from Michigan to each candidate's total (giving Obama the undecided votes since his name wasn't on the ballot). Obama's still in the lead.

Wait, back up. Don't give Obama any votes from Michigan. Only give Clinton votes from Michigan. NOW Clinton is in the lead in votes.

But she's still behind in the only thing that matters: delegate count.
hehe sure, all the undecided votes automatically goes to Obama even tho Edwards was also on the ballot and just because those undecided didn't bother to go and vote it mean they didn't support Clinton.

At least Clinton based her claim on people who actually put her name on the ballot. You people are talking about who didn't put down ANY names must supported Obama. Who is cooking the book?
Until now, I haven't heard anybody try to count Hillary's "votes" from Michigan and not give the undecideds to Obama. Usually, when someone spins that Michigan's primary was a legitimate contest, they go ahead and give the undecideds to Obama so that it looks more like a real contest.

In reality, what happened in Michigan wasn't a contest. You had one name on the ballot out of the legitimate three (at the time). Call those what you want, but don't insult our intelligence by trying to call them part of the "popular vote". Even Hillary and her minions know the whole thing is ridiculous, which is why she always counts the undecided vote as Obama's...it makes it look more legitimate.
 

5to1baby1in5

Golden Member
Apr 27, 2001
1,208
79
91
Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Text

Hey guys, did you hear? As of today, Hillary has more votes! How you ask?

Well first, start with counting all the votes from all the legal primaries done so far. Obama's still in the lead.

Then add the votes from Florida to each candidate's total. Obama's still in the lead.

Now add the votes from Michigan to each candidate's total (giving Obama the undecided votes since his name wasn't on the ballot). Obama's still in the lead.

Wait, back up. Don't give Obama any votes from Michigan. Only give Clinton votes from Michigan. NOW Clinton is in the lead in votes.

But she's still behind in the only thing that matters: delegate count.
hehe sure, all the undecided votes automatically goes to Obama even tho Edwards was also on the ballot and just because those undecided didn't bother to go and vote it mean they didn't support Clinton.

At least Clinton based her claim on people who actually put her name on the ballot. You people are talking about who didn't put down ANY names must supported Obama. Who is cooking the book?
Until now, I haven't heard anybody try to count Hillary's "votes" from Michigan and not give the undecideds to Obama. Usually, when someone spins that Michigan's primary was a legitimate contest, they go ahead and give the undecideds to Obama so that it looks more like a real contest.

In reality, what happened in Michigan wasn't a contest. You had one name on the ballot out of the legitimate three (at the time). Call those what you want, but don't insult our intelligence by trying to call them part of the "popular vote". Even Hillary and her minions know the whole thing is ridiculous, which is why she always counts the undecided vote as Obama's...it makes it look more legitimate.

Don't forget to include Obama's improvements over Clinton since Michigan. Probably better take a handfull of Hillary's votes and throw them to Obama to reflect the nationwide percentage that jumped ship. ;)
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,542
260
126
Ah yes KO. A member of the very short list of people that shill for BHO more than jpeyton.
 

CellarDoor

Golden Member
Aug 31, 2004
1,574
0
0
Doesn't the popular vote count not show Obamas totals accurately because of his caucus wins? I read somewhere that if you count all the people that attended the caucuses Obama nets another 600,000 votes over Clinton.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,826
83
91
Originally posted by: CellarDoor
Doesn't the popular vote count not show Obamas totals accurately because of his caucus wins? I read somewhere that if you count all the people that attended the caucuses Obama nets another 600,000 votes over Clinton.
caucuses don't count.

neither do states that voted for Bush in '00/'04 or states that didn't vote for Hillary in the primaries.

but seriously... I forget where I read it, but someone did an analysis of the projected caucus popular vote totals and, including FL but not MI, found Obama to be ahead by ~1%, or 300K votes.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY