There’s a pretty silly blog entry by Noam Scheiber of The New Republic asking if Sen. Obama is too obsessed with winning delegates as opposed to racking up popular vote totals and the like. But it is the Clinton campaign who, depending on the day of the week and the hour of the day, has tried (badly) to come up with alternative metrics for winning the party’s nomination.
Since time immemorial it has been about delegates. Win the delegates, win the nomination. That was the Obama plan from the get-go and they’ve executed it superbly. Sen. Clinton, on the other hand, has sought to disqualify caucuses, the votes of non-swing states, the votes of red states, as well as the votes of smaller states in order to spin her losing campaign into a winning one. They’ve also been pushing the popular vote line as well as the electoral vote whopper. Look, perhaps if they get to change the party rules those things will be modified and straightened out.
But here, in the 21st century, in the year 2008, the only number that truly matters is how many delegates you’ve won.
As we used to say when I was younger (aka five minutes ago): Scoreboard.
Speaking of stupid media, did you see Jay Newton-Small at Swampland yesterday? Whining about how Obama told the TradMed to leave him alone for a few minutes so he could eat his waffle. Ugh!!
The Hill-o-sphere is aghast with talk of middle fingers, canceled debates, and waffles. TalkLeft, MyDD and Corrente is full of blathering hacks and idiots desperately clinging to every new story and praying to god it causes Obama to spontaneously combust.
No matter what happens today, this thing is over. The Clintonistas are in denial, as they long have been. But everyone knows this is over.
More Larry Johnsonification of the media
Obamabot Central weighs in, or should I say whines in? -
THE ONLY “METRIC” is who beats McCain. Real Democrats and the SuperDelegates know it, and after three months of watching Obama flounder around from Hope to Yes We Can to Change to Bitter Elitism, Real Democrats and conscientious SuperDelegates know Obama is damaged goods.
The Right Wing’s juggernaut massacre machine will eat him for breakfast, just like they did when he looked like a deer in the headlights in his FOX interview.
Suddenly states like Ohio, PA, Nevada, Florida, even NJ, which should not be even remotely in play for McCain, and which Hillary puts away in the bag without a problem, will appear, like 2000 and 2004, to come back and haunt us. Not to mention losing once again the entire solid bloc of Southern and Confederate states which have already united behind McCain.
There’s a reason why the state with the highest number of delegates, 100, won by Obama so far is Illinois, a reason why he has, even with an enormous, record-setting, overwhelming media spending spree in PA for weeks on end been unable to close the deal: Because he can’t win in the big states.
He doesn’t get enough support from working-class and older Americans and women and Hispanics, the heart and soul of the Democratic Party.
Hillary by double digits today.
Ah, the “electability” canard again. If that is true, why does Obama poll better against McCain than Hillary does? Obama as the nominee depresses turnout of non-radicalized right-leaning moderates, where Hillary as nominee increases the turnout of the same moderates because of 16 years of right-wing hate.
The only thing I’ve seen Hillary attack on is the same right wing talking points, that Obama has the wrong minister, Obama eats the wrong food, Obama used the wrong words when describing how middle-America picks candidates on political issues. America is tired of it. Hillary’s campaign is playing a high stakes game of “but he said” instead of talking about issues. Obama is talking past this garbage and talking about helping America come back. Notice that everytime one of these non-issues comes up, Obama’s hit in the polls is very temporary or even non-existant.
The hate dripping from Hillarybots underscores this point. Hillary is a 1990’s candidate, when people used gossip to determine their choice for president.
After seeing what kind of president that gives us, people want more.
“Real Democrats and the SuperDelegates”
This is offensive. Not only to me, but every other Obama supporter. Is Bill Richardson not a real Democrat? How about John Lewis, who was a Freedom Rider in the 60’s?
Hillarybots can’t go very far smearing Obama supporters like they have. Remember, according to Hillarybots smaller states (which are the heart and soul of this country) aren’t important. Personally, I want a candidate who thinks that every Democrat (and every American) is important.
Shorter Wellstone: Blacks, Young People, and the MAJORITY of voters don’t matter, only some hypothetical matchup between Obama/Clinton and McCain does even though Obama performs better by that metric too. I’ll also ignore that since Super Tuesday Obama has gained more superdelegates than the annointed leader of the party (in her own mind).
Otherwise, spot on analysis. Perhaps Mark Penn is on the prowl in South America for another disciple.
Wellstone, add me to the list of Democrats who don’t count. I have found you to be a reasonable guy, but this last post makes you sounds like a real asshole.
Wellstone:
Keep thinking that NJ and NY are really in play. Might as well help the Rethuglicans blow money they don’t have on states they’ll never win(not any time soon anyway). You also forget the fact that Hillary started off this primary season with 100% name recognition. That is a huge hurdle to overcome(and in a lot of cases he obviously did). If you really think that a lot of Democrats will vote for McCain over Obama(Taylor Marsh might but that is about it) come GE time then you are nuts.
Hillary started off this primary season with 100% name recognition. That is a huge hurdle to overcome
That’s not a “hurdle” so much as a “strength”. Since everyone already knows Hillary, they’ve already got their mind made up and aren’t likely to be swayed by anything that comes down the pike. Obama OTOH, still isn’t known by the vast majority of Americans and (dare I say) his own suporters! Just like Kerry 4 years ago running against a guy with 100% name recognition (Bush).
How’d that work out again?
Shorter Farris: I agree with Oliver, but I have to smear Democrats so I’m going to make up some false analogy.
Wellstone: Nice balls.
FACT: If the Democratic Primaries were winner-take-all like they should be, to prepare candidates and campaigns for the General Election, like the Republican Primaries do, Hillary would have put this away months ago.
Obama’s where he is because of wacky caucuses, GOP crossovers looking to make trouble, leaners, Independents, and open primaries.
Counting on these folks in the General Election is suicide for Democrats.
That is why I call Hillary’s base REAL Democrats: She wins hands down if you only count registered, reliable Democrats.
And to Ollie:
Funny how your OBAMAJORITY refuses to add the MAJORITY of voters in Florida and Michigan! If you add these in, Hillary wins that MAJORITY too.
HIllary polls the same or better against McCain nationally.they’re both 2-3 points better right now:
http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Pres-GE-MvO.php
But Hillary polls better against McCain in big states and swing states than Obama.
Wellstone:
The Democratic primary rules are the same ones Bil Clinton operated under. Wacky caucuses? You understand that each state makes up it’s own rules on whether they have a caucus or regular vote, right? How does Hillary win hands down among REAL Democrats? Do you have proof? And you can’t even get your last “fact” right. Obama is beating McCain in CA by a larger margin then Hillary is. You can even read the stuff you link to. Stop disgracing Paul Wellstone’s name.
Wells, are you saying that Hillary is a REAL Democrat? The lady who voted for Goldwater AND Reagan is a REAL Democrat? The lady who authorized force on a country that did nothing to us?
But it’s the Obama supporters who are delusional.
Whatever, pal. You’re sounding more like a freeper every day.
FACT: If the Democratic Primaries were winner-take-all like they should be, to prepare candidates and campaigns for the General Election, like the Republican Primaries do,
Shorter Wellstone: Boo hoo hoo! Why can’t we do it like the nice Republicans do?
Wellstone, will you vote for McNovocain if Hill doesn’t get the win she feels entitled to?
Wellstone, if the party never intended to let a black man win the primary, they should have made that clear from the outset. That’s clearly the basis of this ‘electability’ argument, and it’s disgusting. How does Hillary intend to win when she can’t hold onto the traditional 40% of the male vote that Democrats need to win? Do you really think female Republicans are going to vote for her to make up the gap? How do you like it when people make arguments based on bigotry against your candidate?
Stop whining about what you think ’should be’, we all agreed on these rules. They have been the rules for decades. Without these rules, every last primary would have seen it’s results altered significantly. You pray for the SD’s to save your candidate from the massive mistakes she’s already made, and you ignore the fact that she will likely make similar mistakes in the fall. Mistakes like: submitting that Experience, age, and ‘whiteness’ are what matters when John McCain stomps the shit out of her on all those metrics. Mistakes like wasting money like my senile grandmother (sorry grams) wastes water. Mistakes like seceding 40 states to her opponent, because she doesn’t think those states matter.
Go sell your nutjob ramblings to people who might actually believe the load of bullshit your selling.
I’m really interested to know how much of the Hillarybot agitation is psych ops from Republican operatives. It would be really sad to see loyal Democrats like Wellstone taken in by an operation like that.
FWIW, I’ll bet that Taylor Marsh is a Republican operative, if she isn’t she’s being bankrolled by them.
“If the Democratic Primaries were winner-take-all like they should be, to prepare candidates and campaigns for the General Election”
The other flames are much more effective than mine would have been, so I’ll stick with this: How does winner-take-all prepare candidates better for the general election? Details, please.
Because to me, winner take all means you only have to build constituency among large blocks in a state. Someone can win NY with little support outside of NYC and Long Island, for example. Isn’t it better preparation to build a broad constituency among rural, suburban, and urban voters alike? And when elected, doesn’t it go farther to promote a mandate behind your policies? We’ve had 8 years of Bush thumbing his nose at urban voters in favor of exurban and rural voters, and its caused a lot of divisiveness in this country.
Couldn’t resist this foolish comment:
“Funny how your OBAMAJORITY refuses to add the MAJORITY of voters in Florida and Michigan! If you add these in, Hillary wins that MAJORITY too.”
Yea, because if Obama had actually been on the ballot and campaigned in these states (after being told not to by the DNC) he would get the EXACT same number of votes. /snark
The only majority that counts is delegates. Hillary loses.
they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”
That does it for me. Never mind breaking bread with Scaiffe, never mind the gushing words of Rupert Murdoch, never mind that states and voters don’t count if they don’t vote for her.
That. Does. It. For. Me.
Wellstone, Wellstone, Wellstone. Can you truly not see the inconsistency and contradiction in your own words?
“If the Democratic Primaries were winner-take-all…”
Then Obama would have changed his strategy. You can’t change the basic rules of the game and then say nothing else would change.
“That is why I call Hillary’s base REAL Democrats: She wins hands down if you only count registered, reliable Democrats.”
In other words, she wins if we define “real” democrats or “reliable” democrats as those who vote for her and ignore the rest.
“Funny how your OBAMAJORITY refuses to add the MAJORITY of voters in Florida and Michigan! If you add these in, Hillary wins that MAJORITY too.”
Hillary wants Florida and Michigan counted because they went for her. But remember Obama wasn’t even on the ballot in Michigan and didn’t campaign in either state. If he had then the results would be different. Again, you want to change the rules (the well-understood agreed-to-by-all-candidates rules) while ignoring all others things that would have changed given the different conditions.
Hillary wants Florida and Michigan counted because they went for her. She wants caucus voters, students in Iowa and smaller states ignored because they didn’t vote for her. Can you truly not see the hypocrisy and double standard at work here?
You can’t change the basic rules of the game …
Unless you’re either Al Gore or the Florida Supreme Court!
Sorry, had to be done.
For ease of discussion let’s assume for a moment that I buy into your assertion that Gore and the FSC changed the rules.
Are you saying that was OK, or are you objecting to it?
If you’re saying it’s OK, then what is your complaint? That tehy did something you’re OK with?
If you’re saying it is NOT OK, then how is it also NOT OK for Hillary?
Wellstone, just stop. Please just stop. Your comments on this thread have been absolutely abhorrent (”REAL Democrats”? Gimme a break) and stupid to boot. I repeat: Nice balls.
“If the rules were different, Hillary would be winning!” I’ve heard it too many times from Hillary supporters. It’s a ridiculous assertion to make. First of all, as Sean points out, you don’t know that it’s true because Obama (and likely Clinton) would have run a different campaign if the rules were different. You just can’t say at the beginning, “Delegates are what matters”, and then when losing say, “Votes matter.. no, votes in big states matter… no, votes in swing states matter… no, we should follow Electoral College rules for the primaries… Caucuses aren’t fair, we shouldn’t count them… despite them breaking the rules, we should count Michigan and Florida now, because they voted for Hillary in an uncontested primary…”
Give it a fucking break, man! Hillary has lost. She lost in part because she’s up against an extremely charismatic, likable candidate, and partly because she’s run a less-than-stellar campaign herself. It’s over. Quit your incessant bitching.
Hear, hear, mambo
I love how folks like me and the people who have read this blog for 7 years are now not “Real” Democrats because we don’t lay down to Sen. Clinton.
If the Democratic Primaries were winner-take-all like they should be, to prepare candidates and campaigns for the General Election, like the Republican Primaries do, Hillary would have put this away months ago.
If I were famous and had six pack abs I would be Jessica Alba’s baby daddy. But we here on earth are operating within the confines of reality. The DNC barred the results of FL and MI, rules Sen. Clinton signed on to before she begun losing the race.
And if a frog had wings he wouldn’t drag his ass on the ground.
Sorry, channeling Fred Thompson there for a sec.
Thanks for the comments admiring my balls… It wouldn’t be the first time! Ahem…
Now, to substance:
1. “How does winner-take-all prepare a candidate for the General?? You have to be really ignorant to pose this question. The General is ALL winner-take-all, baby, It’s called the “Electoral College”, where there are no caucus babies to bring the biggest banners and shout other people down.
2. I have always said that Obamabots who reveled in massaging “The Math” for each pther were only indulging in “Nomination Masturbation”. The ONLY METRIC, once again, is who beats John McCain in the fall: Who brings the Dem base to the ballots (57% of Dem voters are women, Seniors who are over 1/4 of the vote turn out to vote in higher proportion than any other group), who takes on McCain on National Security, on Iraq, on theEconomy? WHo wins the fight for the moderate, middle of the road voters better? Hillary. Obama’s alerady been tarred as “the most Liberal Senator in the Congress” and as I posted earlier, will be a disaster in the swing states we need to win.
3. Somebody asked me for numbers on my assertion that Hillary wins if you count only Democrats. This blog dissected and proved it:
http://mithras.blogs.com/blog/2008/02/clinton-leads-i.html
Wellstone,
Non answer on point 1 noted.
In point 2, you said “who takes on McCain on National Security, on Iraq”
Not Hillary. She agrees with McCain on those points.
“WHo wins the fight for the moderate, middle of the road voters better?”
Really? Because the moderate independents HATE her with fury. Unjustified, but harmful at the ballot box.
“Obama’s alerady been tarred as “the most Liberal Senator in the Congress””
What is your problem with liberals (even arguing that ridiculous tag)?
“Somebody asked me for numbers on my assertion that Hillary wins if you count only Democrats. This blog dissected and proved it:”
That blog proved nothing, except that the author has a significant blinding love of Hillary. How can I refute it? Scoreboard.
Obviously, you have not been payig atttention to Hillary’s platform. She is radically different than McCain on every aspect of the Iraq debacle. It was Hillary who told Petraues that listeing to his report required a susp[ension of disbelief. It is Hillary who has promised to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq in the first few months after she wins the Election.
McCain’s position is still out there in a flak jacket saying “We can WIN in Iraq!!”
The “Most Liberal Senator in Congress” tag was given to Obama by the National Journal Magazine last month.
http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
The GOP attack machine is going to town on it already. I AM a proud Liberal who can knock you on your ass, but that tag is going to hurt Obama in swing states for sure.
AS to who wins moderates and middle-of-the-road? Take a look at the demos from PA last night: Gun Owners, church goers, working-class, high-school educated, below $50K a year, all went for Hillary better than 60%. Hillary speaks their language. Obama speaks to college professors and Blacks and the idealistic young, not to the middle class.
I am part of the middle class, and Obama speaks to me. Clinton leads among low information Democrats, but once she is out of the way the rest will vote for Obama.
Hillary’s position on Iraq is the same as McCain. She talks big to Petreaus but does little to curb the abuses. Troop pullouts are inevitable next year as there are few combat ready troops on the sidelines. And with Hillary’s sabre-rattling against Iran, surely the unrest from Shias will require significant numbers of troops indefinitely under a Hillary presidency.
Face it, Hillary agreed with McCain in 2002 when she voted for the war authorization, and she agrees with him now. She also agrees that McCain would be an effective commander-in-chief. America disagrees.
Gun Owners, church goers, working-class, high-school educated, below $50K a year, all went for Hillary
When the choice was between her and Obama for the nomination. If the choice is between McCain and Obama the way in which they vote will be different.
This is akin to the “if the primaries were winner take all she’d have it sewn up” argument. You’re changing a fundamental condition yet. assuming nothing else would happen differently.
In Obama vs McCain matchups and Hillary vs McCain matchups polls vary, but show at best that she doesn’t’ do substantially better against McCain than Obama would.