The Very Definition Of Dead Ending
Tweet
Here is a post from “gqmartinez” at Corrente:
In every case where a state held both a primary and a caucus, Obama did much worse in the primary. Hell, just look at Texas. Hillary won the state by 100,000 votes, but Obama won by double digits in the caucus. Its hard to take seriously Obama’s delegate lead–which was based almost exclusively on his caucus performance–based on this information. Add to this the paper trail on the Texas caucus and alleged fraud as well as union bullying in Nevada, and your stink filter should be on super high.
Then there is FL and MI. Forget the machinations that led to FL and MI breaking the rules and thus having their votes not count–which had nothing to do with actions by the actual voters. What kind of democratic organization makes up rules that will disenfranchise voters? Further, when Hillary and her supporters tried to pay to have revotes, Obama and his supporters fought it. Imagine that, fighting against having voters vote! The RBC was just icing on the cake. Votes were literally stolen–in broad daylight–from Hillary and given to Obama. Stolen votes.
That is not a post from 2008. That’s a post from Thursday. I confess that I assumed anyone who was still weaving conspiracy theories about the 2008 Democratic primary would be well into their second year the loony bin, but apparently not. It’s amazing. For a while about a quarter (or maybe less) of the liberal blogosphere lots their minds, and apparently for some the condition was permanent.
Even more appalling is that in the primaries and caucuses there wasn’t actual disenfranchisement and voter confusion as there was in 2000 and to a lesser extent in 2004. Before the general election even came around in 2008, Clinton campaign folks fessed up that they never gamed out the caucuses and when Sen. Clinton faced a draw on Super Tuesday, they had effectively lost.
And the thing is, the person who should be the most outraged if any of these conspiracies were true, Hillary Clinton, is instead representing us well as Secretary Of State.
More: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama
41 Responses to “The Very Definition Of Dead Ending”
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
What Time Is Super Bowl 2012 (Super Bowl XLVI)?
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Secretary Clinton’s performance in office in re Honduras doesn’t make me long for her lost Presidency.
It continues to amaze me that some people see a conspiracy in Clinton’s failure to do the simple math required to understand the importance of the caucus states; a caucus system largely put in place and/or tweaked by the Clinton political machine of the 1990′s.
Obama and his team looked at the rules and the numbers required to win and put together a detailed plan designed to win, then executed their plan exceptionally well. Clinton expected to be anointed regardless of the rules and did not have a good enough plan in place to win unless everybody else with any significant support dropped out and cleared the way for her.
One of these approaches demonstrated superior management and strategic planning skill. The person demonstrating those skills very appropriately became our chief executive.
Yes. It is interesting how “some” actually think that the Clinton campaign
were babes in the woods and had no idea about the caucus process. A process that — as you say–
was honed to perfection by Secretary Clinton’s husband.
This all just gets boring, boring and even more significantly boring every time someone whines it.
Perhaps if the Democrats could learn to accept the outcome of Elections, this might end?
And, Oliver, isn’t it possible, if not most likely, that the Secretary of State was a consolation prize for losing, no matter how she lost?
Wow, all the recycled party line talking points are here! The CT, the infantilization (“whining”), the PUMA hate trigger, all of it! And, as a bonus, “dead ender”! Hey, where’s “bitter”? And Martinez is the guy who’s living in 2008? Get real.
Personally, I’m happy that the candidate who won the most majority of the popular vote and the majority of the big states is the SoS. I always felt that the Democratic Party, of which I am no longer, thank the God(ess)(e)(s) of Your Choice If Any, a member, needed to go the way of the Whigs, so Hillary Clinton’s loyalty to it was inapppropriate. Since posts like this shove the Dems further down the drain, I’m all for them. Have at it!
At a higher level:
It’s entirely conceivable — and I hope it turns out to be true — that the Democratic party, its loyalists, and the various talking point laundries for Democratic insiders are at the dead end. See Stirling Newberry here and here.
This is too fuckin easy. The outcome of the 2008 election was Barak Obama being elcted President and the Dems winning majorities in both houses. One of the issues Obama campaigned on was health care reform. Using your own reasoning, why is the GOP standing in the way of one of the results of the last election. Shouldn’t they “accept the result” of that election? Shouldn’t you?
And if Bush’s thin margin of victory in 2004 gave his administration a self-proclaimed “mandate” to do basically whatever in the hell they wanted; what would you call Obama’s margin over McCain?
I forgot, which candidate won those states in the general election again?
Mr. Willis,
Why do you bother with these dead-enders?
Is it the sense of tragedy – or comedy – that fills the lives of the correntian true-believers?
When someone starts talking to me about the Glenn Beck psychos, I politely walk away. When someone mentions something the correntians are spewing, I nod and ignore it. When I see someone on the street-corner screaming obscenities about the CIA and mind control, I calmly walk past without engaging them.
It’s Corrente Junior High School over there 24 hours a day. My advice is to ignore their rantings.
There are much bigger problems to confront than what these children have to say.
But, to each his own. Corrente just want to keep the flames of hate burning for as long as possible. Sadly, it’s all they have, I think.
Sully Fick
“Perhaps if the Democrats could learn to accept the outcome of Elections, this might end?”
Wow. When did those tea parties begin? 20 minutes after Obama took the oath?
Hilarious.
What is it about winning that p#sses you off? The PUMAs did not alter the outcome of the election, you got what you wanted and you still can’t let it go. Yes, a handful of Clinton supporters are still angry about the primaries. And clearly some Obama supporters are still driven bonkers by the idea (i.e. the stereotype)of women “withholding” approval from their preferred candidate. Curious.
Hillary CLinton, love her or hate – I am the former even with the thorns – is dedicated to serving her country. How the fuck some of her followers still can’t come to terms with what their object of affection did rather quickly and easily is beyond me.
It was a rough, rough primary battle. The vast majority were able to switch to the Democratic nominee easily and without reserve. The ones still holding a grudge can suck a bag of thermonuclear dicks.
that the Secretary of State was a consolation prize for losing, no matter how she lost?
If she’s doing the job well enough, who cares? It’s not as if primary opponents have never become secs. of state before.
Years from now people will still be reading that to see when Stirling actually gets to a point. I’ll file it away with his endorsement of John Edwards in my League Of Amateur Economists With Mountains Of Pretension file.
Best to just ignore these people. They’re like the truthers and the birthers only far less numerous and powerful.
Shorter lambert: All your base are belong to us!
These people tick me off because they confuse and distract from something no American should ever forget: that the Republicans stole the elections of 2000, 2002 and 2004.
I supported Hillary in the primaries (after Richardson dropped out) because I thought she’d be more of a fighter than Obama, more willing to stand up to the Republicans. Now we’ll never know if she really would have been, but it’s certainly been proven true so far that Obama is not a fighter.
Yes, the past is done and Obama is the President. I voted for him in the general election, and it’s far too late to go back now and re-fight the primaries. It’s good to be vigilant about potential fraud and corruption in future primaries, though. There should not be a repeat of the FL and MI debacles ever again.
Dr Psycho writes:
I really, really like “these people.”
That said, Dr. Psycho is confused and distracted only because he thinks that one of the legacy parties (the Democrats) is different from the other legacy party (the Republicans). In fact, as the 2008 primaries show, they are in essence the same.
The “dead enders” in this discussion are really legacy party partisans.
And now, if you’ll excuse my, I’ve got to go buff my Obama Commerative Plate. I’ve got a whole collection of them in the trunk of my car, which is very convenient, since that’s where I’m living, now that I’ve lost my house and my job. Kidding!
You prefer to have room in the page margins for crayon? Kidding!
Here are links on the popular vote; and the big states map.
Why would the Democrats question the outcome of an election where a Democrat won?
And who says that when a President is elected, we simply give him whatever he wants for 4 years? How long did the liberals blindly follow Pres Bush ? Try never – not for an instant.
Are you missing the point intentionally? I’m talking about people (Bush, Cheney, and various and sundry mouthpieces in the GOP and the media) who acted as though, by virtue of winning an election, they were elected dictators who didn’t have to answer to anyone. “We had our accountability moment–it was the 2004 election” (Bush); “This is our due” (Cheney). And don’t try to act like you don’t know what I’m talking about.
I voted for Hilary Clinton in the primaries also. Because I also thought she’d be more of a fighter and for the comedy factor of wingnuts foaming at the mouth every day. At least Obama brought on the comedy.
I’m not sorry yet that I voted for him in the general.
Frank, you people said that.
Agreed, though I think she was in fact representing the overall tendency of U.S. foreign policy on that one.
As usual you missed the only number that mattered in the primaries.
Yes, bikelib , I am missing the point intentionally. Because every newly elected President acts as if they have a mandate …
It is you who missed my point.
Let me make it clear:
1) Kennedy’s victory may have been fraudulent – Nixon says , Never mind , the nation doesn’t need the controversy.
2) Kennedy is killed by a pro-Cuban defector to the Soviet Union. The left tries to blame it in conservatives.
3) 2000 — Bush wins ; Gore contests it for more than 2 weeks.
It is later discovered by a team of mostly pro-Gore reporters that he couldn’t have won with 10 recounts.
4) Bush wins Ohio by over 250,000 — Democrats want a recount….
Are you detecting a pattern?
Frank, are you laboring under the delusion that we couldn’t produce an even longer list of Republicans challenging close elections?
Oh, and you’re wrong (quelle surprise!) about Florida in 2000: that team of reporters concluded that Bush would have won under the limited recount Gore called for, but Gore would have won a full statewide recount.
That said, Dr. Psycho is confused and distracted only because he thinks that one of the legacy parties (the Democrats) is different from the other legacy party (the Republicans).
What an abysmally moronic statement.
not according to the new york times wilbur
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/politics/recount/
Don’t be a SaveFarris, i.l., read your own links before you post them:
But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots
“And when polled, every polar bear in the arctic said they MIGHT have voted for al gore….”
Note the modifier, “might” versus your “would”.
Makes al the difference in the world…..talking about what actually WOULD happen versus what MIGHT happen don’t you think?
As the Bard might have put it…..”hoist with his own petard”.
Difference (obvious, I’d have thought) being that polar bears can’t actually be polled and can’t express a clear preference for Gore, whereas the sort of recount envisioned in your link would have been completely possible. The “might” refers only to the uncertainty about the standards of inclusion that would be used by the various counting authorities should such a recount have taken place.
Hmmm… a link that doesn’t say what you say it says and then a false equivalence. First we had the Dennis/Donna business. Is “inverseliberal” just SaveFarris trying to escape from his wretched reputation?
“What kind of democratic organization makes up rules that will disenfranchise voters?”
Nobody is “enfranchised” to vote in a primary or caucus in the first place.
It is not a general election. It is a Party function to select the Party’s nominee. No civil rights are involved.
Hypothetically, any Party can set any requirements or barriers to participation that they desire. In fact, in the 2008 Republican primary in one Southern state (I forget which), primary voters were required to swear an oath that they would vote for the Party’s nominee in the general election.
A Party can charge a fee to participate, exclude blondes or people over a certain height, require participants to break dance or drink a shot of Jager, or choose to settle the entire matter with a bare-knuckle brawl.
Don’t like it? Nobody is forcing you to be in that Party.
Seriously, a caucus doesn’t even have a secret ballot. People need to stop pretending that the process is equivalent to a “real” election.
The problem for the PUMAs is that although some will claim they have moved on (look at the claim made at the Flatulence) they haven’t. Lambert and Riverdaughter get annoyed when others question why they supposedly held so solidly that they wanted McCain / Palin elected.
When the obvious question arises – they will scream racist – no not me. Despite their previous (and current) love of sites like NoQuarter, Hillbuzz and PUMA PAC.
Lambert and Riverdaughter wonder why Hillary was never seen as the bright shining light of the left. I’d suggest that they have a look at their own supporters.
Perhaps while this blog has their attention, they might want to express their feelings about Ms. Clinton’s total betrayal of them by not only accepting a high office as a political gift but quite faithfully (and laudably, I must add to avoid misinterpretation) carrying out the policies of the elected government. That goes for her husband, too; both have acted like good soldiers with regard to the government and the party, and again, for all the faults of both the latter, that’s the right thing to do. But surely her total lack of any hint of support for her ultra-loyal personal following must be disappointing?
Wow. It’s almost as if Lambo were some kind of stubborn, clueless ideologue living in the past.
Porlock Junior -
I believe that they’re waiting patiently for the fateful day, The Day, when the call comes out from the National Redoubt – “Arise! Arise, my people, and drive the Usurper forth!” And the PUMA legions will stream forth, led by Orly Taitz and Bill Himself, to fulfill the prophecy.
And peace and plenty shall return to the land, for the Grail and the POTUS are One.
“Pro-Cuban defector to the Soviet Union”? Ok, now you’re in the same boat as Dennis with his, “very liberal Newsweek”. You don’t get to create your own reality and expect others to engage in what I thought was good-faith dialogue. See ya. Except for one other thing: You never did answer those pesky questions from the other thread re: abortion. If all abortions were made illegal tomorrow, what should be the criminal penalty be for a woman who premeditatedly pays someone to murder an innocent, defenseless baby?
Lee Harvey Oswald was a pro-Cuban defector to the Soviet Union, bikelib.