Great post from Kos Clinton's "discredit Obama and the process" strategy by kos Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:00:03 AM PDT At this point we know that 1) Obama will end the contest with the most pledged delegates, 2) Obama will likely end the contest with the popular vote tally, 3) Obama will end the contest with the most money and greatest fundraising potential, 4) Obama will end the contest with the most states, 5) Obama will end the contest with the best poll numbers against McCain, and 6) Obama will end the contest with the most primary state victories and caucus state victories. So what's left for Team Clinton? She has to convince a majority of the super delegates to cast their vote for her, so how does she get those supers to ignore all of the above Obama advantages in order to cast their ballot for the candidate who is losing? Apparently, it's a two-pronged strategy. The first is what we've been seeing this week -- tear down a candidate who has inspired and given hope to millions by appealing to white resentment and turning him into the "black candidate". It's ugly and revolting, but the Clinton campaign is banking on it scaring people away from Obama. And by "people", I mean "super delegates". So the Clinton campaign is left arguing that Obama, because of his lack of "experience" and his blackness can't win the nomination, flying in the face of all evidence to the contrary, evidence that suggests that Obama, unlike Clinton, will be a map changer. Clinton, on the other hand, is already fighting last cycle's battle (which in turn -- as Jerome Armstrong and I mocked in Crashing the Gate, was an effort to refight the 2000 battle). The second is to discredit the process of the campaign. You see this over at MyDD, were Jerome refers to the Obama campaign as the "process-powered candidate". Clever, I'll grant. But it's odd to suggest that playing by the rules is supposed to be a bad thing. That the primary system needs reform is obvious. It would've been nice to have Team Clinton's support in the last few years as I railed against the caucus system. But you don't change the rules mid-game. You change them after the election. Still, the Clinton campaign is desperate, in "Hail Mary" territory, thus they're reduced to disparaging any state that didn't vote for her and minimizing the importance of its delegates -- whether they be small states, or red states, or states with black people, or states with coffee shops in them. In fact, Clinton herself makes a curious distinction: There are elected delegates, caucus delegates and superdelegates, all for different reasons, and they're all equal in their ability to cast their vote for whomever they choose. Why differentiate between "caucus delegates" and "elected delegates"? They are all pledged delegates, and they are all "elected". It may be subtle, but the implication is clear -- delegates elected at caucuses aren't "elected". They are ... something less. Remember, Clinton can't win based on the math. The rules -- the "process" -- are her enemy. The only way she can win is by having the super delegates ignore all of Obama's clear advantages -- a coup by super delegate. And the way that coup is by tearing Obama down and discrediting the process that gave Obama those advantages. But here's the rub -- the "process that gave Obama those advantages" includes latte drinkers, and black people, and young people, and red state Democrats, and small state Democrats, and blue states that voted for Obama. So it's a sort of Catch-22 -- she needs the super delegates to abandon the winner for her loser campaign, but the way she's trying to win them over is by insulting their very states and constituencies. Harry Reid, for one, is tired of her antics. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Wednesday defended his state’s January caucus, saying it created a "tremendous sea change on how politics are looked at in Nevada." His comments came as the campaign for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has increasingly criticized the caucus system, which has favored Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in the two senators’ quest for their party’s presidential nomination. Clinton won the popular vote in the Nevada caucus, but she has fallen short on a number of other caucuses, including Saturday’s in Wyoming. And as Democrats around the country see Clinton insulting their states and constituencies, don't think they're not taking that into consideration as they mull their own votes. And don't think the matter of coattails -- witness IL-14 -- is going unnoticed. Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.), who at first endorsed Clinton but then switched to Obama, said he thought Obama would do more to help Democratic candidates in his state by boosting Democratic turnout. He said the nominee’s influence on other races "is a general thrust of the conversation" in the House between Obama supporters and lawmakers on the fence. That argument has proved persuasive with many red-state superdelegates, whose votes would go toward determining the party nominee at a brokered convention. Obama has won a slew of endorsements from Democrats representing solidly Republican states and districts. Obama has picked up congressional endorsements from Georgia, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, North and South Dakota, Mississippi, Kentucky, and West Virginia. Clinton has not collected congressional endorsements from any of these states, according to a tally kept by The Hill. Former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), an Obama booster, touted the disparity during a recent appearance on NBC’s "Meet the Press." "You ask any elected official, virtually any elected official west of the Mississippi, and they say, without equivocation, ‘We want Barack Obama at the top of the ticket.’ They’ll say that privately," said Daschle. Several Democratic governors from Western states that Bush won have endorsed Obama, including Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas and Janet Napolitano of Arizona. Clinton is in a bad place. She is behind in every metric that matters, and has been relegated to trashing our likely nominee and entire Democratic Party constituencies and states in order to make the case that she's somehow "more electable" despite all evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately for her, the super delegates aren't all cloistered in New York or in DC. They represent the United States of America. And outside of Clinton's Blue bastions, her insults aren't winning any new converts. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/13/125623/991/122/475844
I was kind of joking about Nader, mostly because I know Deckard is obsessed with him. I'd more likely cast a write-in vote or just vote in down ballot races and leave president blank. If you do a search you'll find that I've generally been pretty supportive of Hillary before this race. I've always hated her Iraq vote but I've also argued that her high negatives were not necessarily permanent and I've had a lot of nice things to say about her time in the Senate. Until this campaign, I've also always liked her better than her husband. I'm not a blind Hillary hater like so many other people. She worked hard to lose my vote. And she has lost it. Don't blame me for that. She crossed one line after another in her relentless pursuit of personal success over the party and the issues she campaigns on. And in the last couple weeks she crossed the final line. That's her fault, not mine.
Point two is an opinion that is irrelevant at this time because it is completely speculative. If point three had meaning, Mitt Romney would be the GOP nominee. Point four seems silly, given that the Democratic party will always win fewer states with the current political climate. Point six is no different from point four -- he's just throwing it in there to look as if he has more substance. Finally, point five is an absolute joke. In every poll since March 4, Clinton has been equal to or better than Obama against McCain. The only real discrepancy in the numbers came when Obama was in the midst of an 11-state winning streak with all momentum. Now, it's simply not true. In addition, while Obama's overall percentage support is holding steady, he's gradually going down among whites/moderates/Republicans while going even further up among blacks. Given the demographics of a general election, that's not a good trend. Kos is a complete joke. He's intelligent and has connections, but his bias and agenda has completely taken over in the past month. (And no, I'm not the only person saying that, and no, these people aren't all Clinton supporters.) By comparison, he makes TJ, bigtexxx and Ann Coulter look like unbiased observers.
What is the popular vote difference today (counting Florida)? Also, do those totals include Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine ?
About 400,000. That wouldn't include the four caucus states, but also wouldn't include Michigan's primary, which would likely level things out.
No, I was talking about a hypothetical re-vote primary. I fully acknowledge that without re-votes in Florida and Michigan, there's no point in even discussing this. It's over.
The popular vote argument is unfair, as it discounts all of the caucus states, which are undervalued in comparison to the primary states. Including Michigan is pointless.
How does it undervalue them? With the exception of four states, the caucus voters are released. And even in those four states, the percentages and total voters are released, so you can easily approximate what the margin would be. I think I read it was around 100,000 more for Obama, but I'm not for certain.
Also, if you want to talk unfair, how about Nevada and Texas -- where more voters selected Clinton than Obama yet Obama came out with more delegates in each? Nothing in this process is 100 percent fair. However, the majority of the general public and the majority of politicians have consistently said that the overall popular vote total is more important to them than the overall delegate total. I agree with that.
It undervalues the caucus states, because turnouts are lower in caucuses. Look at Maine (pop. 1,274,923) - the tally broke down to 2,079-1,397. In neighboring New Hampshire (pop. 1,235,786), it was 112,238-104,757. Maine's totals would need to be weighted in some way to make it an even playing field.
Well said. I'm glad to know you weren't one of the permanent Hillary haeters, of which we hear from so many. I will vote for Hillary over McCain, but I hoped I dont have to and I am sure glad that I voted Obama. I actually felt sorry for Hillary up until about 1 day after the Texas Primary. Not now. Sad thing is I am sure the GOP will be even rougher on Obama in their attempt to win the election. It will be vicious. It will be racist. Just look at anti-Obama threads on the bbs today. Combine that with the typical the Commies, the boogey man the Muslim terrorists are out to get you and I feel folks might go for old bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran McCain who will continue the Bush-McCain doctrine of permanent war.
If 244,458 people caucused in Washington and Obama won 67.56 %, then what is the total number of votes Obama gained there? Over 165,000 ? http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/351601_caucus16.html
I already addressed those four -- the percentages and overall vote turnout is known, so it's not difficult to estimate what the total was. On the flip side, it's also clear that the caucus system favors Obama, and that if the turnout were proportionately larger in those states, the ratios wouldn't have remained as much in Obama's favor. Even so, I agree that it's not a perfect system. But I think approximating the totals from the four unreleased caucus states such as Maine and using an overall popular vote total is a much more legitimate way to measure the will of the public than the delegate count.
No, that would be his total number of votes. To get the number of votes he gained, you'd have to then subtract Clinton's total from that. With Clinton getting 31.2 percent, that would give her around 76,270 votes.... giving Obama a net gain of just under 89,000.
By turnout, are you referring to the caucus turnout, or turnout in the past general election? I agree, the primary system needs fixing. However, that will have to wait until 2012. You just can't change the rules midstream.
I'm not good with percentages, so I used this: http://www.onlineconversion.com/percentcalc.htm. 165,155? Where are the totals (attendance) for Iowa, Maine, and Nevada.
