I don't view Clinton winning the popular vote as a near mathematical impossibility. I suppose that's where we'll have to disagree.
How can you "except" that?! That's the crux of the whole deal. It wasn't until she pulled this crap about her and McCain being qualified for C-in-C that I decided unequivocably I could never support her. It was an audacious and unprecedented move in a primary regardless of party. And she didn't do it once, she did it for weeks. And Bill continued it just last week, saying wouldn't it be nice if we had two candidates who loved this country. And of course I expect the Democrat to be hit hard and even below the belt by the Republican. I do not expect it from a fellow Democrat. And if it wasn't for this "exception" (which isn't an exception), I would have no problem whatsoever with this playing out however it does. It's all good though. Hillary's scorched earth kitchen sink stuff is responsible more than anything else for the wave of supers heading toward Obama. And soon she will have to face a reality of her own making.
You're right. Her shot at winning the popular vote is better than a "near mathematical impossibility." For the record, you've kept your cool very well through this thread, I really respect that. I can't read my tone, so if it's snide I apologize.
I wouldn't say I particularly embrace this type of politics -- I simply don't care. I also wouldn't call it deceptive politics, because there's very little policy involved that impacts the average person. I'd call it deceptive campaigning, largely for uninformed voters who make snap judgments based on soundbites and personalities. I expect the losing candidate to make manuevers that some would question the ethics of, because I've seen it all my life. Would it be ideal if they didn't? I suppose -- but honestly, I don't particularly care. I choose my candidates based on issues of policy and whether their views best represent my own. I would love to have an engaging, objective debate and discuss Clinton's positives instead of the mud-slinging fest that this has turned into. But the tone of this thread makes it clear that this isn't the place to do that.
Agreed and echoed on both points. I have been willfully snide at times (I can't help myself) but I'm sorry for that. Hillary winning the popular vote is not a near mathematical impossibility; it's just an extreme improbability. Unfortunately for her, it seems the only way she can change that math meaningfully is by harshly attacking Obama. And that strategy, more than anything, seems to be driving supers away from her and toward him. She still has a slim shot at winning the popular vote though. But (given the fact that MI and FL seem to be out of the picture at least until we know who our nominee is) it involves a perfect storm of a great victory in PA (around 20%), a better than clear victory in IN (around 10%) and an upset in NC. Each of these things is unlikely as of today and she needs them all to happen to win the popular vote. Worse for her, the momentum is clearly with Obama.
Thanks, and no, it's not particularly snide -- I respect your argument. I think it's easier for me because I legitimately like both of these candidates. If it seems at times like that might not be the case, it's because the Obama view has already been expressed by a number of posters here in cases where I side with him. On the other hand, it seems I'm in the minority sometimes on issues of Clinton support, so I feel more inclined to post then so that my perspective is brought to the debate. If/when Clinton loses, I'm perfectly happy to support Barack and vote for him in November. That's why I try not to get overly emotional. I'm fine with the alternative.
I would love that. Why don't you start a new thread? I'd love to hear your unvarnished, policy-driven reasons for supporting Clinton over Obama. To my mind, there's very, very little difference between them on policy. In fact, I prefer her health care plan to his though I don't think the differences between the two will survive the Congressional approval process. But to me they're pretty much the same on policy. As such, my decision is based on a number of other things. I'd be very happy to have that discussion in another thread if you like. And I promise to try as hard as I can to stay on my best behavior.
Oh I agree, they're very, very similar. That's why I have zero problems voting for Obama should he get the nomination. But there are a couple of issues which I've discussed before in which I prefer Clinton, and I'll elaborate on those in another thread. I would start one now, but I'm supposed to be working, so I'm trying to keep my responses short and delve into deeper analysis when I have a bit more time. (Ironically, I'm supposed to be compiling an up-to-date Senate endorsement list, which I suppose I'll get to once I finish this post... haha.)
Josh Marshall echoes my thinking on all this exactly in the piece below. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/186588.php 03.31.08 -- 2:55PM // link | recommend (16) STICKIN' There's been a fierce and now apparently fading argument over the last week over whether Hillary Clinton should drop out of the nomination race or, more pointedly, whether she's under some sort of obligation to do so. Not just in this race but in general I've always taken a dim view of people trying to muscle candidates to drop out of campaigns, usually on the basis of long odds or when it comes from insider pundit types pushing the idea that there's something undignified about keeping a campaign going after it looks like you probably won't win -- something I've never understood and don't agree with. So when people have asked me whether I think Hillary should drop out I've said I don't think she's under any obligation to do so but that I do think, with her odds now this long, she should not be running a campaign that seems to go out of its way not simply to compete but to damage the likely nominee as a general election candidate and attempt to discredit the nomination process itself. But when I was writing out my take on her interview over the weekend with Post, I realized that I hadn't made clear enough in what I'd written, or even really in my own head, how much the two things are really combined. As I said in that post, I don't think Hillary's claim that she's going to stay in the race through the convention in Denver is really about Denver, or staying through August or even till June. It's about keeping her troops motivated and confident so that she can keep in the game through April and May. And here I think we see the pattern. Hillary doesn't want to run for president in 2nd or 3rd gear. It's beneath her dignity. And I don't mean that sarcastically. It really is. She's a powerful United States senator, former First Lady, etc. She wants to win. And if she's still in it she wants to run full bore with the money you need to run a serious campaign, the crowds, poll numbers, etc. She's not some Huckabee figure who's going to hang around with little chance of winning It really is all or nothing. You've got to convince your supporters, donors and to at least some degree the media that you're really in it, and in it with a shot. Otherwise you face the classic problem of a cascade failure. Poor fundraising generates bad press stories, which depress turnout at rallies, which create more bad press stories and eventually no press stories, etc. It's no different from the precarious position any campaign faces when the odds aren't looking good. And so we have this vicious cycle in which the longer Hillary's odds become the further she has to up the ante to keep her candidacy credible -- in other words, the more forcefully she has to question the legitimacy of the nomination process and the more aggressively she has to push the idea that Obama can't win the general election or is not qualified to be president. (For example, the argument that the Clinton campaign now appears to be making to funders and the press is that Obama literally cannot win the general. And thus she's not only entitled but actually obligated to do whatever it takes to ensure that he's not the nominee.) Without making real progress on one of those fronts, the premise of the candidacy just becomes too difficult to sustain. And when that fails just throw up lots of nonsense about the popular vote in primary states or blue states or significant states, or whatever. I think there are a lot of people who would actually like to see the race play out as long as neither candidate is going out of their way to make their opponent unviable in the general. But thinking over what I've said above, I'm just not sure how realistic that is. --Josh Marshall
Ok, this thread is about to outlive it's usefulness, but I need to talk about the caucus argument. Do I think popular vote is a better reflection of the will of the voters than caucas results? Yep. However- I would not go so far as to say that a caucus is "morally wrong" and is a "flaw in the system." You do, after all, have people supporting their candidates and voting. It would be silly to discount the process entirely. But that is what has been happening here- treating this as black and white, trying to illegitimize Obama's lead by saying that caucuses don't count altogether. A caucus favors certain voters and certain candidates. In this campaign it obviously favors Obama. But that doesn't totally illegitimize the delegates he's gained from that process, any more than it would be fair to negate all delegates gained in closed primaries in favor of open ones. This kind of discussion smacks of the idea that there is an "ideal" way to vote, and Hillary is shortchanged because she's not getting ideal votes in her favor. A thread debating just open vs. closed primaries would be a hearty debate indeed. That is to say, the ideal method of voting in order to best reflect the will of the voters is not universally agreed upon. (But I personally would prefer open primaries to caucuses. That's just me.) If you take a look at the popular vote count on http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html You will notice that the caucus states of Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine have not released popular vote totals. Realclearpolitics estimates Obama would gain another 110,224 popular votes if they were included, but that's an estimate. Is victory by popular vote nationwide fair, if popular vote was not universally employed throughout the elections? I still prefer popular vote to delegate count, but I make this point to show that there isn't a universally perfect, clean way to say who's got the most votes, delegates, whatever. Much has been said about caucuses favoring students and being unfavorable to mothers and the elderly. I think far more important than that is the fact that caucuses favor voters who are passionate about their candidate and are willing to go the extra mile for him/her. That counts for something. It's not like Obama's victories would disappear if the caucuses were supplanted by primaries. Many of his wins were massive. Some by more than 30 points. Many by over 20. He'd be enjoying a comfortable lead, regardless.
While we're on the subject of caucuses, could somebody please explain why they are of natural benefit to Obama? Caucuses are won by ground games. Why was Obama's so much better than hers? Hillary had the money, the momentum, a gigantic advantage in establishment (and super-delegate) support and a machine that had successfully been through all this before. The Clintons had the benefit of more than 16 years doing this stuff. Why was Obama better than them at it? And what does it say about "real solutions" or management or judgment that he overcame such incredible odds to supplant her as the frontrunner? Can you imagine what we'd have thought about the current state of affairs as recently as December? What he's accomplished in that short time (and what she's squandered) is nothing short of incredible. What does it say about Clinton's leadership that her campaign literally had no post-Super Tuesday strategy and failed to come up with one when necessary? For all the credit she received for NH, NV and March 4, all she really managed to do was to survive, and that only barely. And this was supposed to be the unbeatable candidate. Obama had no natural, built in caucus strategy that I'm aware of. From here, it seems he just outworked and outwitted her. To come back now and suggest caucuses are un-Democratic feels very much like sour grapes.
To piggy back on batman's comments, the caucus system isn't knew, and while some might feel it is advantageous to some voters and leaves others out, it was known factor by both candidates at the beginning of the process. So if it is a flaw, it is fair flaw in that both candidates have the opportunity to prepare for them.
At which Clinton, in the week before TX, said her team was "surprised" and "they didn't know" about how the TX system worked.
C'mon batman don't be so naive. Of course Obama has a natural advantage in the caucus states. His big black scary supporters intimidate Hillary's meek, white supporters into voting for Obama at the caucus sites. Or something. Ask Rocket Rich or tj, they seem to know about this stuff.
