Poll: Plurality Of Dems Says Victory Delivered By Super-Delegates "Not Legitimate"
Here, buried in this week's NBC/Wall Street Journal poll of registered, are some interesting numbers on the question of how Democrats would react if the super-delegates delivered the nomination to the candidate that isn't leading in the pledged-del count:
If One of the candidates loses among delegates selected by voters but still wins the nomination by winning among superdelegates, would you consider that nominee legitimate, would you consider that nominee NOT legitmate, or do you not have an opinion either way?Would consider nominee legitimate 29%
Would consider nominee NOT legitimate 38%
No opinion either way 28%
My bet is that these numbers would shift dramatically, probably more towards Obama, if this were to suddenly loom as a real possibility and focus public attention on the argument over it.
Advertisement
Comments (170)
You mean to say that a victory handed to the loser of the delegate race by the Supers would not be seen as legitimate?
March 27, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
http://www.votenic.com
Last Week's Results Just Posted!
New Video "America The Beautiful" Piano.
Vote Weekly!!!
March 27, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Death to Spammers!
March 27, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish they'd ask the same question only regarding the popular vote.
March 27, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I grant you that it would be an interesting poll result to see, but what practical import would it have. Obama is ahead in both metrics right now and shows no signs of losing either by the end of voting. As such, in practical terms the impact of "legitimate" vs "illegitimate" would swing the same way regardless of the question asked.
March 27, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most people agree that if Hillary has a chance to catch up in any count, it would be the popular vote. Yes, MI and FL revotes are dead as of right now, but this has been a crazy election and you never know what might happen. I'd be interested to see if the public finds the popular vote of the pledged delegate vote as the most democratic.
March 27, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
People fundamentally like the idea of a popular vote. But there are some very good reasons that is not how we nominate candidates and it's not how we elect presidents. Who the hell would care about states like Wyoming or Deleware or Rhode Island if it weren't for delegates and electors? Adn whether you like it or not, the rules allow for caucuses and delegates even all that out. The time to adjust the rules is before the game, not in the middle of it.
March 27, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one is asking to change the rules. We're asking the superdelegates, who both Obama and Clinton are relying on to hand them victory, to look at the popular vote and weight it more heavily than the pledged delegates of which many are chosen at caucuses. I'm sure I don't need to reiterate the reasons why caucuses are less democratic than secret ballot primaries.
March 27, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish they'd ask the same question only regarding states that matter.
March 27, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortuanatly as Obama has so selfishly blocked any chance of a revote in Florida or Michigan there is nothing "legitimate" about the whole process. Of course if I was Obama I would have blocked a mail in vote as well as it would have been my own stupid Idea to have a mail in vote if I was Obama and I was as big a Hypocrite as him.
The SAME Barack Obama who is co-sponsor of the Senate version of this bill, "The Universal Right To Vote By Mail Act", which declares that NOT ALLOWING mail in voting in every state (28 do through absentee balloting) disenfranchises voters, now opposes a mail in revote. I have heard of chutzpah, but this one takes the cake.
What a scumbag.
March 27, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama and Hillary both so "selfishly" agreed to not count Michigan and Florida.
Convenience isn't a virtue.
March 27, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am talking about the revote plans, obviously, which Hillary supported and Obama selfishy did not.
March 27, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yah, you're so right. Having FL, of all states, proceed with a revote by mail despite state law and despite the fact that it took Oregon ten (!) years to perfect their vote-by-mail system would have been a great idea!
Let's also completely overlook the fact that the democrats WITHIN those states couldn't get their act together to save their lives. Obama may not have advocated for revotes but he certainly didn't have the power to actually stop them if the states had gotten off their asses. You give him way too much power over state politics.
March 27, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
tara, I must say you are mistaken. The revotes could only proceed if both candidates agreed. As one wanted all voters to be heard, Hillary, and the other Obama, did not, there was no chance of a revote. So the blame is 100% on Obama that the voters in two bellweather states are now disenfranchised. It also dooms any chance he had in the general. That is why he should resign immediatly if he cared about the good of the party.
March 27, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course any sane person would want Florida to count just as it is as both candidates were on the ballot and only Obama cheated by running national ads that he knew would appear in Florida.
March 27, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone needs a "reality check" so here goes:
1) FL + MI committees screwed up. Had they not screwed up, everyone would now be happy, no problems.
2) FL + MI could have held full and fair revotes, and nobody "blocked" that. FL + MI didn't want to pay for full revotes. Again, all 50 states have the committees of FL + MI to thank for this screwed up situation.
3) The rules are not simply handed down from the DNC, they're *negotiated* and a compromise is *agreed* upon with other states to keep everyone as happy as possible. MI and FL petulance didn't just screw the DNC, the candidates, and their own residents. They screwed all the other 48 states who play by the rules. Way to go MI and FL election committees.
4) In both states Republicans were egging them on to do such a foolish thing, knowing it would backfire and wreak havoc in the Dem primary. Again, way to go MI and FL election committees.
5) There are good reasons for the rules. Everybody can't be 1st, and small states need to be a part of the process. Candidates need plausible travel schedules and a short schedule means small states will never see them. Also small states don't count for many delegates, but are a good oppurtunity to vet candidates.
6) Large states like my home CA ultimately have enormous weight, regardless of when they vote. CA moved up the primary (which was also stupid) but at least it was only to Feb 5th and CA managed to secure an agreement from the DNC and other states to do so.
7) There's no precedent for "big swing states get to go first." If anything, swing states should NOT go first, but let candidates be vetted a bit as they would be in the GE, and then make a considered decision. Regardless, the votes count the same, and voters are free to support their candidate of choice.
March 27, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary didn't support caucusing in those states. It was her way or the highway, her way or just complain that losing the nomination is everyone else's fault.
She started this thing with every advantage a candidate could imagine -- money, party support, name recognition. And then the actual voting started...
March 27, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
twirling fartknocker, I must say your name is VERY appropriate for an Obama supporter, why would you be in favor of Caucuses when they are much less democratic than letting everyone vote???
March 27, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
and "dem" "billc" is a very appropriate name for a troll on a dem-leaning site.
anywho, I didn't say I favored caucuses. I said Hillary was against them. read a little closer next time, dickhead
March 27, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be abundantly clear, since you suffer from reading comprehension issues, my comment was in response to this:
"am talking about the revote plans, obviously, which Hillary supported and Obama selfishy did not."
Hillary did not support a "revote" in any form. She "selfishy" wanted them to take the form she thought favored her the most. She learned, after pouring millions into Iowa, that Obama was a much better organizer in caucuses and since then she's acted like they don't matter at all, even though they are a long-established part of the primary process.
You paint with much too broad a brush.
March 27, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ever heard of moral hazard? Yes, let's just let the states pretend it all never happened and have a do-over.
Don't worry, the delegates will be seated.
March 27, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only scumbag is Hillary and her rabid cult of followers. The Michigan delegates loosing their seating was thier fault, now they whine about how aweful it is that they got busted trying to game the system.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/3/7/could_michigan_and_florida_decide_the
So cry me a river. If you should be mad at anyone it is at Hillary.
March 27, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nisleib, that was possibly the most worthless post ever.
Tha facts are Hillary pushed for a revote in both Michigan and Florida both of which she won easily.
Obama blocked the mail in vote for both states even though he was co-sponsor of the Senate version of this bill, "The Universal Right To Vote By Mail Act", which declares that NOT ALLOWING mail in voting in every state (28 do through absentee balloting) disenfranchises voters, now opposes a mail in revote.
These are facts not some little chitchat you post from people no one ever heard of.
March 27, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've never heard of Democracy Now? You've never heard of the Nation? How sad are you?
And my point stands; Michigan moved its primary up to game the system in Hillary's favor. Why do you think Hillary was the only person to leave her name on the ballot?
And prove to me that Obama killed the revote? I haven't seen any evidence of that. Clinton clones like to say that, but they can't prove it.
Oh, and by the way, mail in votes are not legal in Florida, so that option is out. Michigan has a long history of caucus, but Hillary vetoed that idea, so who is the villian here again?
March 27, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
"And prove to me that Obama killed the revote? I haven't seen any evidence of that."
Well considering Michigan wanted a mail in revote and Hillary was for it and the both had to be for it and they did not have one, I would say that was proof Obama blocked it. Of course this is The SAME Barack Obama who is co-sponsor of the Senate version of this bill, "The Universal Right To Vote By Mail Act", which declares that NOT ALLOWING mail in voting in every state (28 do through absentee balloting) disenfranchises voters, now opposes a mail in revote.
Scumbag alert!!!
March 27, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is the scumbag, and a lying scumbag to boot.
The cheapest and easiest legal way to have a revote is to caucus, and Hillary said no to that.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/03/07/clinton-says-no-to-a-caucus-do-over.html
And you still haven't shown me one piece of evidence that shows Obama blocked the vote by mail.
March 27, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
More nonsense. Neither campaign has actual control over how state parties hold their elections. You can make the assertion all you like but you have zero FACTS to back up your claim. Even if Obama screamed bloody murder (which he did not even object let alone scream about) it would not have matters. The state party would hold the election or not regardless of what either campaign said since neither campaign has a say in the matter either in the rules or from a legal stand-point.
You are pushing vapor.
March 27, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think most would object to the notion of voting by mail with forethought and plenty of time to roll it out. As I mentioned before, it took OR 10 years to get it right. And FL - please!
I want us out of Iraq but that's not the same as saying, let's pull out tomorrow.
March 27, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
THe instant you say Hillary "won" those states, you lose credibility.
March 27, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, were you making a point? I couldn't understand you amid all that whining.
If you have a problem with FL/MI not being counted, write a letter to the state parties there. Or take it up with the DNC. Sen. Obama just played by the rules as set up by the party...but you already know that.
March 27, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The interesting thing about these accusations is that they are all CONJECTURE. Care to provide some solid proof of those claims?
But I will concede the point that Obama is not particularly in favor of a re-vote. Of course, Obama didn't write the DNC rules stripping MI and FL of their delegates. neither did he pass the bills in those state legislatures moving their respective primary dates up.
Much like the right-wing media "echo chamber," too many Hillary supporters (and in some regards Obama supporters) simply repeat something that cannot be proved over and over again until others start assuming that it must be true.
This is manipulation, pure and simple, and I will not have any of it.
March 27, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Angry Vet. Florida and Michigan both wanted Mail in Revotes. Obama was dead set against them depite the fact that he was co-sponsor of the Senate version of a bill called, "The Universal Right To Vote By Mail Act", which declares that NOT ALLOWING mail in voting in every state (28 do through absentee balloting) disenfranchises voters, now opposes a mail in revote.
How can I not conclude anything but he wants to disenfranchese voters in Florida and Michigan?
Additionally how can I assume anything but that he will do anything and say anything to win even if he detroys the party in the process? And Obama supporters wonder why he has no credibility.
March 27, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the point of my snark about magic powers: how do you get from "dead set against them" (which I'll assume is true solely for purposes of asking the question) and "prevented them from revoting?" It is an unbridgable logical gap.
Barack Obama is not the boss of the Florida and Michigan legislatures, or of their Democratic parties. Even if he was President, he would not be the boss of them. If they had scheduled revotes that didn't break the DNC's rules, he would have had to participate even if he didn't like it because, follow along with me here, he's not the boss of them.
The legislatures and Democratic parties of both states had repeatedly flipped Obama off without worrying about whether it would displease him, so why, all of a sudden, did he suddenly have this mysterious power to stop them of which you speak when he didn't before?
My point here is that this is just a stupid goddamn propaganda ministry lie that appeals to the emotional need of her devoted followers to believe their problems are all the fault of The Forces of Evil Who are the Existential Threat to All Creation, but carries no sway with anyone else because it cannot withstand a modicum of critical scrutiny.
March 27, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The mail-in vote was never serious. It wasn't even legal in FL.
March 27, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
dembillc,
I understand your advocating for your candidate by constantly bringing up MI and FL. The point is that neither candidate is responsible for "disenfranchisement". The state dem parties are.
If any re vote or other means of allowing FL and MI to have a determinative vote at this stage in the is allowed, the entire process is meaningless. Allowing a re vote would reinforce the idea that there is no penalty for ignoring the rules, instead, break the rules and you will be rewarded by having more influence in the final determination.
In the next election every state would jump to the front of the line because there would be no downside. (I know in my home state IL, many are upset about IA and NH always going first) We would end up with a one day national primary. If that is what we truly want, then the national dem party should take up the idea for next time.
This time however, the delegates should be seated, split 50/50, and told to go back to their home states and explain to their voters that the way to get fair treatment by the national party is to play by the national party's rules.
March 27, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
How in the world do you go from voters thinking it's wrong to overturn a set of elections to Obama is a scumbag. Do you even bother to read any of Greg or Eric's posts before you cut and paste your screeds?
March 27, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's right. It is one of things people keep overlooking. Hillary calls for let the people vote, let FL and MI vote...and by the way, when it's over the supers are going to overturn it all.
March 27, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
None of this is the point. The only ones responsible for "disenfranchising" voters are the state parties that voted for moving up primaries, against stated national party. ANY re vote or other legitimization of this will destroy the entire process. If you let the parties who broke the rules now have a weighted decision on the eventual outcome,and therefore rewarding them, every other state in the union will jump to the front of the line in the next election. (I know my home state of Illinois is always upset that IA and NH go first) You will have a one day national primary. If this is what we want, then we need to get the national dem party to vote for it before the next time. Otherwise, seat the delegates, split the votes 50/50, and tell everyone they have to play by the rules as agreed to.
March 27, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee maybe because Obama blocked the revotes in two states? Sounds pretty scummy to me.
I am assuming that you understand the revotes were that both candidates had to agree to them, and only one of them, Obama did not.
March 27, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Factually bunk.
If the states chose a re-vote, neither campaign has a say in overruling them at all.
You have had it explained to repeatedly by several people and you seem to miss the salient FACTS.
Here is how The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve put it directly (and factually):
What part of that do you not get?
March 27, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
again, the decision not to continue the Florida revote was decided by Democrats in Florida.
Obama had nothing to do with it.
March 27, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's this absence of leadership when it comes to actions that I think is one of Obama's weaknesses.
March 27, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh?
He has no control over the Florida Democratic Party or the Florida State Legislature.
Your personal (and almost laughable) opinion is wholly unconnected to the topic being discussed either to the comment you were replying or the thread therein.
March 27, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
And yet again, I am compelled to ask, from whence did he acquire this power you say he used to stop the Michigan and Florida legislatures from passing laws and/or the state parties from submitting workable delegate selection plans to the DNC? Is there some law I don't know about? Did he use the Jedi mind trick on the weak minded fools in their legislatures?
Or, just possibly, could it be that the tendency of Hillary, her campaign and her supporters to blame everything that doesn't go the way they wanted it to on anyone but her is sympomatic of why she's lost this thing?
March 27, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama supporters trying to change the rules in the middle of the game?
March 27, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
nope, just arguing that supers should consider the pledged delegates as a guide.
My posts, and any polls, are not binding on any way to any Super.
They can vote for Micky Mouse if they wish.
March 27, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but did this poll include voters living in states that don't count?
March 27, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
How will we know who got the most delegates and popular vote if FL and MI are not included?
March 27, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
because, FL and MI won't give Hillary enough pledged delegates.
That's how we know. We can count them, and Obama still wins.
They will be seated in Denver, and Obama will be the nominee.
I can't wait until June 4th.
March 27, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously.
Can you even begin to comprehend the feeling we're going to have when Hillary finally bows out? It's going to happen eventually, there is no doubt. Just a matter of when.
We're going to be watching TV or dicking around online and a breaking news alert is going to pop up saying Hillary Clinton has suspended her campaign. I think it’s going to be the single most satisfying sensation I’ll ever feel.
March 27, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I hope you mean politically that would be the most satisfying thing you ever felt. If not...
March 27, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
What are you, psychic?
Or just playing the Obama inevitability card?
Obama could lose every contest remaining because of Wright. What, then, if she comes so very close to his popular vote and delegate totals, but we have no FL and MI? When it is prefectly reasonable to conclude that those states would put her over the top? What then?
That scenerio is a long shot, but hardly impossible.
If that happens, I would expect the SDs to side with Clinton. Not only because FL and MI should be counted (especially since FL had all names on the ballot and she won by 16% and Obama was the only one on cable TV w/ ads), but because a total loss from here on out would show that Obama is unelectable.
We don't know what white voters are going to do after Wright. We'll have to see. But Obama and his supporters should stop acting like Clinton has no chance and quit.
I've said it before...The NE Patriots would have loved to cut the Super Bowl several minutes short, but it just doesn't work that way; as we clearly saw how things can change in life, at the last minute.
March 27, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man. That's a lot of "ifs."
Good luck with that.
March 27, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, IF it happens, your candidate will have really shot himself in the foot trying to block revotes.
March 27, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
More IFs. It must be hard when reality isn't on your side.
March 27, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, um, good luck with that.
But don't worry, this won't end before June 3rd, so there will be no "what-ifs".
March 27, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually polling shows the Wright controversy isn't having nearly the impact that Hillary's Bosnia Gate is having.
The Clintons are liars, we all know it. None of us have a problem figuring the meaning of the word "is."
David Geffen nailed it over a year ago when he said, "Everybody in politics lies, but they (the Clintons) do it with such ease, it’s troubling."
The entire column is well worth reading. Geffen nails the current situation.
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/opinion/21dowd.html
March 27, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well Nisleib, wait until tehy hear these new doosies from Barack's "spiritual advisor".
Obama's spiritual advisor Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. is at it again, this time taking aim at Italians -- expounding a two millenium grudge against the sons and daughters of Rome -- and their (allegedly) breath-altering prediliction for scampi and pesto.
From the Wright-written eulogy for scholar Asa Hilliard in the Dec. 2007 edition of the Trumpet magazine: "(Jesus') enemies had their opinion about Him... The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans."
After calling Jesus's crucifixion "a public lynching Italian style" executed in "Apartheid Rome," he goes on to claim that white supremicists run the U.S. government:
"The government runs everything from the White House to the schoolhouse, from the Capitol to the Klan, white supremacy is clearly in charge, but Asa, like Jesus, refused to be defined by an oppressive government because Asa got his identity from an Omnipotent God."
His spiritual advisor thinks the goverment runs the KKK? No wonder Michelle Obama hates America.
March 27, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
A) You're an idiot
B) The story is dead. It is not being covered. Unless Rev. Wright is found with a dead body the press no longer cares, it is yesterday's news.
C) The new story is all about Hillary's many lies. Her claims to "experience" are all being shown to be false. Since Hillary's "experience" is the cornerstone of her campaign, she now has nothing to run on but her cheating liar of a husbands coat tails. Good luck with that.
March 27, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The NE Patriots would have loved to cut the Super Bowl several minutes short, but it just doesn't work that way; as we clearly saw how things can change in life, at the last minute.
That's a lame analogy. Proportional allocation of delegates means that every time Clinton scores, so does Obama. The analogy would only work if the primaries and caucuses were winner-take-all. Sorry, but it's over.
March 27, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point was that you may think you have it in the bag, but at the last minute your big head explodes.
You don't take into account that white voters may be telling pollsters one thing and will do another once they are alone in the voting booth.
We could see a total, spectacular collapse.
I know you Obama supporters don't like to hear ifs and buts, because it suggests there is a reality and possibilites that exist outside the fantasy world you have created in your cult of novice political observers.
Clinton could easily pass him in the popular vote in the remaining states and, given that FL and MI are off the table (thus we will have no official tally to decide whether or not the SDs will in fact be overturning the will of the people at all)the SDs will have more than enough reason to support Clinton. If Obama continues bleeding white voters, THAT MEANS HE IS UNELECTABLE. The SDs won't hesitate to support Clinton, if that's the case.
You act as if Clinton is some tea-cup poodle nipping at the toes of a St. Bernard, but this is a close race and Obama is just a politician, not Jesus capable of miracles.
You have been declaring Hillary Clinton dead since Iowa and yet she rises from the dead everytime. So, one of these two things is true: either Clinton is the most resilient politician in the history of the US or she never died and you all have always been full of sh*t.
March 27, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough. I guess we will see how this plays out in time. For my part, I am looking forward to point in a few months time when the data prove your thorough-going pessimism about your fellow citizens to be misguided.
March 27, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, man, I honestly hope you are right.
March 27, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, she can't easily pass him in the popular vote. North Carolina is nearly as large as Pennsylvania. Sorry.
March 27, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, and Obama could see his campaign end in NC. Or Clinton could see her campaign in there. But, this is my point exactly.
The consulting firm I work for just took on a candidate in NC and the buzz is not good at all for him there. White people are not happy with him in North Carolina...and that's putting it nicely.
NC has a lot of African Americans, but nothing at all like SC, MS, and AL. White people will decide that race. If white voters break heavily away from him there like they did in those other southern states (and that was pre-Wright, mind you), that's all she wrote for Obama. Not only because he will lose the state badly and that it will show the party establishment (and any sensible observer) that Obama is unelectable, but because it is the last state with a sizeable black vote.
I firmly believe NC is the last stand in this campaign. However, no matter who wins or loses that state, the other states will vote. I just mean NC will be the determining factor in what the SDs will ultimately do, and neither can win without them (especially w/ MI and FL off the table).
Or at least that's the buzz within the political class anyway, especially in NC and GA, where I work and talk to people....for what it is worth.
March 27, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The consulting firm I work for just took on a candidate in NC and the buzz is not good at all for him there. White people are not happy with him in North Carolina...and that's putting it nicely.
Uh huh. Thanks, but I'll take the word of the pollsters, who have Obama solidly ahead in NC.
March 27, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
No political operate in NC or GA believes that poll. Just so you know.
One week the polling company shows the race in a dead heat and the next week, after the company fundamentally alters its turnout model, shows the race 21% for Obama. That's the first reason no one believes it. Secondly, after Wright hit the scene and Obama's race speech was roundly praised, no one here, with a shred of experience in politics, believes that white people are being truthful in their responses.
Wright and "the speech" have rendered polling on Obama useless.
However, if Obama wins NC with a margin anywhere near that 21%, Clinton should immediately surrender because he's every bit of the rock star you all thought he was.
But, its hard to swallow. Especially for those of us with experience, because we've seen this movie many times.
March 27, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I take random commenters on blogs who claim inside knowledge with a much larger grain of salt than I do a public poll. Sorry, but there's really no reason to believe a word you say.
March 27, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hm, I am not nearly so sour about Obama's chance as is MKyleM, but I would not put too much stock in that one PPP poll. As far as I am concerned, polling this far out is pretty well pointless anyway, except to satsify the appetites of junkies like ourselves. A week is an eternity in politics, let alone five weeks.
March 27, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mistake going into the convention in a close enough second in elected delegates that anything is possible with the supers. Nobody expects her to overtake him in elected delegates before then. Obama's problem is the fact that, he hasn't been able to put her away electorally, and won't have a clinching elected delegate count before the convention. That's his peril. I'm not saying that he won't win, just that the interpretation is based on the wrong assumption.
A delegate is not a delegate. There is a difference between elected ones and supers. The supers were designed to keep some power in the hands of the party pros when the primary system expanded. It can prevent an insurgency candidacy from hijacking what they see as 'their' party. Once this election is over, that entire system needs a serious overhaul.
March 27, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Poll: 38% Say Victory Delivered By Super-Delegates "Not Legitimate"
Why has the thread link title from TPM home page been written this way?
Are you trying to con people into thinking that a greater number support the other viewpoint?
Why does it not show your actual and accurate thread title?
Poll: Plurality Says Victory Delivered By Super-Delegates "Not Legitimate"
For cripes sake. Try to be somewhat consistent and you will be less subject to complaints about perceived bias!
March 27, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perceived bias? I think it is pretty blatant.
1/2 of the time, Obama's face, name, and brand are plastered all over this website.
Do you think Marshal et al are doing this for free? No, they are making money off of their "bias".
March 27, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, because FL and MI aren't going to make a difference? But hey, don't take my word for it, let's see what Hillary's supporters are saying:
Well there you go; she just can't past the math.
March 27, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why the hell do you read the site if you think they're on the take? I'm so sick of reading conspiracy theories about the people who run TPM on its own comment threads. I don't watch Fox News because they're in cahoots with the GOP. If you think TPM is in cahoots with someone you oppose, why are you here?
March 27, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does that mean that they are also biased in favor of Scientology? I notice an awful lot of ads for Scientology here lately, but at the same time another series of ads purporting to dissuade folks from any organized religion. Surely one cannot be biased both in favor of Scientology and against organized religion.
Perhaps, then, we might safely conclude that the ads are not really indicative of any predilections of the blog or bloggers?
March 27, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I absolutely love an argument but that is just ridiculous.
I don't think TPM is pushing Scientology, but I do know they are making money off of that ad.
I know they are making money off the Obama ads, which is perfectly fine itself. However, I have yet to see one Clinton ad. So, they either don't want to lose the Obama cash cow or simply favor him.
Either way, it is biased.
March 27, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
So the possibility that Clinton is not buying ads (because she does not have the money) is not to be considered? Forgive me if I still find your argument rather wanting in logical rigor.
March 27, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have to pay for the ads to get them to show up. I really doubt that TPM is refusing any candidate the opportunity to advertise.
March 27, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
obama's ads are splashed all over this site because he's the only Dem candidate with enough campaign cash to pay for them. hillary is in serious debt and isn't raising as much money as obama---so she can't afford nearly as many ads. so much of her money is being spent maintaining her mammoth campaign orgaization and paying the exorbitant fees of her pricey pollsters, hack consultants, and other has-been Democratic superstars.
additionally, hillary is less likely to advertise on progessive blogs, because it's widely know that most progressive blog readers are now leaning strongly toward obama. this just isn't fertile ground for her---so why waste the few pennies she has lying around when she could use that spare change to amplify right-wing sponsored hitjobs on the future of the Democratic party?
i don't think this site has more obama ads because it's pro-obama. it's just business.
and you're pathetic.
March 27, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anybody really seriously believe that Hillaryland has even the remotest chance of getting support from enough superdelegates to take the nomination? Their reality distortion field isn't nearly that powerful! It ain't gonna happen -- it isn't interesting.
March 27, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. It is really interesting to watch Hillary supporters, including the big contributors that wrote that lovely letter to Pelosi, try to argue that the superdelegates can throw the race. Meanwhile Obama has gotten something like 60% of the SD endorsements in the last couple of months and several Clinton SDs have actually abandoned her. It is all irrelevant if they can throw the race to her or not, because they won't.
March 27, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
60%? I thought it was more like 90+%!!
March 27, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even worse, the implication of the "big donor" letter was not only could the [i]super[/i]-delegates throw the race, but so could the [i]pledged[/i] delegates. It's despicable.
March 27, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
No.
She needs, what, 70% of the remaining delegates to get the nomination? Good luck with that.
March 27, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink