Report: Popular Vote Win For Hillary Is All But Impossible
Bloomberg News takes a look at what Hillary needs to do to earn a popular vote win, and finds that she basically needs to do the political equivalent of pitching a no-hitter, hitting for the cycle, and pulling an unassisted triple play -- all in one game:
Clinton would need a 25-point victory in Pennsylvania, plus 20-point wins in later contests in West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico. Even that scenario assumes Clinton, 60, would break even in Indiana, North Carolina, South Dakota, Montana and Oregon -- a prospect that's not at all certain.More than just big margins, Clinton would need record voter turnout too. In Pennsylvania, she would need a turnout of 2 million, about half the state's registered Democrats; in the 2004 primary, about 800,000 voted. She would also need turnout to almost double in other states where she leads, and reach some 1 million in Puerto Rico, which is about how many Democratic- leaning voters went to the polls in a 2004 gubernatorial election.
As I reported here recently, Hillary advisers and major supporters are divided over the question of whether she can continue to woo super-dels without a popular vote win, with top adviser Harold Ickes saying it can be done, and many others saying they think it's politically untenable.
The problem for Hillary is that without a popular vote win she has no way of muddying the waters or arguing that the Democratic electorate didn't deliver a clear verdict in favor of Obama.
Late Update: It should be pointed out that the Bloomberg article doesn't include Florida or Michigan, for what that's worth.
Superdelegates are already heeding Howard Dean's call, both Obama and Clinton picked up a handful this week.
If the undecideds continue their 50/50 split, and there's no reason not to believe they're just as divided as the Democratic base, then Obama should have this wrapped up by Indiana.
April 21, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fearless prediction 2: Clinton by 5, or Obama by 2.
How's that for courage?
And Ron Paul will come in second to McCain.
April 21, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Good news is that Clinton can run again in 4 years, and Obama will be history.
April 21, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is Clinton's one shot and she knows it. She won't be any better positioned to run 4 years from now than she is today. Unfortunately for her, she has been met with a man who appears to be a game changing candidate and a desire for change in Washington, not just with the player but with the game itself.
April 21, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great form there.
April 21, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even if Obama is a wildly popular president in four years, I suspect Hillary will probably run against him anyway.
But it's nice to see you're acknowledging that Obama is going to win.
April 21, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Slumlord - It's obvious Hillary's staying in the race now as much to destroy Obama as she is on the off chance she's able to steal the nomination. That said, if she succeeds in damaging him enough for him to lose in November, most Democrats will not forget that, and there's not a chance in hell that she'd win the nomination in 2012. So this truly is a murder-suicide she's embarked on.
April 21, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
But...but...CAUCUSES! ...And SMALL STATES!...And RED STATES...and BLACK PEOPLE!!!!
When there's a will, there's a way.
April 21, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Clinton can file to have the 3/5ths Compromise reinstated. That might narrow the gap.
/endsarcasm
April 21, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please don't give her any ideas. Now we'll be hearing about this from Ed Rendell on next weeks Meet the Press.
April 21, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Glad Bloomberg is getting this out there, but the fact that he needs to just shows how much cotton people have stuffed in their ears.
We've all figured this out already. We've all done the math already. It's over. I'm not saying we shouldn't let the voters vote, but in the meantime, we should be concentrating on McCain.
I have taken to recommending every post with McCain in the headline. That's what matters. The Dem race is merely political theater.
April 21, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you - it's over and everyone knows it.
It feels to me - which I put out there because I don't know how it feels to others - but it feels to me like it's over and that she knows it and that this damn vote is pro forma because she can't change the math now - too late, too far against her.
April 21, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. Many of Hillary's supporters don't know it. I ran into one in the store this weekend, 60ish Boomer feminist type joyously telling everyone she meets about how excited she was to have seen Hillary earlier in the week, and how certain she was that Hillary would win North Carolina(!) (I also loved the way she ran around and shared the anti-Barack side of her thinking with all the black folks behind the various counters, serenely confident that they must be Hillary supporters as well, because, well, who wouldn't be?)
I am firmly convinced that at least half of Hillary's support comes from the innumerate, people who are so math-impaired that hard mathematical truths literally have no reality to them.
But at least I get the innumerate believers. I have no frakkin idea what's going on in the heads of the ones who do understand the math but are fanatically committed to bitter-ending it to the convention regardless.
April 21, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
You really have to watch the scene from NH where Hillary tears up.
She (thereby her followers) are supposedly battling to save the Democrats from themselves. They feel that Obama is such a flawed character that he cannot win the GE and even worse they think he his selling something they think the party will regret.
Of course it runs deeper than that, and is elucidated by others who know more than I. This is a power struggle over who controls the democratic party. The whole "Obama Electability" part is a cover up. Perhaps mixed with an unease over a black man running for president.
April 21, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's right. Obama has been easing slowly and firmly into the driver's seat formerly occupied by the Womanizer In Chief.
The ABC debate logic crystalizes in this context.
Thanks for the analysis!
Pax,
M.
April 21, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo! I'm especially referring to your 2nd paragraph there.
April 22, 2008 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton will just pick some arbitrary date on the calendar and try to make the case that more voters have voted for her since then and that means that momentum has shifted to her and away from Obama.
If there's one thing that Clinton's campaign has shown it's that the inconvenient reality of their situation just needs a different perspective.
April 21, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
This analysis neglects to account for Michigan and Florida. Do you honestly believe Clinton will not include both in her popular vote tally. "These voters must be counted!" They've been pushing the argument for months, and that's the reason.
In the end it will likely cause superdelegates to move towards Obama, however, Clinton WILL push this.
April 21, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the end it is my prediction that even if you count FL & MI she will not get the popular vote.
April 21, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton superdels Govs. Granholm and Crist both signed primary election legislation knowing it would lead to this exact train wreck. In typical Clintonian fashion, if there is enough sand in the air (say, Ross Perot), we can sneak through and "get elected." Bill Clinton did not bring in new dems, and the Congress gave us Newt.
MI and FL voters retain the power to eject their governors. This is democracy, and if you break the rules, luckily, you're not out. But you will wait until next time.
The delegations will be seated once the nominee is chosen, upon which all delegate votes will be counted.
Pax,
M.
April 21, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Crist is not a Clinton superdelegate. He is a republican, and and early McCain backer.
April 21, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not the best of news, but presumably this doesn't count florida?
April 21, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you include FL's popular vote, Obama is still currently up over 500,000.
What I find interesting is that none of the popular vote tallies I've found include TX caucus popular vote numbers. Not sure why? Because there is some overlap between the two? Not a very strong argument- the two are distinct contests, and would clearly wipe out any popular vote lead Clinton had in TX.
April 21, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's all overlap. You couldn't participate in the caucus unless you had voted in the primary. That was y0ur ticket in so to speak. Thus to count caucus participants as part of the popular vote amounts to counting the same people twice. That doesn't sound so good in a one person, one vote democracy.
April 21, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
WE ARE NOT COUNTING FLORIDA.
Florida moved it's primary in violation of DNC rules. legislators in Florida knew the consequences for this would be a stripping of primary delegates. as a result, all of the campaigns pledged to not campaign in Florida, and by and large they kept that promise. whatever results came out of Florida, therefore, are irrelevant. the election was not sanctioned: it may as well have been me holding a vote at a BBQ in my backyard. in the Democratic primary, the votes do not count towards delegates, because Florida has no delegates. those are the rules.
you can't say "i agree that this election in Florida is unsanctioned by the DNC, and therefore doesn't matter", and then when the election goes your way (by virtue of name recognition) say "THESE VOTES MUST BE COUNTED".
that is a prime example of dishonesty and disgusting politics. it is unacceptable.
April 21, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Almost as disgusting as discounting 10% of the country because a few legislators wanted to hold their votes earlier...
April 21, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Understandable, but where was Clinton before she realized that she wasn't going to stroll to the nomination? She wasn't fighting for these voters to be counted. She only began that narative when she realized that this was going to be a fight and that she may actually be behind to Obama.
She isn't fighting for their rights to vote, she is fighting for her right to be President!
April 21, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you and Clinton were really so righteous, you'd have raised hell when this was decided. But no - she signed on. So stop bitching, and pretending this is about voter rights. Such sanctimonious bullshit.
April 21, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correct, this analysis is based on Obama's lead if one omits MI & FL but includes estimates from IA, NV, ME and WA. That said, does this point really amount to anything of significance. Imagine that Sen Clinton does really well, albeit not as well as Bloomberg's analyst insists that she must in order to win. In other words, imagine that she wins big in the states where she wins (PA, KY, WV & PR) and Obama wins big in the states where he wins (NC, OR, MT and SD). Imagine that IN tips narrowly to Clinton. Then you might arrive at a scenario wherein she has the popular vote lead with FL and MI inlcuded but without IA, NV, ME & WA estimates, while he has the popular vote lead without MI & FL but with IA, NV, ME & WA. At that point, the popular vote becomes a hopelessly confusing metric, with no clear import, so it is hard to see how anyone is really going to be persuaded by it.
In other words, the whallop that "the popular vote" packs depends on its clarity of meaning. If she is ahead in the popular vote by some reckonings but not by other (equally reasonable) reckonings, I suppose that I find it hard to believe that the genuninely undecided superdelegates are going to be much impressed by arguments that make recourse to this metric.
April 21, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
True to some extent, though I'd argue that you shouldn't lump florida and michigan together. If Hillary came out ahead just counting Florida and not Michigan, that would be much more persuasive to superdelegates than if michigan also had to be counted.
April 21, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, sure, the less of a stretch that Clinton has to make in order to contrive a popular vote advantage, the more convincing that metric will be. That said, even including Florida is quite a stretch. You are asking supers to ignore the difference bewteen races where campaigning was free and unencumbered and races in which campaigning was not allowed and therefore only minimally practised.
Of course the supers are all actively involved in politics, so they know that a result in which candidates are not allowed to address VFW halls or get their pictures taken in diners or suchlike is scarcely an accurate picture of how things would be in a real race where no such obstacles are in place. They are only too well aware that FL is an orange being compared to the apples of NH, LA, GA, IL, CA, MO, etc. As such, it is still not clear to me that a popular vote "win" will convince many of the genuinely undecided if such a "win" can only be achieved by including FL.
April 21, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
why are we buying this moving of the goalposts beyond DNC rules again?
popular vote means absolutely, entirely nothing. nada. zero. it has no relevance towards the Democratic nomination. if it did, we could assume that both campaigns would have put a greater emphasis on turnout rather than a specific targeting of delegate districts. but it doesn't matter, so they didn't.
according to any even marginally reasonable projections, Obama has won, by the rules. it's over.
April 21, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget those 2.2 million that voted in MI & FL in that popular vote count.
April 21, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL, you mean the state that didn't even have Obama on the ballot?
You didn't convince me. Good luck convincing the Supers
April 21, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here we go again with Michigan and Florida How many times does this argument have to go around and around?
Y'all just will not accept that the agreements made going in are binding and you cannot count votes from a ballot that was not complete.
You just cannot - that was not a real vote because that wasn't a real ballot and it's impossible to figure out who would have done what had that been a complete ballot.
And Clinton agreed, just like Obama did.
Florida and Michigan made their own decisions, dammit.
April 21, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly!
Those were Beauty contests, not a real vote.
But, have no fear Hillary suporters, if Obama keeps his delegate lead (and he will), then Florida and Michigan can be seated as is, and Obama will still win.
April 21, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right - so it essentially doesn't matter anyway.
I get excited about the rules and process because that's what the primary is about and I've watched rules and laws totally ignored for about 10 years at least and I'm sick of it. This country is a country that operates by the rule of law and there was a very damn good reason why the founders structured it that way.
All this insanity and emotion is why - you can't run government this way.
April 21, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
There was an interesting point on MTP yesterday: Harold Ickes played a major role in writing the rules way back when. Consequently, if there's anyone who knows anything about getting around them, he's in the Clinton camp.
Don't be surprised to see a major behind-the-scenes end run around the rules before this thing is played out.
April 21, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton is going to fight fight fight for Michigan and Florida.........Also the fighting in other states are going to increase.....She is going to do all she can to win and i think with the way things work in washington, "its possible"
anyways, the polls show her winning by single digits with one poll showing obama winning.... however, she going to fight fight fight for the next 24 hours.
But will the fighting pay off.... only time will tell..... " I sure hope so"
April 21, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
She can "fight, fight, fight" but I don't think even Hillary will take it to the convention floor.
This ends on June 4th.
April 21, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Somehow, I don't think so. The MSM want this to go on as long as possible. Also, the look in Clinton's eyes lately doesn't strike me as calm and rational. Calm and rational people know when to quit.
April 21, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some of us would've loved to have seen her "fight fight fight" when she was in the Senate.
April 21, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Senate was just her stepping stone to the White House. Why would she have endangered her chances with risky votes?
April 21, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
File under 'No duh.'
It's Hillary Clinton for the deity of your choice's sake. Popular has never been a word used to describe Senator Clinton . . . Less unpopular on occasion but never popular.
April 21, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would like to see Indiana and NC have their say, first. I think a good showing in Pa will drive his numbers up in those two places, and a strong finish will be important for momentum in the transition to the campaign against McCain.
April 21, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed. The slow drip-drip of supers to Obama is likely to continue. It is very hard to undo this slow and steady gathering of power, not when they've flung Obama on the grill and all they have to show for it is a good steak, slightly singed.
Bill Clinton's power, he who is about to be unseated as the leader of the Dem party.
Pax
M.
April 21, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
We should also not miss the opportunity to turn our withering scorn on the cable news shows as they scramble to find new and more trivial crap to talk about once the primary gravy train is over for them. They're making so much money now, they're going to go through withdrawal.
It'll be fun to mock their pain.
April 21, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't feel too bad for them...
We have until November to talk about trivial crap!
And then, we can talk more trivial crap about George "lame duck" Bush, and the differences between him and the next President.
April 21, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
This has only been the case since the end of Feb, but hey, welcome to the party, Bloomberg.
She's not trying to win with delegates or popular vote. She's trying to win by destroying Obama. With that strategy, votes are pretty much beside the point.
April 21, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's over. We all know that. I think it is time we all started to kiss and make up. At times I have been incredibly put off by Clinton, but I always knew I would vote for her in the end. I assume that many of my Clintonista friends felt the same way about Obama. This election is too important to be marked by pique. The NY Times article on the Pentagon propaganda machine and Iraq is evidence enough that we have to stop Mccain and the monstrous powers he fronts for, no matter what final disappointment half of us will feel. This should be done in two weeks. Whoever wins, let's have a group Kumbaya and focus on setting an example of unity and energy like the wonderful new generation of activists and young people who have embraced out party in the last year and a half.
April 21, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL, you mean the state that didn't even have Obama on the ballot?
You didn't convince me. Good luck convincing the Supers
Well presumably since some of the Supers reside in FL & MI I think they will take that into account. Those states held elections, people voted, it was ratified by both states as legal. Those delegates are being slated for Denver as we speak. And your answer is "LOL"?
Even if you don't want to count delegates from those states, what is your argument for not counting the popular?
April 21, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Didnt a judge rule the MI illegal.
April 21, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes!
That's the overriding reason this is so stupid - the Michigan court said NO.
April 21, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
My answer is "LOL, the DNC stripped them of their delegates for knowingly violating the restrictions on primary dates." More convincing?
They're not going to count the MI results as-is because Obama wasn't even on the ballot. Michigan also said they're not doing a revote.
April 21, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, my argument is you shouldn't count MI because Obama wasn't on the ballot.
Go ahead and count FL, Obama will still win the pop vote.
That's why I'm laughing.
April 21, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because in the nomination process, the popular vote is meaningless, other than the pledged delegates it gets you.
April 21, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
But not in the context of this post thread.
April 22, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Well presumably since some of the Supers reside in FL & MI I think they will take that into account."
You presume wrong. They don't count precisely because they're from those states. Those delegates have no vote, no authority, no impact. MI & FL can do all the posturing they want by 'slating' delegates for Denver, but they're as relevant as their shadows until the rules are changed. The rules won't change because Obama and Dean control that vote.
The fat lady is warming up... I can hear her voice and it sounds like she's singing the word "change".
April 22, 2008 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is the kind of mentality that Obama's struggling with here:
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1933322220080421
And will need to address against McCain and the GOP. They will be pulling out all the stops to get the poor white trucker vote to vote against the anti-Christ, Obama.
April 21, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
April 21, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Got my fingers crossed. ... Will be making calls and planting signs.
April 21, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
April 21, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
That might matter if this was the general but it's not. It is not a governmental function - how the Democrats pick a nominee. It's up to us to make the rules because we are a private entity and all this Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite is bogus in the primary.
April 21, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama was stupid and had his name removed from the ballot and every person that did not want hillary to win... or wanted obama to win....or wanted edwards to win, voted uncommitted.... If the people of michigan did not want her to win, they could have voted uncommitted but they went out in record numbers and voted for Hillary Clinton..... The people of Michigan have said, they don't want a re-vote and that they believe there votes should be counted.... Sounds to me like they are for hillary clinton.... Polls show that even if there was a re-vote, she would still win that state....
...As for Florida, both names were on the ballot and the people of Florida have said time and time again....let our votes count....they don't want a re-vote.... sounds to me like they are for hillary clinton.... polls show that even if there was a re-vote, she would still win.
The People in Florida and Michigan did not vote to have there primaries set for Jan. nor did they vote to have there delegates stripped....it was the dnc.... why should the people of florida and michigan suffer because of the dnc... please do tell.... also Hillary has said, either count the votes or have a re-vote.... Obama is for either because he knows that it would Help Hillary win.... If the democrates want to win Michigan and Florida in the general election, they have to come up with something where everyone will think and feel that it was fair, which they haven't.... And to say that either campaign in those states or lies..... because I live in Florida and I saw Obama ads on t.v. also i have friends who live in michigan and saw obama ads.... ask the people of michigan and florida.
I think Hillary should and will fight for michigan and florida.....
...If the shoe was on the other foot, obama would do the same:).... its called washington politics.
April 21, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the roles were reversed, Obama would have dropped out...
or, he would be running a much smaller campaign to try and get the VP spot.
He would NOT be trying to tear down the front-runner with negative ads, I guarantee that.
But the situation is not reversed: You have a candidate who has NEVER lead in the delegate count, who has no realistic chance to win, and yet is making 100% of her ads negative to try an make Obama unelectable.
She has publicly dismissed small states, red states (except the one she wins), party "activists", MoveOn, unions who don't obey here, Supers that don't obey her (calling them "Judas").
If this was Obama, do you think ANYONE would support him? Hell, the minute Obama spoke out against liberal activists, I would support Hillary.
April 21, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
April 21, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Damn these tags!
April 21, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I live in Michigan. Your arguments, HillaryClinton08, are hogwash.
We were told that all of the major candidates had agreed to remove their names from the ballot. At the last minute, Hillary changed her mind.
We were told that our faux primary didn't matter. I received dozens of emails encouraging me to vote for Romney to throw the Republican primary into disarray. I did not, but I know of many others who did.
I did not vote "uncommitted," because I was told that my vote didn't matter. I voted for Kucinich. Had our primary actually mattered, and had all of the candidates been on the ballot, I would have had to decide between Edwards and Obama.
Regardless, if you want to disenfranchise Michigan, steal our delegates on Hillary's behalf. The only reason we're suffering is because Hillary's supporters (thanks, governor!) voted to move the primary to help Hillary's campaign.
April 21, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, Hillarybot5000. Don't freakin' tell us what the people of my state want.
We're not Hillary's playthings. We have thoughts, feelings, minds of our own.
We went out in the damn January snow and voted 40% uncommitted when faced between that, Clinton, and those odds'n'ends like Kucinich and Gravel. A lot, I know, grabbed the Republican ballot for a thrill and voted for Paul or whoever they thought could mess with the Republican primary.
I wanted a re-vote, but it became clear that there were too many problematic factors to deal with. The non-partisan people in charge of the polling places said it would be impossible, due to non-primary votes scheduled in the time frame. They couldn't get the machines ready for a big primary do-over after school millage votes and whatnot.
The Michigan primary was ruined. To think that Clinton wants "votes to count" (votes for her) out of that unfair cockup is vile.
April 21, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Polls do not show that Clinton would win a re-vote in MI. I really have no idea where you got that idea, but it is simply not true. The latest poll taken on that subject (Mar 7, 2008, by Rasumussen) showed a tie (41%/41%). There is no factual basis for the claim that she would win a revote.
April 21, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe she would win a re-vote because it would have been held in June with the colleges cleared out for the summer and the blue-hairs back home from Florida. Furthermore the rules were made up by Clintonites Gov. Granholm and Sen. Levin and were rather obviously skewed in her favor.
If Michigan didn't move up the date, I think it would have been pretty much 50-50 between the two.
April 21, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps, but my point was altogether more modest than your response. I was not saying that I know he would win a revote. I was simply responding to HillaryClinton08's assertion that polls showed that she would win a revote. In point of fact, polls did not show that, quite regardless of whether or not such an outcome is like (as you suppose). That is really my only point.
April 21, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's a lot of specious generalizations in one post. You would have done better to craft a better message around each of these points. This buckshot method doesn't work... each of these points has the exact same flaw: they contradict one another.
The people of Florida don't want a revote, but Hillary does and Obama doesn't want a revote because (deep breath) it would help Hillary.
It sounds to me that you are concluding that the people of Florida and Barack Obama have something in common.
Besides, the biggest problem in all of this is that Hillary Clinton lost 11 contests in a row because she did not campaign. She had a 100 million dollar war chest that she blew without locking up the nomination. She is now in debt and has to rely on the mainstream media to fluff her campaign. At this point, even if she was teh GREATEST PERSON EVER, I wouldn't vote for her because she is at such a strategic disadvantage... due primarily to her poor executive leadership.
And guess what the President is in charge of... the executive branch.
April 21, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ok I will tell - because they aren't. Their leaders made the decision knowing full well what the consequences would be.
This is not the general election, goddamn it. This is not all about democracy in the sense that the general is. It's about rules and process and no one was fooled going in about what it meant to hold illegal primaries.
April 21, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not so.
Remember, back on January 15th, there was no reason to believe that Michigan votes would count for anything.
The delegates were not going to be seated, and besides, many people expected that the whole thing would be over after one candidate (presumably Hillary Clinton) took an insurmountable lead on Super Tuesday.
So many voters (thousands, tens of thousands?) stayed home that night.
In terms of "fairness," the January 15 popular vote means very little.
April 21, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
FIRST: Clinton will never fight FOR Florida or Michigan. That thought borders on fucking insane. Clinton will only fight for herself. Florida and Michigan are simply tools towards her chosen end. The only way Clinton would ever fight for either state is for every flesh and blood person to die and leave the state's corporations in power.
SECOND: 'Popular' is a word that is constantly used to describe the mediocre right-wing Obama. more current polls in Michigan show Obama winning that state and Clinton is losing ground in Florida.
THIRD: Either of these lukewarm jerks is better than McCain.
April 21, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
YES WE CAN'T!
April 21, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
damn tags! Damn rented fingers!
April 21, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, everyone knew this since March. Join the CV bandwagon, Bloomberg. It's getting crowded.
The story about Obama's money advantage is also telling. It's strategically smart to be dumping all this money into PA - not because he's trying to win it, but because he's forcing Hillary to play a lot of defense and spend a lot of resources on a state that she was perfectly set up to run away with as little as a month ago.
Meanwhile, it's becoming more clear that this 'war of attrition' via spending is having its desired effect: namely, draining HRC's once-might chest of resources. She's in the position of having to go around begging for money right away, as soon as the PA polls close - because NC and IN are hot behind.
A single digit win in PA won't do much to convince the doubters. Meanwhile, there's a train coming down the tracks - it's the train called the State of North Carolina! Chooo choo!
April 21, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
And if Hillary comes out of PA with less than a 20% margin -which is likely at this point- and with her huge debts, who is going to want to continue to invest in her campaign? There's a general election coming up.
She's been running on fumes since Super Tuesday and I think she's pretty much done. Can't see her still in this after NC. Super Delegate responses in the coming few weeks should help to close this deal.
April 21, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
April 21, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I think Hillary should and will fight for michigan and florida....."
Good, fucking let her. She's still going to fucking lose, even if we let the whiny little brat count FL and MI.
Check the score, numbnuts
With FL and MI
it's
Obama 1718
Clinton 1701
How many ways does she have to fucking lose before this ends?
Honestly?
Can we put a fucking sock in it now?
April 21, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love you!
April 21, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
evie & idiotic are correct.
April 21, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Report: Popular Vote Win For Hillary Is All But Impossible
there. that's better.
April 21, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
well, actually Clinton should not need the "popular vote." The whole nominating process is fucked up, but it's not who has the most popular votes, which can't be compared apples to apples anyway since the process is so different in each state, and there is no logical reason to say super-delegates have to vote as their state did, etc etc or otherwise there would be no need or point to nominate such delegates.
problem one with Democrats: too fucking stupid to understand process. It would drive me nuts when I'd hear Dems whining, Bush didn't really win the election, when quite clearly the moron did.
problem two with Democrats: you are about to nominate a guy for President who will vie with W for the distinction of worst President since Roosevelt.
April 21, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
So... uh... Nixon was BETTER than Roosevelt? I think we can disregard your opinions, thank you very much.
April 22, 2008 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's no longer hoping for any kind of electoral victory; at this point, the only thing she can plausibly hope for is for Obama to get shot.
April 21, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think she, or anyone not batshit insane, wants that.
April 21, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like how the moment you same something positive about Hillary.... all the obama supporters get upset and start swearing and complaining.... oh thats right, they get that from Obama....
I can't believe Obama Supporters would want some one like him to run againist John Mccain, after saying that John Mccain would be better than George Bush...that seems like an understatment....also how can you want some one to run the white house that is for the muslims and the blacks only... I believe in equality.
I can't believe Obama supporters will be willing to not count Michigan and Florida.
I can't Believe Obama Supporters would still stand for some one who will not break ties with Liers, Stealers, and Judgemential Pastors.
April 21, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
"also how can you want some one to run the white house that is for the muslims and the blacks only..."
You're going off the deep end. Keep it up, you're really damaging the Clinton side.
April 21, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, there is no point in getting down in the gutter with you, but if you really don't think people should vote for candidates who associate with certain people, please explain the following ties:
Liars (Bill Clinton), Stealers (Webster Hubbell, Marc Rich, Norman Hsu) and Judgmential Pastors ( HREF="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E05E0D8113DF934A15750C0A9669C8B63&scp=1&sq=al+sharpton+hillary+clinton&st=nyt">Al Sharpton)
April 21, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Snark gone bad. Reposted.
Oh, there is no point in getting down in the gutter with you, but if you really don't think people should vote for candidates who associate with certain people, please explain the following ties:
Liars (Bill Clinton), Stealers (Webster Hubbell, Marc Rich, Norman Hsu) and Judgmential Pastors (Al Sharpton)
April 21, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ok - this is just willful obtuseness.
You don't care about what the facts are or the rules - you just want to throw yourself on the floor and kick and scream until you get your way.
Have at it.
April 21, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
At last... you have finally put your hood on!
It isn't that you like Hillary, it is that you are scared of the ANGRY NEGRO. Admit it. It's okay. You are afraid of an Africanized Presidency... one that will roll back all of the caucasian civil liberties. You are afraid that two thousand years of caucasian superiority will be ruined by an ANGRY NEGRO and his deluded cult.
Or you can say you are not racist... in which case I will follow you with this quote so that everyone will know what you are really made of... FEAR.
April 21, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see we have another surrealist performance artist masquerading as a Clinton supporter.
I mean, you can't really be a Clinton supporter. If you were really a Clinton supporter you'd try to write something that stayed somewhere within spitting distance of logic, wouldn't you? If you were really a Clinton supporter, you'd be able to express yourself in coherent thoughts, right?
Yes, it's quite obvious. This is an act. Bravo! And good luck at the troll Olympics!
April 21, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I think that this is really a more sad occassion than your post suggests. Until quite recently, HillaryClinton08 was a very winsome supporter of her candidate. She never said an unkind word about Obama; instead she simply bubbled with entheusiasm about Sen Clinton. It is something of a testament to the immense bitterness that these long weeks between OH/TX and PA have engendered that this once upbeat Clinton supporter has been reduced to such nastiness. Others might regard it as a jovial springboard for some lighthearted snark, but for my part I am simply saddened. Here is hoping that the healing of this rift can begin very soon.
April 21, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are more charitable than I.
I think with the comment about a White House for Muslims and blacks only, the poster has shown her/his true colors. Whenever people resort to racism to argue their point, they deserve to be mocked.
I do agree, there is much to be sad about here.
April 21, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, that is my very point. The blacks-and-muslims remark really is reprehensible, which is totally out of character with that which I had come to expect from this particular poster. It is a sad thing to see such a good Clinton supporter go over to the dark side of race-baiting.
April 21, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Up until now, you've been one of the few HRC supporters I believed in. I honestly thought you were positive and trying to raise the level of discourse. I'm *so* disappointed.
April 21, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fast Eddie Rendell said on Feb. 12, 2008:
"I believe, looking at the returns in my election, that had Lynn Swann been the identical candidate that he was — well-spoken, charismatic, good-looking — but white instead of black, instead of winning by 22 points, I would have won by 17 or so," he said. "And that (attitude) exists. But on the other hand, that is counterbalanced by Obama's ability to bring new voters into the electoral pool."
This is a quote that applied to the general election but do not be surprised if "corporate whore" Hillary wins by over up to 10%. That said, this would be a real Obama victory if less than 5%.
April 21, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
HRC is actually 2million - 3million votes behind in the "popular" vote because of the way caucus states are counted. Given that, she's already lost. She knows it, which is why she's hoping for a superdelegate coup or a run in 2012 against either President Obama or John Diebold McSame.
April 21, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Funny video on Hillary's slim chance of winning:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBGyuYKlxIg
April 21, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
"It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything."
--Hillary Clinton on Michigan, Oct. 2007
April 21, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry SpaceCat.... must that statement was taken out of context... please get your facts correct because miswording things.... oh, you probley watch MSNBC to much.
April 21, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Care to provide the full context, then?
April 21, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you'd like to educate us, why don't you supply the context?
April 21, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I'll educate my own damn self.
It looks like Clinton was saying that by not having her name on the ballot, she wouldn't be able to beat the Republican in Michigan in November.
Which doesn't make a lot of sense, since she was also saying that the primary election "is not going to count for anything."
So, what? By simply having her name on the ballot she'd be able to win Michigan in November? Was she saying that she hoped, or she was assuming, she'd be able to campaign in Michigan, and lay the groundwork of support she'd need in November? Though campaigning for that primary was also against the rules?
It sounds like, after putting the quote in context, Clinton was bullshitting us.
Here's the story in the Washington Post, Oct. 2007.
April 21, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
So much for Kumbaya.
April 21, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Surely you didn't expect Kumbaya to hold up to a Kitchen Sink assault. Nobody sang Kumbaya on the beaches of Normandy.
April 21, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Give us a hug, then?
April 21, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
OBAMA DISENFRENCHFRY MUSLIM
April 21, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the interesting thing about Florida and Michigan. The rules that stripped them of all of their delegates are not officialy the rules of the convention until they are adopted at the convention. The rules committee has to submit the rules and the delegates must approve them.
Until that happens, the rules from previous convention are in place and the penalties for running primaries outside the window were different. You get stripped of delegates, but you don't lose them all.
Can't wait to see that floor fight.
April 21, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
True, but the advantage goes to Obama. I don't recall the exact details, but TPM went over this about a month(?) ago. Obama have a majority of seats on the rules committee, and Dean also gets to seat a number of members. Dean will back Obama, so Deans folks will only pad the vote. Rules adopted, deal is done.
Of course, it is possible that some kind of negotiated agreement could take place where the FL and MI delegates get seated, but Obama and Dean would only allow this in such a way as to not upset the whole apple cart.
If anyone has more details, please tell.
April 22, 2008 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton camp started April in debt: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/21/clintons-primary-campaign-begins-april-in-debt/
April 21, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously Bloomberg News is in agreement with the scumbags in the Obama camp who want to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan. Count the votes of all Americans who voted, as in a Democracy, and Hillary will easily win the popular vote over the limp wristed one.
April 21, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually no she won't. Sorry to bust your bubble.
April 21, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael Moore can't take it anymore:
"Finally, I want to say a word about the basic decency I have seen in Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton continues to throw the Rev. Wright up in his face as part of her mission to keep stoking the fears of White America. Every time she does this I shout at the TV, “Say it, Obama! Say that when she and her husband were having marital difficulties regarding Monica Lewinsky, who did she and Bill bring to the White House for ’spiritual counseling?’ THE REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT!”
April 21, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? Of course, if O did that, people would think he had crossed a line he shouldn't - not that it bothered anyone when the R's did it. Anyhow, I think it's a testament to O's decency that he doesn't go there.
April 22, 2008 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can't speak for anyone else, but one thing I do **NOT** need in the next four years is a Parser-In-Chief, which is what Clinton seems to be about. Wait, wait, despite a clear agreement, there's this subclause that if interpreted in the light of a blue moon indicates that we can have a revote! And the popular vote is equivalent to pledged delegates! And really, there are no pledged delegates!
Excellent. That approach should work nicely when trying to some problems with say, oh, the economy, the war, etc.
Go away, Clinton, far, far away....
April 21, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
April 21, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink