1. Turnout is very high, unsurprisingly. Isn't this fun?
2. There's a lot of jockeying over a number: The percentage points by which Hillary must win to justify the continuation of her campaign. Is it 10? Is it 5? Let's set the number in advance. Or do you think she should just go on until all the primaries are over, now that she's come this far?
3. The polls close and CNN pronounces the race "very competitive." They can't call it. That seems bad for Hillary... but I don't trust CNN. If they declared her the winner, the audience would abscond.
4. Wolf Blitzer at 8:00: "We cannot project a winner based on the exit polls alone. We're going to have to wait and see hard numbers coming up." Hmmm. So they have their exit polls, but they want to coordinate with the news of the actual ballot counts. What does that mean ... other than CNN wants you to watch CNN?
5. CNN predicts Hillary is the winner. Wolf offers no numbers, but Drudge is showing CLINTON 53%/OBAMA 47%. But maybe you're watching Andrew Lloyd Weber night on "American Idol."
6. "Um." Long, long pause. "You must never start to stop. Having said that, this is the biggest show and biggest platform that, no matter what, you're strong enough, and you're great enough... to pick up the pieces." Wolf Blitzer to Hillary Clinton. No! Paula Abdul to Brooke White.
7. David Gergen on what the superdelegates are thinking: "This is not just a question of who can win in the fall. They have to also make sure they held their party together. If at the end of this, the math is against her, she winds up with fewer delegates, fewer votes, and fewer states, if they turn it over to her, they run the very real risk they will drive African Americans out of the party for a generation. And they will drive away young voters. There're some things worse than losing an election in trying to build a party."
8. Hillary Clinton does her victory speech: Obama has more money! Give me money!
9. Obama speaks. He's in Indiana, and he thanks John Mellencamp and "his beautiful wife" for driving to Evansville from (I think) Bloomington. Very Indiana-y. He seems to be giving his stump speech. Or maybe I'm just tired.... Good night, everybody.
10. (Written the morning after.) You've got the comments up beyond 200, which means you can't see the newest comments unless you click on "post a comment" and then "newer" or "newest," so why not move on to the post I just put up.
April 22, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
229 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 229 of 229The only fair way would be for them to go with the candidate with the most popular votes, Obama or Hillary. Basing it on the simple majority of popular votes would be the only thing that would make sense and would be "fair."
Here's why that's not fair.
The rules at the outset of the campaign were what they were. Superdelegates had 100 percent discretion to vote how they wanted.
The candidates' efforts to persuade them were based on that premise. Moreover, there was nothing in the rules that made popular vote totals meaningful to the outcome at all. If they had been meaningful, all candidates would have campaigned quite differently. The states where they had "no chance?" They would have competed in those states for every vote. Most of Obama's edge comes from Cook County, Illinois. I doubt Hillary set foot there during the primary. Why bother? Well, if she'd known the rule was, popular votes determine the outcome, even a shift of 20,000 votes might've been meaningful.
Also, what do you do about the caucus states? Comparing caucus outcomes with primary outcomes is apples and oranges. How do we translate caucus vote wins into popular votes? However you did it, it would be based on an assumption.
If you want popular votes to determine superdelegate votes, change the rules for next time. Doing that this time, in the 7th inning, is demonstrably unfair. And it's not just unfair to the candidates; it's unfair to the superdelegates, who were assigned that role and told they could vote the way they want to vote, using whatever criteria they want.
But to the extent that [Mortimer] represents the bottom line of some Obama supporters against the other candidate in the Democratic primaries, the party has taken a really tragic turn.
The NY Times Editorial Board, which recently un-endorsed Hillary Clinton, cogently expressed my bottom-line. My bottom-line is the substance of this editorial, not what you, a conservative Republican and are a part of Operation Chaos, say it is.
If Obama really was what he pretended to be, he'd have the nomination locked up already, and he'd be leading McCain in the polls by 15 points.
The polls actually suggest that would still be the case, were Hillary Clinton not squatting on his face to take a dump before he awakes every day. Your careless use of ad hominems reveals you to be a most dishonorable and repugnant person, just like Hillary Clinton.
[Obama] "won" Iowa with 32% of the vote. That's not a majority, Mort. Back to remedial math with you.
You obviously didn't pay attention with sufficient detail at the time, which explains your deficient memories now. John Edwards at the time noted that his vote combined with Obama's vote was "the change vote," and that was an overwhelming majority. Most of Edwards's delegates switched to Obama later on, so Edwards was correct. Not to mention Clinton's support amongst blacks only began to drop once criticism of her race-baiting tactics began.
I am aware that 16% of Nevada is black, most of it in Vegas. The point is if you're claiming that Obama won 80% of black voters in Nevada because of race, as opposed to other reasons (like his position on Yucca Mountain), then it's rather odd for you to ignore that Clinton used nasty,voter suppression tactics in Vegas, which might offend people who remember earning the right to vote, and that she explicitly ran on racial division between blacks and Hispanics, given the sizeable Hispanic vote there, according to her own pollster.
The notion that Obama had the black vote locked up from the start is just false.
He was quoting you,
He was NOT quoting me. As anyone can see. There are NO quotation marks, and I never said "You are itching to call Obama a nigger" -- he generated that sentence all on his own.
AJ Lynch: Just wanted to acknowledge that I've seen your post, and that I appreciate what I suspect isn't so much about agreement or disagreement, but rather acknowledgment that it's possible for analysis and assessment to exist quite apart from advocacy, period, much less "either way." (Let's hear it for the value of simple observation ... agreement even being beside the point, for a change ... and, every once in a while, even a quiet cheer for it;--that is, the referenced value.)
A heart-felt thanks for that, to you, AJ Lynch, from me.
My actual belief is that, when all is said and done, it'll be impossible to come up with a definitive answer to who the rightful nominee is. I don't think you can say, for instance, who the rightful winner was in 2000.
With the popular vote being as close as it will be, you'll never know who would have won if everything that is unfair about the system, including how caucuses work, Michigan not having a real election, Florida not counting, etc., were changed. The current system isn't fair, and if you come up with a fair one, you'll never know whether Clinton or Obama would have won given that system. Even if the numbers end up as strong as they could at this point for Obama and he ends up with the nomination, there will always be some question in people's minds over whether or not the system fairly represented the people.
My bottom-line is the substance of this editorial, not what you, a conservative Republican and are a part of Operation Chaos, say it is.
You don't know what I am. But I know you're recklessly calling people racists and it's offensive.
As for the NYT editorial, so what? In fact, it's bizarre. She just won a big victory, time to drop out?
"Operation Chaos" is a joke. There isn't a pollster out there who has detected any impact from it.
You've got what you think of as a clever explanation for all of Hillary's votes. They're racists. They're Republicans. They're Rush fans. They're bad people. If she'd just go away, Obama would be loved again. It would be January again.
Is there room in your head for the possibility that a sincere Democrat might be worried about Obama's electability? You claim that he'd have a big lead if it weren't for Hillary. I've seen nothing that supports this.
What has happened is the campaign has given voters more exposure to the candidates, and Obama, as the least-known, is getting second and third looks. He's been trending down for weeks as a result. It's a testament to Hillary's negatives that his decline has left them basically tied, and Obama still in the best position to win. But Pennsylvania voters clearly want the campaign to continue.
He's been trending down for weeks as a result.
That isn't true. Hillary was always expected to win PA, and by even larger margins than this. This was dmeographically her best state. Literally.
It's just a word, Victoria. It's the way it's being wielded by Mortimer that's the disgusting part.
It's my Achilles heel, my Gordian knot, my Sword of Damocles rolled into one, Palladian.
For me, that word isn't just a word. It's a monster.
Usually, I am flippant, irreverent, light-hearted about everything under the sun -- but I just can't overcome those 6 little letters.
Cheers,
Victoria
Even if the numbers end up as strong as they could at this point for Obama and he ends up with the nomination, there will always be some question in [Hillary supporter's] minds over whether or not the system fairly represented [the outcome Hillary supporters wanted].
We all agree that Hillary Clinton has done her best job of trying to create that doubt in the wake of her sudden, unexpected loss. That's the problem. All this is about is spite and vanity. The spite and vanity of Hillary Clinton. But, frankly, I don't think that's how this will go down. If Obama wins the nomination and loses in the general, the narrative will be that it was Hillary's fault.
She just won a big victory, time to drop out?
It's not a big victory. It changes nothing because -- unless she wins victories by 20-30% margins -- she has already lost.
Der Hahn wrote:
Obama typically has only won a majority of white voters who have minimal contact with blacks. And PA hasn't changed that record.
I read your (corrected) link article, Der Hahn. Very interesting.
"For at least the last two generations America's racial policies have been predicated on a near religious belief that increased contact between the races will produce harmony, good feelings and positive relationships. Our experience during this period has been uniformly the opposite. Urban white liberals have fled the public schools by the hundreds of thousands, self-segregation by blacks on university campuses is widespread, resentment in the workplace (by both races) ubiquitous etc. In his Philadelphia speech Obama himself referred -- perhaps the first such reference by a black politician without open contempt -- to the concerns that many white Americans have about blacks."
This, in my view, is partially correct.
Yes, familiarity often breeds contempt.
It MAY well be that enforced interaction between working-class whites, and the largely working-class blacks of major cities tend view each other with suspicion, as competitors and gossips often do.
But Obama is doing very well amongst white elites. You may think they have limited contact with blacks, but I don't think that's true.
What they have is contact with blacks who are like them. Often very well educated. Well-spoken. Sharing similar goals and interests.
Working-class blacks may famously call this "acting white", but really, it's just being well-to-do.
This is what Obama reminds urban liberals of. And they love it.
Cheers,
Victoria
Christopher: I think--and I say this with more sorrow than you can know, since I'm just a virtual abstraction--that we've already passed the point where there's any question, at least within the Democratic Party (and, I suspect, in a different way and to a lesser degree, within the Republican Party), as to whether there will always be some question in people's minds over whether or not the system fairly represented the people.
I'd wish it otherwise, but wishin' ain't gettin', as I'm 100% sure you know--and don't require some random internet entity to say!
: )
No posts after 12:40 AM are showing up on the actual blogpost section.
If I hadn't clicked on "reply" I never would've seen, e.g., RIA's post at 1:59 AM.
I guess there must be a Blogger threshold for showing posts.
Cheers,
Victoria
Victoria: This a "feature" of our current Blogger. I did e-mail Althouse--who is totally aware of this "feature"--a few minutes ago that the comments mark had been reached. When she awakes from her beauty sleep, she can always choose to remind people how to get to the post-200 comments, start a new thread, or whatever.
Meanwhile, Victoria, for those who already know, you have clear sailing! Post away! We can pretend, quite briefly, that we are a secret society, or whatever it is that so many apparently believe vast numbers of opinionated people belong to, in order to conspire.
Or something like that. Did I get it right?
; )
Cheers,
"RIA"
Blogger Mortimer Brezny said...
I think we are all in your debt and you should both be rewarded - with a night each with Titus.
Which Titus? And do I go first or last? Because I don't want Titus after he's lain with a racist.
lulz
Which incarnation do you like best and why?
Won't that just make it dirtier and therefore hotter? Besides, they could do it standing up, no having lain.
What if you and simon each get different Tituses? Would condoms help? How about if he is sorry?
Are you happy catching, because Titus only pitches it would seem. Of course he could be a lying liar who lies. Talks far too much about hog for one who don't like it.
BTW I notice nobody has jumped on me for "darky." I did not use other words also common in our benighted past.
I wonder what the borderline is...but will not go there unprovoked (though it promises comedy gold).
The best thing about all of this is that no matter who wins -- Obama or Hillary -- the Democratic Party is going to be torn apart by bitterness.
The downside is that the likely outcome of all this is McCain in '08 followed by eight years of Hillary Clinton, 2012-2020. Ew.
1) The only fairness is to play out the rules as originally specified. Since I prefer at this point to up HRC, that works against me as BO gains from the FL and MI disenfranchisements. So I am sincere as far as that goes.
But the rules also say that a) the SDs can do as they like, b) the delegates can too, after the first ballot.
Quaere: any third candidate or NOTA votes posssible to complicate first ballot victory? Does Edwards still own whatever delegates/supes he earned? What if any is the Gore/other white-knight scenario?
2) Stoddard, 160K Republicans switching to Democrats to vote primary - 200K victory - you see nothing there? What would convince you?
3) Mort: As long as you are reading me, what do you think of my take on Hillary as Churchill, or as Cyberdyne Systems Model T-101? And what will she do and what can BO do? Has he got any bombs of his own?
4) Victoria, dear, you asked for it. How would you rate the following words, for example: smoke, spook, spade, junglebunny, jig, jigaboo, nightfighter, Negro, black, buck, boy, pickaninny?
With 0 being complimentary, 5 harmless, 10 being "the N-word," and you can go higher than 10. Feel free to add and rate additional words.
I have--again, unusually--yet to read the majority of this thread. This has been exacerbated by my habit of cold-shouldering comments and intra-threads involving the n-word.
That said:
Mortimer: W.T.F. Don't know what was said, or not, here in THIS current, particular comments thread, but as sure as little green apples exist, you did, at some point, on some other thread, accuse of Simon of itching to call Obama the n-word.
Blogger Mortimer Brezny said...
I suppose that if she gets the nomination we'll be able to say that she smoked a dope.
Just call him a nigger already. We know you want to.
9:24 PM
There's a later comment on that thread which you deleted, and since you deleted it, I'll give the benefit of the doubt to YOU, since, unlike you, I consider intellectual honest and fairness a virtue worth at least aiming at and reaching for.
For the "benefit" of onlookers, here's the post to which is attached the relevant thread, and here's the specific citation.
I have also--speaking of very rarely!!--printed out the whole thing onto hard copy.
Mort, you are a bold-faced liar.
Speaking of rare statements and actions on my part ... but who am I to not respond, generously, to those who beg?
2) Stoddard, 160K Republicans switching to Democrats to vote primary - 200K victory - you see nothing there? What would convince you?
Because exit polls show that Obama got a lot of those new Democrats' votes. A lot of them were anti-Clinton voters. A lot of them were disillusioned Republicans who might not support McCain. A lot of them just wanted a chance to participate in a meaningful PA primary for the first time in decades.
Check out this story:
http://tinyurl.com/6ck7md
Republicans switch for variety of reasons
By JENNA PORTNOY
The Intelligencer
Republicans-turned-Democrats flocked to the polls Tuesday for lots of reasons.
Some became disillusioned with the GOP. Some admitted they wanted to clear their real favorite’s path to the White House in November. And others simply wanted a say in the historic primary.
In Bucks and Montgomery counties, the race attracted 50,000 new Democrats to the party. Statewide, they were joined by another 100,000 others.
One of them, Dan Henrich of Upper Moreland, called himself a “Democrat for the day.”
Last month he switched his party registration from Republican to vote for Barack Obama because in Pennsylvania voters must be registered members of a political party to vote in that party’s primary.
“I’m not thrilled with (John) McCain,” he said. “I think Obama will bring a good amount of reform. Hillary (Clinton) makes me sick.”
But the 20-year-old Temple University political science student is a Republican at heart, especially when it comes to abortion.
“I am strongly pro-life,” said Henrich, who foresees the next president wielding tremendous influence in this area given the advanced ages of several Supreme Court justices.
He plans to go back to the GOP, primarily for local election reasons, but is still undecided if the November general election battle is between McCain and Obama.
Henrich said he does have reservations about the Arizona senator, especially over the war in Iraq and his plan to continue some Bush policies. But a McCain-Clinton race is a no-brainer for him....
and it goes on from there.
OK, I am back.
How are my fellow republicans/
Looks like quite a bit of turmoil?
Someone blew me for a few minutes but I wasn't in to it and I ran and called a taxi.
Nothing is worse than a bad blowjob.
I hate bad blowjobs. But they happen and you need to blow them off and hope for the next blowjob to be spectaculat because you know it is right around the corner.
No teeth please and no looking up at me for affirmation as you conduct the blowjob. I am not going to wink at you as to let you know you are doing a good or bad job. I don't want to see your eyes. I want your focus on the hog at all times. Just get the job done in a timely and hopefully clean manner. No sperm on my shoes or diesel jeans. Make sure you clean everything up.
That is my philosophy.
I feel so grateful that I can run out my door and get a bj.
For those of you without that option I feel bad. Life must suck.
McGuirk on Imus's show : ``Tonya Harding skates again.''
former law student said...
"For me, Obama offers change, while McCain offers experience. HRC offers neither."
Every candidate offers change. Not one candidate in this race proposes to continue Bush's policies verbatim, and even if they did, change will happen regardless of what the candidates want to do. Why do Obama supporters feel the need to hide behind this airy, meaningless slogan that he offers "change"? Obama offers certain policy outcomes that you may prefer. There's nothing wrong with just saying that. But to vote for him because he offers change - if we take the claim seriously - is like voting for him because he offers the continued rotation of the Earth around the Sun.
Nichevo - if someone comes in making scurillous and easily-disproved claims about wat I said, I think I'm within bounds t rebut them.
That man was the honorable Elijah Muhammad, whose successor as head of the Nation of Islam is Louis Farrakhan.
This is a bad kind of change.
Yeah, who said T.H.E.M was interested in chastity? Not of the young girls in his congregation whom he impregnated.
simon, there is such a thing as not sinking to the level of your opponent. It is a great temptation to do so, which should be fought.
RIA! You're feisty today. Me likey.
As for secret societies, can't stand them. This is why I refuse to attend Bilderburg.
:P
Cheers,
Victoria
Nichevo, I think - would hope - that I've rejoined his points without sinking to his level. I don't really care if Mort thinks I'm a racist, but I don't like being called such, and I think it's a scurrilous enough charge that some rebuttal is in order.
Bravo, John Stodder.
"Where are the grownups in the Democratic Party?"
And after Carter... Clinton... just when will they ever learn?
(ps: And what a pleasure to see Victoria's return!)
Defensible but hardly uplifting - one feels you could have done better. It's your life, I have only worthless opinions to offer. I suppose I should be flattered you troubled yourself to respond. Decent respect for the opinions of mankind, eh? ;>
Post a Comment