CNN projects that Hillary Clinton will win "by a wide margin."
UPDATE: Hillary, looking radiant in electric blue, speaks: "We are winning the popular vote. The people have spoken and now there can be no doubt."
AND: Obama has a "slight lead" in the pledged delegates, so the question comes down to: Who is in the best position to win in November. She's pressing her case.
१ जून, २००८
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३९ टिप्पण्या:
Viva Puerto Rico!
Hum, indeed, heh!
This would make a perfect post on your blog called "Marginalia."
I was a huge Clinton supporter but I was hoping for something a bit less decisive here. I really don't want her to be able to claim a popular vote victory.
Sigh.
Clint: Why don't you want her to be able to claim a popular vote victory?
I don't want her to have a plausible argument to take the fight to the convention. According to the rules of the game, she lost, or at least will lose by June 3 or 4, or whenever enough superdelegates decide to declare.
I don't see anything to be gained by dividing Democrats against each other for three more months in order for Clinton to press her case that she should be awarded the nomination based on the popular vote. She should not.
I hope, though, that if she DOES end up with the popular vote (or even if she doesn't) that the Dems take a long look at their nominating process. It's antiquated.
The spectacle of dragging the lovely people of Puerto Rico into this obscene drama compelled me to gently saute a French-style omelet and consume it avec un verre froid de lait.
Clint, re: "Dems take a long look at their nominating process. It's antiquated."
I don't disagree however, my wish is that the Dems figure out how to further tweak their process so that it makes the division of delegates more equal! :)
They really don't need a winner take all or most; Leave that for those "nasty" GOPers! Their strange approach makes for more fun for us wonderful Consevatives!
i continue to pray that Mrs Clinton takes this all the way to Denver...purely for the entertainment value.
Clinton (v) wins Puerto Rico. Would "Ho hum." be an overstatement?
Meanwhile, I'm thinking if UW-Madison could hurry out a job offer to Obama, perhaps a small Law Department Chair in Freedom of Radical Religion and the Tax Code, maybe he would be temped to drop out of the race "for cause". What a coup for Biddy and her soon-to-be-released Progressive Feminist University Manifesto.
And: this will save the Dems even further embarrassment when he is eventually discovered to have been a numbers runner for Tony Rezco while ostensibly working as a "community organizer". Oh, what a tangled web...
And another loss brings Obama closer to the nomination. Talk about limping to the finish line.
(the other kev)
That's what I admire about the Puerto Ricans. Once you buy them off by pardoning terrorists, by God, they stay bought.
I don't want her to have a plausible argument to take the fight to the convention. According to the rules of the game, she lost, or at least will lose by June 3 or 4, or whenever enough superdelegates decide to declare.
with no opinion on your Hillary should fold argument, I'd like to point out that delrgates are free to change their minds dozens of times. The only time their "declaration" matters is on the last ballot of the convention.
I assume that "pledged delegates must vote for their ticket on the first ballot and would be free later (though I don't know that). Super delegates are free in each round to vote as they feel fit. "declaring and changing your mind has worked in favor of Obama, but there he must keep those folks through till the last vallot. it's not irrevocable.
True enough.
But if enough superdelegates declare to put him over the edge before the convention, a contested convention would be a disaster for the Democrats. I'm not saying convincing the supers to switch to Clinton is against the rules. I'm saying it would be horrible politics, and would provide McCain with a very good chance to sweep up the disaffected supporters of the loser.
You know-honestly...
This is the headline from the AP featured as one of the top 5 headlines at Yahoo-
Puerto Rico Moves Obama Closer to the Nomination-
To find out who actually won I came to Althouse.
Unbelievable or you know what? I've become so cynical that it almost is believable.
The media-has a problem with propaganada only when it does not fit THEIR agenda.
Capische?
You want the Truth?
Va chercher...
Oh hell here's "the proof" -the link-
AP Puerto Rico Moves Obama Closer to the Nomination
Just over 40 years ago, Uncle Walter declared that the USA had lost the war in Vietnam; a lie repeated and amplified by other members of the MSM. But, then we didn't have an alternative to news so the Dems and their MSM Allies were able to defeat the USA. Still, for whatever reason, their heroes in the USSR lost the bigger battle, the Cold War; go figure.
Obama's pals in the MSM still believe they're relevant and that their words still matter. So, now they're probably wondering what happened to Uncle Walter's Magic Beans?
In other words, to COIN a phrase, F'em and the whores they rode in on, including their favorite phony preachers.
Obama
Say it loud and
there's music playing
Say it soft and it's
almost like praying
Obama
I'll never stop saying
Obama
Obama, Obama.
I think it would be fitting if he gets to 2118 on the back of the 4 delegates they swiped from her in MI. Wouldn't that be something. Oy.
Nobody seems to be explaining to the vast media audience that the system is designed so that in the event of a near-enough tie, the party regulars step in and decide.
So now they're stepping in and deciding.
Knives are expected to be drawn, but only among the party regulars.
You're to go along with whatever comes out of it, because those are the rules.
Instead the knife fights are being translated into soap opera man in the street interviews, and knives handed out to the voters as well.
I hope, though, that if she DOES end up with the popular vote (or even if she doesn't) that the Dems take a long look at their nominating process. It's antiquated.
How those of us who remember the 2000 Presidential Election would savour that moment.
Because for 8 years solid, the Democrats have been saying that the Electoral College should be replaced because it's unfair to the person who wins the most popular votes.
Who's your momma now?
Cheers,
Victoria
I'm actually not adamantly against the electoral college, but this proportional representation thing has got to go, at least in its current incarnation. Maybe give half the delegates to pop. vote winner and then divide proportionally?
Clint said...
"According to the rules of the game, she lost, or at least will lose by June 3 or 4, or whenever enough superdelegates decide to declare."
This comment seems in tension with your later reply to Sarge that you aren't "saying [that] convincing the supers to switch to Clinton is against the rules." You were right second time: Clinton hasn't lost "[a]ccording to the rules of the game"; the rules do not provide that the candidate going to the convention with the most pledged delegates prevails. Because Obama failed to accrue a sufficient number of pledged delegates to render irrelevant the votes of the superdelegates, Clinton cannot lose according to the rules until the actual vote takes place at the convention.
Clint said...
"I'm actually not adamantly against the electoral college, but this proportional representation thing has got to go, at least in its current incarnation. Maybe give half the delegates to pop. vote winner and then divide proportionally?"
I am adamantly opposed to any change to the electoral college. In my view, like the Senate, it continues to serve a valuable function by inflating the political power of underpopulated states, who have legitimate interests distinct from states in other geographic areas, and whose interests should be heard and empowered despite their population. (For the same reason, I believe the court's reapportionment decisions were utterly wrong, so much so that they should be overruled in spite of their longevity.) It serves important normative value -- to say nothing of its federalism-enforcing tendency -- and I would support it even if it were an open question, which, in my view, after two centuries, it is not.
I never thought I would be pulling for Hillary to get the nomination, but she scares me less than Obama. I hope Sen. McCain wins it all, but the thought of President Obama are too disturbing. Our country is in such a delicate place these days and the last thing we need is the most liberal president in our history! Let's pray voters choose the adult come November! God bless! Padre Steve
I would suggest that changing the electoral college would be disastrous for the long-term unity of the country -- and by unity, I mean actual political unity. People in rural areas will only take so much.
I hope Sen. McCain wins it all, but the thought of President Obama are too disturbing. Our country is in such a delicate place these days and the last thing we need is the most liberal president in our history! Let's pray voters choose the adult come November!
Given the small differences between Obama and Hillary, one ought to be equally disturbed by both, or not disturbed at all.
And if the country is in a delicate place, why is that?
If we are sitting around waiting for a massive blow up in the credit default swap market, or if housing or the dollar is down, whose watch is that on?
Also, isn't it possible to disagree with any candidate with out, in Obama's case, infantilizing him as "not an adult." What would that make him, a boy?
(As for Puerto Rico, maybe we can bring them all over so they can actually vote in the general election. Otherwise it's pretty irrelevant. Viva nada.)
Clint and Simon: The Electoral College is a strange beast, but one that has served this country nobly since our founding. And while I haven't found all the articles in the Constitution regarding determination of the electors, if memory serves me correctly, the states may allow its citizens to vote for selection of the electors or a state's legislature may itself select those electors for that state, which would not be a wise decision these days.
Doing away with the Electoral College itself would be a contentious effort and would require a prolonged amendment fight and would totally change the character of our country.
Perhaps our law professor might enlighten us as to the actual character regarding selection of the Electors and the laws or rules governing selection of those select beings.
Article II, section 1, clause 2 of the Constitution says: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector." I know of nothing that changes this part of the Constitution.
The numbers I saw were 70 to 30 with 85% of the vote counted. She creamed him again.
And she's utterly relucent in the TV coverage.
Funny thing that "I'm winning the popular vote" comment. She's all for counting all the votes except for when she's not...
Her claim excludes: Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, and, Washington
(all caucus states)
Seven Machos said...
"I would suggest that changing the electoral college would be disastrous for the long-term unity of the country...."
In my view, when we consider changes to a deeply-embedded traditional practice -- Constitutionally-mandated or not, but a foriori when so -- the burden is not on those defending the status quo, but rather (as I said in the post linked above), on the reformers. They must "identify clear and compelling problems with current practice and then link them to a solution that offers substantial improvement on current practice and seems unlikely to generate unforeseen consequences." When we deal with an integral part of the Constitution's reticulated framework, an institution that has worked well for two centuries, that burden becomes all-but insurmountable. In my own opinion, at least.
I think Calf, NY, and Texas should probably go to proportion rep, its rather silly that you can win 30 or 45 electoral votes with 50.1 percent of the votes.
But it should be up to each state. And given the liberal viewpoint, which is solely guided by what helps them at any particular moment, it will never happen.
OldGrouchy said...
"[I]f memory serves me correctly, the states may allow its citizens to vote for selection of the electors or a state's legislature may itself select those electors for that state, which would not be a wise decision these days. "
Correct. See McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1891) (the appointment power is "plenary" and, being "conferred upon the legislatures of the states by the constitution of the United States, ... cannot be taken from them or modified by their state constitutions.... Whatever provisions may be made by statute, or by the state constitution, to choose electors by the people, there is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000) (per curiam) and my post of September last, The California proposal and legislative exclusivity under the Federal Constitution.
Reflections on black liberation theology - which is anti-white, anti-American, anti-Western. And full of Wrights, Sharptons. Palestinian terrorists, and Pflegers.
Let’s employ Occam’s Razor here. The most straightforward explanation is likely to be the truest one: Obama was a member of that church for 20+ years because it reflects his true beliefs. He left it because it became a political liability for him. Let’s stop pretending otherwise.
Second slice of Occam's Razor is Obama spent 20 years there ingratiating himself to black racists and Lefty Jew power elites like the billionaire Crowns, Saltzmans, Pritzkers in Hyde Park and not believing a single shred of Trinity crap - and left when the gig was up.
Re: Puerto Rico. I think I would gladly give up the right to vote for President, and to be represented in Congress, so that in exchange I would not have to pay Federal income tax.
I thought she looked radiant tonight and gave a great speach.
Did any of you notice the queen in the tankey behind her?
You could tell by the way he claps.
He needs to work on the defintion of his arms though.
I think Calf, NY, and Texas should probably go to proportion rep, its rather silly that you can win 30 or 45 electoral votes with 50.1 percent of the votes.
Except that California, New York, and Texas are never that close. They're solidly affiliated with one party or the other.
And, really, the problem is that those states are too big anyway. Chop 'em up, I say!
D-Day (Mark Penn): War's over, man. Obama dropped the big one.
Bluto (Hillary R. Clinton): Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
Otter (Madeleine Albright): [whispering] Germans?
Boon (Wesley Clark): Forget it, she's rolling.
Bluto: And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough... [thinks hard] the tough get goin'! Who's with me? Let's go! [runs out, alone; then returns] What the fuck happened to the campaign I used to know? Where's the spirit? Where's the guts, huh? "Ooh, we're afraid to go with you Bluto, we might get in trouble." Well just kiss my ass from now on! Not me! I'm not gonna take this. Obama, he's a dead man! Richardson, dead! Edwards -
Otter: Dead! Bluto's right. Psychotic, but absolutely right. We gotta take these bastards. Now we could do it with conventional weapons that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part.
Bluto: We're just the guys to do it.
D-Day: Let's do it.
Bluto: LET'S DO IT!!
[Chaos ensues]
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा