Clinton to Richardson: 'Barack Obama Can't Win'

[Wags]

Newsweek - What's the Magic Metric? Here's a new kind of recount: The Clinton camp's complicated formula to make her look like the leader.

Popular Vote: Hillary's New Kind of Recount | Newsweek Politics: Campaign 2008 | Newsweek.com

The Clinton campaign machine is coming up with new ways and formulas to put Mrs. Clinton in the lead.

It appears that the Clinton campaign machine will stop at nothing to secure the nomination.

GOD BLESS US ALL

[clifp]

Originally Posted by Wags

Newsweek - What's the Magic Metric? Here's a new kind of recount: The Clinton camp's complicated formula to make her look like the leader.

Popular Vote: Hillary's New Kind of Recount | Newsweek Politics: Campaign 2008 | Newsweek.com

The Clinton campaign machine is coming up with new ways and formulas to put Mrs. Clinton in the lead.

It appears that the Clinton campaign machine will stop at nothing to secure the nomination.

GOD BLESS US ALL

I am not sure I understand your argument here Wags. It seems me that the Hillary Clinton can claim with a straight face and no need to twist the numbers that more people have gone to the polls to vote for her as the nominee than Sen. Obama. For a party that spent years arguing how important it was to count every vote and made big deal out of the popular vote. I don't see how the superdelegates can deny here the nomination if she maintains her popular vote lead.

[samclem]

Originally Posted by clifp

It seems me that the Hillary Clinton can claim with a straight face and no need to twist the numbers that more people have gone to the polls to vote for her as the nominee than Sen. Obama. For a party that spent years arguing how important it was to count every vote and made big deal out of the popular vote.

Agreed, I think she can make a valid case. More people have voted for her.
Regarding Michigan: It was Obama's decision not to have his name on the ballot, he could have decided differently (if we think back to those days, he was just starting out and didn't have enough resources to campaign everywhere. I believe he decided not to have his name on the ballot so he wouldn't (technically) suffer a huge defeat to Clinton. Maybe it was a good tactical decision then, but now he might have to pay the price.)
Regarding Florida: Sure, he didn't campaign there--but neither did she.
The reason the Democratic Party came up with this crazy superdelegate scheme (the GOP has one too, but much smaller) was to allow party heavy-hitters to have influence in order to select the most electable candidate in the event of a close race. Okay--they should do that. But both seem to have big electability problems.

Off topic: An item in the WSJ suggested Sam Nunn would be a very solid pick as an Obama running mate--I think so, too.

[Wags]

Originally Posted by samclem

Agreed, I think she can make a valid case. More people have voted for her.
Regarding Michigan: It was Obama's decision not to have his name on the ballot, he could have decided differently (if we think back to those days, he was just starting out and didn't have enough resources to campaign everywhere. I believe he decided not to have his name on the ballot so he wouldn't (technically) suffer a huge defeat to Clinton. Maybe it was a good tactical decision then, but now he might have to pay the price.)
Regarding Florida: Sure, he didn't campaign there--but neither did she.
The reason the Democratic Party came up with this crazy superdelegate scheme (the GOP has one too, but much smaller) was to allow party heavy-hitters to have influence in order to select the most electable candidate in the event of a close race. Okay--they should do that. But both seem to have big electability problems.

Off topic: An item in the WSJ suggested Sam Nunn would be a very solid pick as an Obama running mate--I think so, too.

Yes, Mr. Nunn would be an excellent choice for Mr. Obama if he won the nomination. Mr. Nunn would also be an excellent pick for Mr. McCain if he decided to pick from the Dems.

According to some of the news media reports Mr. Obama is leading the popular vote. It is hard to know exactly what the count is because of the SPIN, SPIN, SPIN.

As for the election process it appears that nobody really knows what to do as far as counting or not counting FL and Mich. These two states went against party rules knowing full well that if they went forward with their primaries that they would be in violation of the rules.

It will be interesting to see if Dean, Reid and Pelosi will bring the hammer down on the process. When I talk about the HAMMER I am not talking about Mr. DeLay.

GOD BLESS US ALL

[JB]

Originally Posted by samclem

Agreed, I think she can make a valid case. More people have voted for her.

Just curious -- do you think that Al Gore's case was valid too?

Clinton doesn't even win if she's awarded her share of the delegates from FL and MI. About 1/2 the voters in MI chose 'undecided'. Hilary's case is very weak.

Sam Nunn would be an excellent VP choice. So would the Va senator Jim Webb. Chuck Hagel would be a good pick for Defense Secretary.

[samclem]

Originally Posted by JB

Just curious -- do you think that Al Gore's case was valid too?

Absolutely not. Clinton would be making a case to the superdelegates that they should vote for her on the grounds that most of the Democrats who cast ballots voted for her. This will be part of the case--she'll also argue that she's a strong campaigner (true), that she's a known quantity very unlikely to have an unknown skeleton in her closet (true) and that she can bring win the vote of lower-income voters. Making this case is totally in line with the (now obviously shown to be flawed) process the Democratic Party has established.

In the general election we have no superdelegates, and the popular vote means nothing. Thankfully, Al Gore never made the case that he should be President based on the popular vote, being unwilling to try to get the Constitution amended and having the amendment apply retroactively.

[JB]

Yes -- I see your point. I wonder how much of the money she recently raised came from republicans. They are working hard to see a fractured democratic party. If the superdelegates don't pick the person who won the majority of the delegates and popular vote --based on the rules-- there will be long lasting problems in the party.

[BoutDone]

Originally Posted by JB

Yes -- I see your point. I wonder how much of the money she recently raised came from republicans. They are working hard to see a fractured democratic party. If the superdelegates don't pick the person who won the majority of the delegates and popular vote --based on the rules-- there will be long lasting problems in the party.

Can't you at least wait for the general election to blame the Republicans for the Dems repeated problems accomplishing anything meaningful?

I don't think the Dems need any help fracturing the party. They seem to be doing a good job of it already. Just wait until the "will of the people" is discarded for the "will of the party". That will be a sight to behold.

[JB]

Blame? That's a stretch!

[Arc]

I still can't get over the fact that Dems are the party that has - fundamentally built into their primary process - the check in the system that allows the party hacks to override the will of the people - a huge contradiction in my opinion.

If Obama continues to decay - it will be interesting to see if the Superdelegates pull the trigger and go with Hillary. Either way, if McCain wins the general the Dems will be in turmoil. I can see Bill Clinton, Harold Ickes, Carville and the rest of the crew in the "I told you so" phase - after Obama loses. Fun stuff all around!!

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by Arc

If Obama continues to decay -

Why do you say 'continues to decay'? He went from being 20 pts down in PA to being 10 pts down. Now, if he spent all that money to get his word out, and his % went down - then yes, that would be decay. But progress is progress, no?

He still has the popular vote and more delegates. How do you define 'decay'?

-ERD50

[HFWR]

Decay is after deejay...

[samclem]

Originally Posted by ERD50

He still has the popular vote and more delegates. How do you define 'decay'?
-ERD50

I think "decay" is meant to indicate that Obama's vector is downward while Hillary's is upward. Of course, this is likely to be a fleeting thing, as he will win NC and she'll probably win IN, and they will both claim to be on the way up.

It's very clear that race is playing a big role in the Democratic primary campaign, which is a sad thing. To Obama's credit, he has not attempted to capitalize on race, but it's obvious our country hasn't made the progress that most of us had hoped we'd made.

Regarding Obama, Clinton, and the popular vote; there are a lot of ways to analyze this, but as of today, more people have cast votes for her than have cast votes for him.

[JB]

Clinton's lead in superdelegates has decayed by more than 1/2 since the Ohio/Texas primary.

[ERD50]

Saying that his lead is 'decaying' is much different than saying he is in risk of losing that lead.

This is the context I was responding to:

If Obama continues to decay - it will be interesting to see if the Superdelegates pull the trigger and go with Hillary.

If you are in the lead, you are in the lead. You don't get a second place ribbon for giving up some of that lead in the final stretch, just as you don't get a first place ribbon just for starting out ahead.

As far as how to count the popular vote, well... the Dems do seem to have problems with that, don't they? I do think it would more relevant to know what the vote would be today in those 'uncounted' states.

-ERD50

[DragoMuseveni]

Originally Posted by samclem

Agreed, I think she can make a valid case. More people have voted for her.
Regarding Michigan: It was Obama's decision not to have his name on the ballot, he could have decided differently (if we think back to those days, he was just starting out and didn't have enough resources to campaign everywhere. I believe he decided not to have his name on the ballot so he wouldn't (technically) suffer a huge defeat to Clinton. Maybe it was a good tactical decision then, but now he might have to pay the price.)
Regarding Florida: Sure, he didn't campaign there--but neither did she.
The reason the Democratic Party came up with this crazy superdelegate scheme (the GOP has one too, but much smaller) was to allow party heavy-hitters to have influence in order to select the most electable candidate in the event of a close race. Okay--they should do that. But both seem to have big electability problems.

In Michigan Clinton was the only democrat that didn't take their name off the ballot. Instead of asking why Obama took his name off the ballot, why not ask why Clinton left hers on. Plus she only got 55% of the vote and hers was the only name on the ballot. Alot of Obama and Edwards supporters probably stayed home that day because the thought their votes wouldn't count and because their candidates name was not on the ballot.

And they didn't campaign in Florida. Obama was able to cut Clinton's lead in half when he campaigned in Pennsylvania, I think he would have been able to do the same in Florida. Since they didn't campaign in Florida that primary was basically a name recognition contest.

Finally, if the democrats count Florida and Michigan imagine the chaos that will produce in the 2012 primary season. There will be no penalty for breaking the rules, so many states will do so.




Drago

[Notmuchlonger]

Originally Posted by DragoMuseveni

In Michigan Clinton was the only democrat that didn't take their name off the ballot. Instead of asking why Obama took his name off the ballot, why not ask why Clinton left hers on. Plus she only got 55% of the vote and hers was the only name on the ballot. Alot of Obama and Edwards supporters probably stayed home that day because the thought their votes wouldn't count and because their candidates name was not on the ballot.

And they didn't campaign in Florida. Obama was able to cut Clinton's lead in half when he campaigned in Pennsylvania, I think he would have been able to do the same in Florida. Since they didn't campaign in Florida that primary was basically a name recognition contest.

Finally, if the democrats count Florida and Michigan imagine the chaos that will produce in the 2012 primary season. There will be no penalty for breaking the rules, so many states will do so.




Drago

Clinton is right they should count. The people's voice must be heard loud and clear !

[samclem]

Originally Posted by DragoMuseveni

Finally, if the democrats count Florida and Michigan imagine the chaos that will produce in the 2012 primary season. There will be no penalty for breaking the rules, so many states will do so.
Drago

"Imagine the chaos in 2012?" We've got plenty of chaos in 2008, no imagination needed.

For the record, I think the Republicans did a pretty good job of compromising on this--punishing Fl and MI without totally disregarding their votes. But that Howard Dean and the Democratic rules committee--they are some real gems. Somebody should do an investigation to see if they aren't GOP moles.

Count every vote! Count every vote! We must not disenfranchise anyone! I cannot believe the number of Democrats who are suddenly pulling every trick in the book to in order to subvert the will of THE PEOPLE! What next--send busloads of lawyers to assure the military absentee ballots don't count (again)?

Every candidate made their choices concernign where to put their campaign effort and on which ballots to appear. Clinton has obeyed all the rules. More Democrats have voted for her than for Obama. It is that simple. You can bet she'll be making a strong case to the superdelegates.

This is history in the making--I hope we can all look back on it (during McCain's second term) and laugh about how funny it all was.

[Notmuchlonger]

"Count every vote! Count every vote! We must not disenfranchise anyone! I cannot believe the number of Democrats who are suddenly pulling every trick in the book to in order to subvert the will of THE PEOPLE!"

Right on ! Power to the PEOPLE! count them all!!!

YouTube - John Lennon - Power To The People