The Delegate Race Isn't Over

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:46:09 AM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Jerome Armstrong at MyDD explains why Hillary Clinton has some lifelines open to her in terms of the pledged delegate count and the upcoming ten races.

First, in Hillary's Own words, watch the video:

As Jerome says, Hillary sounds ready to go to the mat over Florida and Michigan. But,there's other options open to her as well. Jerome writes: [More...]

Including MI & FL, Clinton is only behind in pledged-delegates by 46-56 delegates, which could be halved in Pennsylvania alone. 46 is the number going off of DCW, but 56 is what I got when using the Obama counting of pledged delegates, and adding in the 67 Obama got from FL and the 178 that Clinton got from FL and MI, that results in a 1485-1429 difference of delegates. DCW has a 1473 to 1427 margin. I imagine that 46-56 number gets updated a bit up and down with further final results coming in from the previous contests. It also should be noted that there are, in addition, 55 uncommitted delegates from MI, and 31 delegates still aligned with Edwards.

Obama's got everything going for him right now, he's in position to claim a victory by nearly all the measurements, most importantly the pledged delegate lead and the popular vote. However, he may have left an opening to Clinton by not fully cooperating with Clinton and the DNC to find a way to let MI and FL re-vote. They don't want to chance Clinton winning two more big states, but by not going along with it, they give Clinton a lifeline via her ability to count those states as they stand, and possibly, if Clinton manages to pick up enough pledged delegates, counting the FL and MI results from January, to claim she has the lead in pledged delegates.

The popular vote too, via RCP's numbers, has Clinton lifelines via FL's votes being counted, and less so (argumentatively at least), with MI's. Ironically, that might come down to whether Clinton is really strong in Puerto Rico, as some believe.

Jerome says if you're still in denial, check out this handy interactive vote chart by Jay Cost.

< Gore: No Need For "Party Elder" Intervention In Dem Race | Univ. of Chicago Clarifies Obama's Professor Status >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Delegate Race Isn't Over | 71 comments (71 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

gosh, i thought (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by cpinva on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:51:50 AM EST

sen. clinton was dead and buried, we just finished saying kadish over her. go figure?

It's moments like these, (5.00 / 3) (#3)
by ahazydelirium on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:55:46 AM EST

when the odds seem so very difficult, that Hillary always appears strongest. The more inevitable the media makes Obama's nomination, the more reason I have to believe that Hillary is going to upset every calculation and expectation.

Just as she did in New Hampshire, California, Ohio and Texas.

Except... (1.00 / 1) (#16)
by proseandpromise on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:23:49 PM EST

when she lost in Texas.


It's funny (5.00 / 3) (#36)
by blogtopus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:38:40 PM EST

Every time Obama comes up short, his supporters have to bring in the instance where he comes out ahead, even if it goes against the 'will of the people'.


It's just... (1.00 / 1) (#37)
by proseandpromise on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:40:17 PM EST

the way the rules work. You can argue all you want that Caucuses are no good, but because no one fought that fight BEFORE the primary, that is the way the people do things. It's a time honored tradition in Texas.

And Obama got more delegates. Sorry.


: True, (5.00 / 2) (#42)
by ahazydelirium on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:43:47 PM EST

and the superdelegates can choose Hillary.
Glad we can agree on the rules.

Oh please (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by rafaelh on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:53:00 PM EST

As an Obama supporter to another, do you know how annoying this sounds? Yes, he won delegates, but she got more votes, thousands of them. So he won in delegates, but you know we are talking about supporters here.

PS. Not that it think Obama did anything unfair, the system should be fixed but when they both start in the same place and with the same rules it is a fair fight. Plus he started way behind, his campaign team was just better than hers. I think if Hillary had a more efficient campaign staff she probably would have won this by now instead of running behind Obama.


No, the people lost (none / 0) (#28)
by ahazydelirium on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:31:57 PM EST

with the caucus.


I thought that Hillary did (5.00 / 7) (#13)
by frankly0 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:19:56 PM EST

a great job pressing the MI and FL issue in this interview.

I had a suggestion that might be listened to by her campaign, it would be to elevate the MI and FL issue immediately to a top level issue for the campaign, pressing on all fronts to get it maximum exposure.

Obama needs to be called out on his ugly phoniness on this issue -- as well as all his abject, moral principle deficient supporters who are more than happy to throw the enfranchisement of millions of voters down a rat hole if it favors their guy.

I'm sure the American people will back up strongly the need to count the vote in MI and FL in whatever fashion might be most fair at this stage.

Let Obama deal with the consequences of being perceived as against allowing the voices of the people to be heard. Let the man try to explain this one away.

Really, it's an issue that cuts right to the heart of the phoniness of campaign and message, and proves him out to be just another politician with no higher goal than getting himself elected.

That's been one of my biggest issues (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:29:20 PM EST

With the Clinton team.

I think they've been too shy about some issues because they worry too much about how Clinton will be perceived and portrayed as shrewish in the media.

But the thing is. Clinton does the nice thing and they still call her shrewish. The comparisons to Tonya Harding are going to be strewn about by the pathetic fools no matter what she does, so it's best to just do what you feel is right, fight for what you believe in in your heart of hearts, and let the media do what it does.

If anything, the media behaving the way it does only solidifies and hardens her core support.


One point I haven't yet seen (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by frankly0 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:29:09 PM EST

argued strikes me as pretty important.

Obama supporters like Leahy insist that Hillary drop out so that Obama might remain electable. Yet they turn right around and emphatically reject the idea that electability should be a consideration in selecting our nominee.

Well, if doing the right thing for the Party is supposedly to drop out to make the nominee more electable, why isn't doing the right thing for the Party allowing superdelegates to choose the candidate who is the most electable in the first place?


: In short, (none / 0) (#60)
by frankly0 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:41:57 PM EST

If electability of our nominee is important enough to force someone to drop out of the race, why isn't it important enough to use as a basis for selecting our candidate?
Why the absurd double standard?

Obama's worst-case scenario (none / 0) (#2)
by AF on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:53:11 AM EST

Is that FL and MI are counted, but he gets teh uncommited delegates in MI.

Awarding him 0 delegates in MI is just not going to fly, my friends. It's doesn't pass the smell test.

i hope he does (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by irene adler on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:24:02 PM EST

he's entitled to MI's uncommitted delegates. and i can see why you call it a 'worst case scenario' for him.

i posted this on a previous thread...

everyone in MI who wanted to vote for Hillary did. those who wanted to vote for someone else voted uncommitted. since Obama is the only someone else in the race, he should be entitled to all the uncommitted delegates. at least that follows the choice made by MI's democratic primary voters.


No, sorry (5.00 / 2) (#34)
by Anne on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:37:59 PM EST

With choices come consequences. In choosing to take his name off the ballot, he did so knowing there would be no delegates awarded to him; he does not get to claim uncommitted delegates by virtue of being the only other one in the race.

Uncommitted delegates should go to the convention as uncommitted delegates, and allowed to vote for either candidate.


By that logic (none / 0) (#48)
by fuzzyone on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:01:36 PM EST

shouldn't clinton's choice not to oppose the penalty imposed on MI and FL at the time it was imposed preclude her from arguing for seating the delegates now? You can either make a will of the people argument, which seems to support giving Obama the uncommitteds, or a live with the consequences argument, which seems to argue for not seating FL and MI at all, or seating them with a 50% penalty or something. But its hard to see a logical argument for having it both ways. Not that there are is a lot of logic flying around these days.


Uh, no (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by Anne on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:45:29 PM EST

because "the rules" allow for appeals to the credentials committee, and to the DNC, at any point in the process, right up to the convention. How do you think it came to be that the DNC was involved in talks to approve plans to re-vote?

I still do not understand how a "will of the people" argument supports giving Obama the gift of the uncommitted delegates - you have to make an assumption that all of those votes were for him, and since he was not the only one who took his name off the ballot, I don't think that assumption holds up.

I think the problem is that Obama is for any scenario that will give him delegates he did not earn through the voting process. Hillary is not advocating to get any more or any fewer delegates than what the votes would call for, and she was willing to go through a re-vote and accept those results, which she knows could end up giving her fewer delegates than would be allocated according to the January votes.

Whether she benefits in the end, or she doesn't, it is hard to argue that advocating to count the votes is the wrong position.

I have a hard time supporting someone who so clearly seems to care about the right to vote only as long as, and in situations where, it benefits him. It will stand as an example for years, and will be thrown in our faces with some glee, every time we try to argue for the integrity of the right to vote.

Once again, Obama is choosing the short-term option and ignoring the long-term consequences. Not exactly reassuring, for me, anyway.


: How can you support anyone? (none / 0) (#58)
by fuzzyone on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:05:59 PM EST

I have a hard time supporting someone who so clearly seems to care about the right to vote only as long as, and in situations where, it benefits him.
But Hillary did not care until making sure FL and MI counted was to her benefit.
There is no version of counting MI that reflects the will of the people. Hillary said before that election that it would not count. Clearly some significant number of those who voted uncommitted supported Obama.
I supported a revote and I am disappointed that it did not happen but counting these severely tainted elections is not a fair solution to voters who supported Obama. Its about counting all the voters, not just those who supported Clinton.

NO Edwards was still in the race (none / 0) (#68)
by debcoop on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:39:39 PM EST

so some of those uncommitted were for him....probably 1/3 of the 45% uncommitted...So Obama is only entitled 30 of the uncommitted delegates and the same goes for the popular vote totals in Michigan


When Pressed by Greta on FOX- Hillary (none / 0) (#4)
by TearDownThisWall on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:57:50 AM EST

suggested:
<<"You know, you can always go to the convention. That's what credential fights are for," >>

Is this where it all ends up?

The system allows for the possibility. (none / 0) (#6)
by ahazydelirium on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:07:06 PM EST

The existence of the credentials committee, specifically, and Democratic Convention, generally, presupposes the possibility that both would be called on to decide the nominee.

If you're implying that Hillary is going to drag this out to the "bitter" end, the simple retort is this: the possibility of a nominating convention actually nominating a candidate was always there; it's not Hillary's fault that this primary season has exposed this possibility.


In a purely Political Sense- (none / 0) (#10)
by TearDownThisWall on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:12:01 PM EST

this could hurt the dems chances of mounting a long, unified campaign against "McBush"-
as they would only have then a few months to "rally and unify"-
however, if they agree in June as to who nominee is- they get an extra couple months to soothe hurt feelings, and persude the "losers" of the primary campaign....that it's in all best interest to put this bitter battle behind-

I really believe if the dems wait till september...they will blow their chance and give up the WH to McCain


My feelings won't ever be "soothed" (5.00 / 5) (#11)
by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:15:47 PM EST

If the process isn't allowed to play out.

My feelings can be "soothed" if the process is allowed to play out and Obama still wins fair and square.

I wonder if people get that.

Time can heal all wounds but sometimes some wounds take longer to heal than others.

The wounds inflicted by ending this too soon can take years to heel.

The wounds inflicted at the convention may take only days.


You would Bite off your NOSE (none / 0) (#18)
by TearDownThisWall on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:24:13 PM EST

and let McCain win?

on a feeling that the process isn't fair?

aren't the sure to be supreme court picks....more important than properly soothing one's feelings?

I don't understand....


: Legitimate outcome. (5.00 / 2) (#38)
by Iphie on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:40:37 PM EST

I think the point here is that if we let the process play out and we count all the votes, the outcome will be legitimate and acceptable. If we don't, if the Democratic Party decides to disenfranchise voters, then there are going to be problems. I had a problem with the outcome in 2000 not only because the Republicans won, but because they did so by illegitimate means. I will support Obama if he is the choice of a majority of Democratic voters -- but if he wins because he was afraid to count all of the votes and manages to abort the democratic process then I am going to have a much more difficult time "unifying."
And btw, if Obama can't win the Democratic primary without cheating, there is no way he's going to win the GE that way; the Republicans are much better cheaters.

: I don't think (none / 0) (#27)
by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:30:38 PM EST

You understood my point.

That's great reasoning, and (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by ahazydelirium on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:29:00 PM EST

I might be persuaded to accept it; however, the situation in which Democrats find themselves in this primary season is precisely the situation for which the Convention, the Superdelegates and the committees were created. Changing the rules midway to accommodate political expediency could hurt Democratic credibility more.

The Republican meme would run along these lines: the Democrats can't create a good system for choosing a nominee, and they arbitrarily change the rules in a scramble to fix the problem, how can they run the country? In fairness to Republican attack machine, it's a politically good attack.

The benefits of letting this process reach its natural conclusions seem, in my mind, to outweigh the off-chance that we don't get a nominee in the General fray immediately. The process and schedule will remain fundamentally in tact, showing stability in Democratic ranks. The rules committee will seat the delegations from Florida and Michigan, demonstrating the desire in the Democratic Party to uphold our principles. The superdelegates will vote for a nominee, choosing an individual with the impetus of the Party. The system works.

In terms of campaigning, the Democratic nominee will have a short time to unleash wild attacks against McCain. This, however, is not necessarily a bad thing. Consider that good attacks usually hit quickly and dissipate just as quickly. But, with a shortened General, attacks against McCain will be in the forefront of the electorate.

For purposes of full disclosure, I naturally think Hillary would fair better in this situation. The Republican attack machine won't be able to surprise the American public with attacks against Hillary, but they will have a field day with Obama. Hillary, on the other hand, free to be on the offensive rather than the defensive, would be able to make use of the (enormous) amount of material McCain has given us.


: The corporate media (none / 0) (#69)
by joyce1 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:44:09 PM EST

is fanning the flames about this race. Obama says rules are rules and Florida and Michigan should not count. But of course he would say otherwise if HE had won. If rules are rules then why does he want to change the rules concerning the Super delegates? He is not being consistent here, what hypocrisy!

How do you sell MI to Obama supporters? (none / 0) (#5)
by zzyzx on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:04:04 PM EST

This is what I keep asking and not getting an answer to. You're asking for an election that everyone agreed wouldn't count and where only one major candidate to have her name on the ballot to count equally with the other. If the election flips by that, how do you get the Obama supporters to find that a legitimate decision, especially seeing how you'll still need a net gain in SDs to put you over the top in that situation?

This is Not A "Principle" Argument (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by TearDownThisWall on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:07:11 PM EST

It is pure politics-
If the roles were reversed...each candidate would be arguing the exact opposite of what they are stating now-


I disagree (none / 0) (#12)
by zzyzx on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:18:14 PM EST

If the roles were reversed, Obama would have dropped out around Wisconsin.


What makes you think that? (5.00 / 3) (#19)
by rooge04 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:24:49 PM EST

Simply that you wish Clinton had.

She should go to the mat for MI and FL. I cannot believe FL is an issue after 2000. My head is ready to explode.


Because the cases are different (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by zzyzx on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:38:12 PM EST

Obama supporters came into this hoping for an upset, Clinton's were expecting a victory. After 10 straight losses, there would have been a lot more temptation on the Obama side to say, "It looks like the predictions of the pundits were correct and Clinton will easily win the nomination."


On the Obama side (5.00 / 2) (#49)
by oldpro on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:02:08 PM EST

there would have been no temptation to quit so long as the money held out.

You seem not to realize that the whole point of drafting Obama was to take down the Clintons. THAT is why the campaign has to run its course to 'the bitter end.'


I never "expected" a victory. (none / 0) (#43)
by rooge04 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:47:57 PM EST

The inevitability meme is solely that of the MSM. And now used by Obama and supporters to claim "HRC supporters always thought they'd win and that's why they're mad." Disingenuous and absolutely not the case. I knew Obama was running as soon as I saw his speech at the 2004 Convention.


Didn't Hillary Campaign Basically (none / 0) (#50)
by TearDownThisWall on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:06:46 PM EST

plan on wrapping things up by Super Tuesday?
in other words- it was "inevitable" that she was the "Candidate"....therefore no planning was needed beyond this date?

When historians/ ploi junkies look back....i belive this will be one of the "mistakes" that they will point to in discussing "why....what happened to her Campaign...how in the world did she not win?"


Yes, if she loses, historians will ask this. (none / 0) (#61)
by ahazydelirium on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:45:46 PM EST

And, one of the answers (for things are never as simple as just one answer) will be that sexism reared its ugly head.


: And another will be ... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:03:11 PM EST

The horrific actions of the media.

Hillary (none / 0) (#70)
by joyce1 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:50:43 PM EST

never said she was inevitable, the corporate media did. And the Obama campaign as usual put words in her mouth that she never said. For the right-wing to attack the Clintons is somethig we are used to but to hear dems do the same thing to them is disheartening. It is unbelievable!


Exactly (none / 0) (#14)
by proseandpromise on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:20:13 PM EST

Which is why I hate that Clinton pretends like it is one. At least Obama just keeps saying, "We'll go with the DNC." Don't tell me Obama hates democracy because he's being politically expedient. Clinton is doing the same thing, but she's wrapping her politicing up in nice red, white, and blue clothes.


Yes he said he'd go for the DNC (5.00 / 4) (#21)
by rooge04 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:25:23 PM EST

and then refused to have the MI re-vote that adhered to the DNC rules. Again, political expediency. But let's not pretend it's one-sided.


Oh, (none / 0) (#26)
by proseandpromise on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:30:01 PM EST

I know it isn't. That's what I'm saying. What I don't like is when politicians play to various forms of patriotism on the fake. I don't like when people said, "If you don't support the war, than you don't support the troops." Rather than supporting the troops, this was abusing them by using their emotional weight for a purely political argument.

The same is true here. Hillary is being purely political. We have no reason to believe that she is genuinely offended at the idea of MI and FL delegates not being seated. She needs the votes. I get that. But please, please, please Hillary (and supporters) please stop pretending it's about disenfranchising voters.

If that was Hillary's concern, they wouldn't have called red state delegates "second-class." They wouldn't have dismissed "latte drinking voters" out of hand. They wouldn't be contending delegates in Texas. THey wouldn't keep demonizing Caucus states.

So, yes. THey are both politicians. They both do political things. But one of them does a lot less, and does it more fairly. His name is Barack Obama, and I hope he will be my next president.


And you killed (5.00 / 2) (#30)
by rooge04 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:33:43 PM EST

your argument by stating that Obama is a little more above playing politics than HRC. And if those states had been won by him you'd better believe he'd be fighting to the Convention to get those delegates seated. And it is about dis-enfranchising voters. Since it's exactly what they're doing.


: What I like... (none / 0) (#31)
by proseandpromise on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:36:03 PM EST

is that I've never heard him say something to suggest that Hillary or her supporters are somehow un-American. He never argued that she was obstructing democracy.
They are just as political, but he is different about it. He goes low, but never AS low.
My central concern with this is the TYPE of argument. Pretending this is about democracy is what is offensive to me. Obama has not done that.

Excuse me, (4.42 / 7) (#22)
by frankly0 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:26:47 PM EST

Obama doesn't have a basic respect for democracy if he's willing to throw away the votes of millions of people, and doesn't do everything he can to get those votes to count.

Look, whether you like it or not, the principle of democracy is firmly and unquestionably on the side of Hillary here. You can say that if the roles were reversed, she'd take the opposite side. Maybe that's true, and maybe that isn't, but what's certainly true is that it doesn't matter.

All that matters, fundamentally, is the principle of democracy, which supersedes. If Obama is on the wrong side of that principle, it's his problem, not Hillary's. He is forced to show what he really cares about here.

And what he OBVIOUSLY cares about is only his own naked ambition. Democracy can jump in the river, as far as he's concerned -- and as far as his supporters are concerned as well.

What does that say about the man and his message?

Nothing good.


Hillary was willing to throw them away (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by fuzzyone on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:14:02 PM EST

before she won (and before she discovered she was not a shoe in and needed them). Its about politics, not principle.

If you want to argue principle then the argument still does not fly because its not a democratic election when only one person is on the ballot or when there is no campaign and everyone has been told it won't count.


Millions of people (none / 0) (#29)
by clapclappointpoint on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:33:38 PM EST

vote in Russia and Iran and Cuba. Elections held there are most often unfair (and are definitely more fair than the MI vote), but we don't claim that dismissing the elections is the same as dismissing voters.

Awarding all of MI's delegates to Hillary is the same thing (in terms of delegates) as 9 Ohio victories. This will not happen.


: I didn't realize (4.00 / 4) (#45)
by rooge04 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:48:55 PM EST

we're using Cuba and Russia as reasons to dis-enfranchise voters.

See... (none / 0) (#33)
by proseandpromise on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:37:54 PM EST

"Obama doesn't have a basic respect for democracy if he's willing to throw away the votes of millions of people, and doesn't do everything he can to get those votes to count."

This is EXACTLY what I was talking about in my posting just above this. This is the kind of thing the GOP did in '04. Play to patriotism, and idealogies when you are just being political. It is very offensive to me. It cheapens our American ideals and values.


Insuring that the voices of the electorate (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by ahazydelirium on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:40:40 PM EST

are heard is far beyond issues of patriotism.

I agree that the issue is ideological in nature, but I would hope everyone can agree that it's a good ideology to have and count votes.


It isn't though... (none / 0) (#41)
by proseandpromise on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:43:23 PM EST

It could have been, in August of 07, but now it's too political. SOme commenters probably made this case in August and should examine this in the future and make a bigger ruckus the next time the DNC does something like this.

But Hillary, in this sound bite, is playing to our sense of American idealogy when really, she just needs the votes. You need to peer through the smoke-screen.


The rules should be changed: (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by ahazydelirium on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:48:22 PM EST

caucuses should be abolished in favor of primaries, the superdelegates should be disbanded and primaries should be for registered Party members only. Changing the rules midway is unacceptable. We agree.

But there is no rule saying that once a contest has been nullified (Michigan and Florida), it cannot be re-held or counted in some fashion.


I agree completely... (none / 0) (#46)
by proseandpromise on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:51:00 PM EST

I'm not opposed to a MI and FL revote. I'm opposed to Clinton's high-minded but disingenuous rhetoric.

But I agree with you on what you think should be changed. I would much prefer the system you described.


Rhetoric is part of the process. (5.00 / 2) (#47)
by ahazydelirium on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:59:14 PM EST

I think what really bugs most people about this issue is that they know, albeit they don't want to admit it, that Hillary is on the right side of this issue. They attribute all manner of ill motives to her in order to assuage their own guilty at being on the wrong side of the issue.

I know it's impossible to consider Hillary doing any good, but just because fighting for their votes might help her does not mean that's the primary or only consideration in her mind. I'm sure she enjoys the prospect of garnering more delegates and votes in two states that overwhelmingly supported her. Although, politically speaking, her motives are irrelevant. She's on the right side of the issue, and that's all that matters at the end of the political day.


This is what drives me crazy (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by independent voter on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:17:42 PM EST

she is not fighting for the voters, she is fighting for herself. If this were about the voters, no one would be able to whip out the audio clip of her stating "this election will not count for anything", as she would have been fighting for the voters all along. I do not dispute that if the roles were reversed, Obama would be fighting to "count every vote". What is maddening is the attempt to make the motives look so pure when they so clearly are not. Clinton wants the votes to count because they benefit her. That is reality, just face it.


Did you read what I said? (none / 0) (#63)
by ahazydelirium on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:56:00 PM EST

I definitely mentioned that she's not immune to the prospect of garnering votes. Nowhere did I say she had pure motives. I don't believe in purity. Ever. In any situation.

Just as I also don't believe things are "one way" or the "other." To claim that she is ONLY supporting a revote or seating BECAUSE it helps her is absurd. People may hold a view for more than one reason. I think it's perfectly reasonable to suppose that she supports a re-vote because it helps her and because it supports the voters.

As for her earlier remarks, some context would be appropriate. As you might imagine, I'm a stickler for those kinds of details. The provided link (earlier) clearly cuts off what she is saying before she finishes.

I'd like to know what else she said.

Although, to what she did say: It was NOT inaccurate for her to remark that the election wouldn't count for anything. It clearly hasn't. But, that does not necessarily preclude a re-vote or any future options. Her comment, from the short clip, focus only on the original election.


I am not arguing with you (none / 0) (#65)
by independent voter on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:32:00 PM EST

really:-)
Here's the thing, I would be totally on board if (even ONE time) Clinton had fought for Florida and Michigan delegates to be seated and votes to be counted prior to her needing them.
Do you see how that makes a difference to me? If you are fighting for a cause when YOU have nothing to gain, you truly care about the cause. If you only head off to war when it can benefit you, your motives are suspect. I get frustrated when I hear over and over again how Clinton just wants the voters to be heard, because honestly, it is a bunch of BS. The "voters being heard" is a side effect of Clinton getting what she wants. Again, I am not trying to say that Obama would behave any differently, in fact, I am sure he would not. And I would call him out on it.


: I understand what you're saying (5.00 / 1) (#67)
by ahazydelirium on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:24:17 PM EST

but I don't necessarily accept the premise of your definition of what constitutes a good act:
"If you are fighting for a cause when YOU have nothing to gain, you truly care about the cause."
A practical example: there are many people in this country who are fighting for same-sex marriage rights. Are you saying that you have to be disinterested members of that movement in order to demonstrate you truly care about it? Are gays and lesbians not so committed to the cause because they have a personal stake in the outcome? How is a gay marriage advocate to look in this situation? Take me for example: I'm gay, I advocate for gay marriage, but I have distaste (to say the least) for marriage. Does that make me a more committed member of the cause than the two gay men who have been together for 20 years and have adopted a child? No, not at all.
Which brings this point back full circle. Hillary can be both an interested member with a personal stake in the outcome and an advocate for voter rights. Is she practically speaking? That's another matter; however, I don't think she's pushing for the voters solely because she wants the numbers to be on her side. Her history in advocacy (particularly with children) demonstrates that she does, indeed, have a heart beating in her chest and that she is not as calculating and evil as some of the people screaming "foul" and "disingenuous" would have you believe.

Sorry for the O/T (none / 0) (#8)
by athyrio on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:10:30 PM EST

but everytime I click on a video this morning, I get a "mickey mouse" type voice like the video is running really really fast...How do I stop it?? It is extremely frustrating cause I want to see these videos...thanks

Jay Cost's spreadsheet (none / 0) (#9)
by andgarden on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:11:07 PM EST

is really interesting. Unless Obama can successfully cut of Hillary's money now, we're probably going to have chaos.

he has puerto rico turnout of a million (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Turkana on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:20:45 PM EST

what if it's 1.5? what if it's 2? watch the exploding heads if puerto rico gives clinton a significant popular vote victory.

of course, btd thinks it will be over before then.


For some reason (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by spit on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:37:50 PM EST

I will be really thrilled and amused if PR winds up deciding our race. And it's not because I care which candidate wins.

Looks like the last major race there, PR had a turnout of very nearly 2,000,000. Of course, it's really hard to say whether that's a helpful guide, since this is a pretty unprecedented race, but I'd be surprised if everywhere else broke records and PR had lowered turnout.

I make no solid predictions anymore, but if things continue on their current path without major deviations, I think we're in for things remaining close for a while, and quite possibly right up to the end.


: Of course (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by spit on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:42:18 PM EST

to clarify, that was for a "general election" type situation. I have no insight whatsoever on how party politics really work in PR, but would assume it's very heavily lopsided toward democratic voters in any national politics in which it gets to take part.

Go to the interactive vote chart (none / 0) (#20)
by nellre on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:25:22 PM EST

That demonstrates just how close this race is.
That anybody is thinking somebody should drop out is ludicrous.
If the dems don't address the MI/FL issue they are dead in November. They've got to know that!
Is Dean bitter about his failed campaign or what?

Kerry votes? (none / 0) (#25)
by Andy08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:29:56 PM EST

Why does Jay Cost have "Kerry votes in C" (red cells). Typo?

For comparison... (none / 0) (#53)
by oldpro on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:25:59 PM EST

Those are the votes Kerry actually got in the '04 general election.


: Thanks (none / 0) (#66)
by Andy08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:55:12 PM EST

Thought he wanted to tabulate Obama's and Clinton's numbers there but didn't make sense. I get it now.

Thems the rules a weak argument (none / 0) (#55)
by nellre on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:46:16 PM EST

Counting out FL after the debacle in 2000 is the craziest thing I have ever heard. Rove must have drugged their water.
HRC is a bit behind, but she is the one who'd win in November. Obama won all the red states. They'll still be red in November. It's the swing states that are important. MI and FL are swing states. HRC wins the big swing states.

Here are the swing states as of 2004
Arizona: 10 Electoral votes Clinton
Arkansas: 6 Electoral votes Clinton
Delaware: 3 Electoral votes Obama
Florida: 27 Electoral votes ? (Clinton favored)
Iowa: 7 Electoral votes Obama (caucus)
Louisiana: 9 Electoral votes Obama
Maine: 4 Electoral votes Obama (caucus)
Michigan: 17 Electoral votes ?
Minnesota: 10 Electoral votes Obama
Missouri: 11 Electoral votes Obama
Nevada: 5 Electoral votes Obama (caucus)
New Hampshire: 4 Electoral votes Clinton
New Mexico: 5 Electoral votes Clinton
Ohio: 20 Electoral votes Clinton
Oregon: 7 Electoral votes ?
Pennsylvania: 21 Electoral votes ? (Clinton favored)
Washington: 11 Electoral votes Obama (caucus)
West Virginia: 5 Electoral votes ?
Wisconsin: 10 Electoral votes Obama

That's Obama 70 and Clinton 45 as it stands now but PA adds 21 and she'd win FL presumably, so add another 27 comes to 93 if they carry these states
It's a big if of course, but OH and FL have always been biggies.

We want to win in November right?

: I agree with your assesment for (none / 0) (#62)
by kenosharick on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:49:56 PM EST

the most part. I am from Wis. and the Dems have BARELY won the last few elections. This wright thing kills it for Barack in Wis. He will win Madison and Milwaukee, but lose every other part of the state. I have been talking to people there(I know this is only anecdotal)and there is no way he wins the general in Wis. (Hillary maybe)

I just wish (none / 0) (#71)
by rosaleen on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:43:45 AM EST

some people would stop stating that Hillary didn't care about FL and MI before she won the contests. She didn't take her name off of either ballot. And I don't know about Michigan, but I saw video of her in FL, before the election, assuring Floridians that she would fight to have their votes counted. And that's what she's doing.

So stop saying that. It isn't true.

And I don't know why (none / 0) (#72)
by rosaleen on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:56:00 AM EST

so many have their knickers all up in a wad over the fact that the nomination hasn't yet been secured! This is the first time in a long time that the press hasn't picked the nominees! People are voting all across the nation for once. This is a good thing.

A brokered convention is just the thing.