Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Hillary Clinton must be the Democratic nominee; Do The Math

bringiton's picture
Departments: 

[Readers, the comments section is long and noisy, but interesting. See if, in your judgment, the points the bringiton makes are addressed head-on, or not. And watch for the duellling haikus! --lambert]

[Update below, 11 May 08, bottom of main text - BIO]

Only one thing matters; winning the Presidency in November. Hillary Clinton has proven she is by far the strongest candidate an most likely to achieve that victory. How can she convince the Democratic Party delegates?

Many arguments have been advanced about how to settle the Democratic nomination. Barak Obama argues that winning the majority of pledged delegates should decide the race – but he is wrong. Clinton argues that perhaps the total popular vote should decide the issue – but she is wrong. Earnest people are calling for immediate reinstatement of the primary delegations from Florida and Michigan, saying that is the key – but they are wrong. All that matters is electability.

This nomination will be settled by a few superdelegates, most of whom are allied with Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Some time between now and the end of June, those three and their allies will make the decision that all of the primary elections and caucuses could not resolve. They will base their conclusion on one factor and one only; which of the two candidates is best equipped to beat John McCain. How should they reach that decision?

Not even the primary delegate totals are an accurate indicator of a candidate’s strength in the general election. Caucuses are an inaccurate reflection of voter turnout for ballot elections, and even ballot election results can be distorted and overthrown by subsequent machinations during county and state level conventions. Further deforming the process is the awkward system by which primary delegates are awarded to each state; a very complicated arrangement based on previous voting patterns, the number of sitting Democratic office holders and bonus delegates for holding elections within certain dates that does not reflect the relative worth of each state in the general election. A seemingly democratizing provision, awarding delegates proportionately, does not mimic the winner-take-all* system that is our Electoral College and this is the only metric the Democratic Party must consider – who can command the most votes in the Electoral College?

In 2004, George W. Bush won 286 electoral votes from 31 states while John Kerry took 251 electors from 19 states plus DC. (John Edwards received 1 electoral vote, legal because the electors are free to ignore the will of their state’s citizen voters and cast their ballot for whomever they please; just like the delegates to the Democratic Convention. Consider that un-democratic constitutional provision a measure of the “Founder’s Intent.”) Looking at the voting level state-by-state can provide some instruction regarding the work that needs to be done by the Democratic candidate to win in 2008.

Of the states that went Republican in 2004, Bush was victorious in 24 of them by more than 5% – TX, NC, VA, GA, IN, MO, TN, KY, AL, AZ, LA, SC, OK, MS, AR, KS, UT, WV, NE, ID, MT, SD, ND, and WY. Those states have a total of 213 Electors, and provide a formidable base for John McCain on the way to capturing the 270 needed to win election. While the unpopularity of Bush and Republican economics may hand over some of these states to the Democrats, it would be more prudent to assume that all of them will go Republican again this year and look for support elsewhere.

Of the states that went Democratic, 13 gave Kerry a victory of more than 5% – CA, NY, IL, NJ, WA, MA, MD, CT, ME, RI, DE, VT, HI – as did DC. This aggregation yielded 183 Electors, and assuming that the Democratic candidate can capture them again this year it will still leave a structural Electoral College deficit of 30 votes that will need to be overcome; not a trivial matter against a formidable candidate like John McCain, the coordinated smear machine and Get Out the Vote capabilities of the VRWC, and the MSM echo chamber condemnation of the Democratic candidate sure to come regardless of which candidate is tendered.

The states where Democrats will have to go to win the White House are those where the 2004 voting margin was closer – less than 5% either way. These so-called Swing States – PA, OH, FL, MI, MN, WI, CO, OR, IA, NM, NV, and NH – have 142 Electors; Democrats must make a strong showing to seize the 87/55 advantage they will need. (An electoral College tie would be unfortunate and risky; probably the House and Senate would install the Democrats, but with the Blue Dogs nothing is certain.) What the superdelegates have to ask themselves now, their one single, overriding concern, must be: Which of the two candidates is most likely to carry those Swing States, and by a resounding margin?

How ever would anyone know? Fortunately, the Democratic Party has already asked that question of the people most likely to know the answer – the Democratic voters of those self-same Swing States. There have already been elections or caucuses in PA, OH, MN, WI, CO, IA, NM, NV, and NH. The primary elections held in FL and MI were clearly in Clinton’s favor, and the scheduling conflict with Rules & Bylaws over seating delegates has no bearing on evaluating the opinion of the voters; she won both contests handily. One more Swing State, OR, will have it’s primary on May 30; Obama is comfortably ahead in the polls and has been for some time, so at this point we could reasonably assume that he will win there.

What does this referendum tell us, and the superdelegates? Table 1 tallies the Electoral votes available in November from the Swing States, assigned to the primary victor in each state on a winner-take-all basis. The judgment of the voters could not be clearer.

Photobucket

By a majority of more than 2 to 1 in Electoral College strength, the Democratic voters of the Swing States prefer Hillary Clinton. A preference of 99 to 43 is not even close; it is definitive. The voters who are most in a position to know, who actually live in these states and know not just their own opinions but those of their friends and neighbors, have made a resounding decision; they want Hillary Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominee. This overwhelming popularity is why a delegation of elected officials from Swing States have written an open letter to the superdelegates, arguing forcefully that Clinton is not only the clear best choice as the Presidential nominee but also will make the greatest contribution to winning the down-ticket races.

“Of the fifteen districts rated “toss up” by the Cook Political Report, Hillary has now won ten. Of the 20 districts we picked up in 2006 that had gone for President Bush just two years before, Hillary has now won 16. She is strong in the places we must win to hold and expand our majority.”

These are voices that must not just be listened to, but thoroughly respected and heeded.

But what if these elections are an anomaly? What if there is something about the Swing State voters that is somehow aberrant, that does not reflect the opinions and preferences of the Democratic Party? Where would we look for confirmation? How about the voters in those states that were solidly Democratic in 2004?

Table 2 shows the Electoral vote totals for so-called Blue States, awarded winner-take-all to the primary contest victor. Again, the voters’ judgment is abundantly clear.

Photobucket

Clinton dominates these states, crushing Obama 117 to 66. Clearly, the voters of solidly Blue States agree with voters in the Swing States, overwhelmingly preferring Clinton as the Democratic nominee. While these states should stay in the Democratic column, it only makes sense to run the candidate who has shown the ability to win them – especially when they are the same candidate who so handily wins the Swing State group.

The nomination decision is no longer disputable. It cannot be that anyone rational would expect the Democratic Party to nominate a candidate whose support is based on primary results from states that are unlikely to deliver Electoral College votes in November. It was of course important that Democratic voters in Republican-dominated states be given an opportunity to participate and voice their opinion, but victory for the Democrats in the general election is not going to be attained through dependence on a nominating scheme reflecting popularity contests attended by a few thousand people in Idaho or Wyoming. The only matter at hand is fielding a candidate who can achieve an Electoral College majority; Red State resident or Blue, everyone must agree that the candidate with the best chance of winning the general election must be made the nominee.

Even though the issue is clearly settled, it is important that the rest of the primaries be conducted for the sake of party unity. It is also important that Barak Obama be afforded every opportunity to make his case to the superdelegates in early June, even though there is no longer any possibility that he can catch Clinton in the only measure that matters. He must not be harassed into withdrawal. He has made a noble effort, especially for someone with such a limited resume, and should be given the opportunity to chose for himself the time and place of his inevitable concession. That is the decent thing to do.

Concede he must, for the good of the Party; persistent divisiveness would be unbecoming and disloyal. He is a young man, and surely will at some point take up his role as a United States Senator in a meaningful way. Perhaps he could, just to see what it’s like, hold oversight hearings, or write meaningful legislation; maybe he could ease into the job by showing up for votes (currently third highest missed-votes rate at 40.1%, right behind Sen. Tim Johnson who is still recovering from his stroke.) He might also author another autobiographical meditation; a lessons-learned reflection, “The Mendacity of Trope” or a campaign journal – “Me, Michelle and I.” With on-the-job effort and some improvement in his debating skills he may even be able to successfully win over the voters in 2016. His followers this time around should not despair; although such aspirations may now smack of audacity, there is always Hope.

In summary, the voters of the states that the Democratic nominee must win have clearly spoken, and what they have decided must be respected; to do otherwise would be utterly foolish. The superdelegates, as the conscience and repository of wisdom for the Party, must do their duty and ensure that the strongest candidate receives the nomination. Without question, that nominee – and the next President of the United States – must be:

Hillary Rodham Clinton

- - - - - - - - - - - -

[Update: Laambert requested clarification of the rules for the presidential nomination process, to correct false assertions made in comments. An overview is downthread, here.]

- - - - - - - - - - - -

* OK, Maine and Nebraska are nominally proportional, but neither state has ever split their electors and is unlikely to do so in this election.

[Prophylactic: I make no argument here that Obama is unelectable, that he cannot beat John McCain; I believe he can, but with somewhat greater difficulty than Clinton – why take the risk? But this post is not about my opinion; it is solely and only based on the opinions of millions of voters from the states that Democrats most need to win in this election. Since all Obama enthusiasts, like all Clinton devotees, are first of all loyal supporters of the Democratic Party and will respect the unequivocal will of the voters – as they have been calling on Clinton to do for so very long now – there should be no discussion here over what is so clearly irrefutable. Please do the right thing and fall in line submit come along without complaint, for the good of the Party, the Nation and the World. Additionally, please do not clutter up the discussion thread with meaningless repetition of OFB talking points; if you have nothing new to offer, kindly hold your peace.]

0
No votes yet

Comments

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

You've put Oregon into the Obama column -- they haven't voted yet.

In addition, when making this argument, the only delegates that matter are the ones allocated using the formula

.5*(SDV/TDV+SEV/538)

The "super" delegates are free agents, not won during the caucus/primary season.

But L love the EC analysis anyway! ;-)

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

You give Obama MI, which some of his supporters are claiming he would win(we would know if Obama hadn't resisted a revote, too bad) Clinton still beats him 72-60.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond

Submitted by hipparchia on

if the party were truly interested in measuring 'electability' they'd gladly hold new primaries for both florida and michigan. a lot has been said and done, and learned about the candidates, since january. would those 2 states, or any of the early-voting states, still vote the same way today? or in november?

you've made a good case for one of my favorite campaign reform ideas: anybody can run for president, they can't formally declare their candidacy until january of election year, hold a national primary in august [all on one day, like election day], conventin shortly thereafter, and the general in november.

if iowa ans new hampshire still want to go first, let them. in february.

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

I agree people should only be looking at swing states in terms of who can win in Nov. But it is not winner take all between Obama and Clinton.. And to look at it this way is dumb.

Instead the table should be swing states and winner take all between Obama v. McCain or Clinton v. McCain. It's just not sound logic or smart to compare winner take all of the subset of Democratic primary voters ONLY. First of all the election in November is not just Democratic voters. Secondly, your premise is electoral college and then you try and make tables and pretend the electoral college is somehow a runoff between Clinton and Obama. It isn't.

Anyways..
(v. McCain)
Obama Clinton
PA ~0% +6%
OH +2% +7%
FL +8% ~0%
MI ~0% -5%
MN +10% ~0%
WI ~0% -4%
CO ?? ?? (-5 to -10%)
OR +9% ~0%
IA +7% -3%
NM ~0% ~0%
NV ~0% ?? (-8%)
NH -8% -4%

If you look at the polling trends (above data is approx from pollster.com) it appears Clinton might lose IA compared to Obama but do better in PA and OH. In addition, OR, MN, FL go from easy win to tossup.

So is polling worth anything as the trends have already swung quite a bit?? Also the Dems have wasted a lot of time being negative towards each other and leaving McCain alone. Right now it looks like they both will lose unless the really start campaigning against their GOP opponent.

Submitted by lambert on

... which is why I'm stickying it.

I should stress, because my posting has been scattered on this issue, that the whole FL/MI thing drives me bonkers, and that I think Obama muffed a chance to really lead by not taking Carville up on his $15 million offer, and I think it's wrong to even appear to deny people votes. I also understand that the only duty of the automatic delegates, the SDs, is to render a judgment, and that, like it or not, the popular vote is just one of their inputs. Them's The Rulez. My understanding also is also that the pledged delegates can reverse themselves between now and August, making the breathless countdown to a "magic number" both meaningless and disingenuous. Yes? Might be nice to have an UPDATE on that in this post, just to wrap everything up in a tidy package.

UPDATE That Blue Dog scenario for an electoral college tie is horrific; deserves a sticky for that alone. And that's weapons-grade snark in the paragraph starting "Concede he must...."

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

corinne's picture
Submitted by corinne on

Starting with Atrios

At this point, however, Obama's won. There's no nomination path for her which doesn't involve rewriting the rules in a way which would never be seen as legitimate, or a massive shift in superdelegates which would likewise be problematic, and even those paths range from unlikely to impossible. I don't think Clinton has to drop out. She can continue to campaign through to the last contest if she wants (she doesn't need my permission to do so), though hopefully this article is correct and the, uh, emphasis of the campaign shifts away from Obama's supposed lack of appeal to real Americans.

It's sad to see him finally succumb to the Conventional Wisdom.

Definitely share it with Jerome Armstrong who tells the Obamabots to Deal With Defeat

In WV, Clinton is blowing Obama away in numbers that she has not been seen since Super Tuesday. And while Obama supporters have claimed that the her voters will move over to support Obama in the GE, this poll doesn't quite show that happening in WV

Submitted by lambert on

It would be interesting to lay the numbers in Krugman's clinging to the data against the Electoral College material here.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by lambert on

Here:

The following week, Barack Obama has planned a party to claim the nomination in Portland, based on his own campaigns measurement. He can say whatever he wants, but it's an insult to intelligence to believe it until it happens by the rules. As Howard Dean has said many times, MI and FL are going to be resolved and seated. Obama has now agreed with that position. Like it or not, the working number of delegates is 2209. There's not a rule that says if you get a plurality of the pledged delegates, you win.

The Obama campaign will declare that there's never been a candidate denied the election who had the most pledged delegates. True. But has there been a candidate denied the nomination whose had the most votes? I don't think so. But neither of those metrics matters. 2209, or whatever the number is after the resolution of MI and FL happens to be, is all that matters. Until then, we don't have a nominee.

Wow. A party. Will there be balloons? Will their be ponies?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

corinne's picture
Submitted by corinne on

My invitation must have gotten lost in the mail. I'll be sure to cry myself to sleep over it /snark

MOBlue's picture
Submitted by MOBlue on

He won in only the typical Democratic strongholds. Clinton won the rest of the state. Last SUSA poll 4/11-13 Clinton 47% McCain 46%, Obama 42% McCain 50%.

27% of Democratic voters will vote for McCain rather than Obama.

cenobite's picture
Submitted by cenobite on

Based on state polls and monte carlo analysis. Monte carlo analysis handles the quantized nature of the electoral college (you either win or you don't, the electors are not awarded proportionally).

He takes the state head-to-head polls, turns them into a probability of either candidate winning, then runs 10000 elections with a random number generator.

This is a good methodology (in fact it was something I wanted to try myself) but I can't vouch for the implementation details, because I don't know them:

Obama-McCain, 89.9% probability of McCain win:
http://hominidviews.com/?p=1509

Clinton-McCain, 74.7% probability of Clinton win:
http://hominidviews.com/?p=1508

orionATL's picture
Submitted by orionATL on

thanks bringiton.

this represents a LOT of work.

i have not read this post carefully, nor the one i'm going to point you to,

but both seem to arrive at about the same conclusion.

my only caveat about either of these is that voter opinion in politics can change a good deal between now and november.

but i'm for clinton, period. no qualifiers needed, ever.

at No Quarter there is a post up this am entitled "math that matters most".

within, it references "an analysis by mr. x", who is, or claims to be, a canadian programmer.

i skimmed his analysis and i'm going back shortly to look it over more carefully.

but i think he, and bringiton, and karl rove are all on the same page about which democrat can win in November.

it looks as if the obama campaign has managed to stampede the superdelegates in their direction. that, most regrettably, is how politics works, in the congress especially. and how we get very bad legislation.

that is why it is very important that clinton not end her campaign until there is a formal vote in august.

orionATL's picture
Submitted by orionATL on

at No Quarter

see the post up this am entitled

"math that matters most"

within is a citation to "an analysis by mr. x " who is a canadian programmer

said mr. x does a very extensive numerical analysis with maps and comes to a conclusion simsilar to bringiton's.

the numberical analyses are converging in one direction and the superdelegates are stampeding in the opposite direction.

to paraphrase delong, why o why can't we have wiser political leadership?

koshembos's picture
Submitted by koshembos on

It is difficult to believe that the super delegates will stray too far from the Democratic leadership in the last 8 years. Therefore, the undecided will go with Obama because doing otherwise requires fortitude, belief in your strength and a backbone. We know too well the the Democratic leadership is genetically lacking all those character traits.

The post fails to cover an important point. In retrospect, Hillary could have won on all counts quite easily. Something is terribly suspect when you realize that Obama won all caucuses but one. Hillary didn't have enough monitors and enough information on voting in the caucuses. Only lately, it was divulged that the Texas caucuses went Obama due to his people downright cheating. There is a good reason to believe that Texas was not an aberration.

The timeout Hillary's campaign took after super Tuesday cost her a lot and is absolutely unclear why it happened.

Nominating Hillary still has to overcome the fact that she didn't run a good campaign at significant spots. Why should we expect this to change?

KoshemBos

Submitted by lambert on

and no, I'm not sure that Hillary campaign did well on that; the decision seems entirely unmotivated. She hit her stride late, and I can only hope not too late.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

This is why, despite looking at the Math and the media, I just can't quite bring myself to accept Obama will be the nominee. It's not that it's shocking to me that we would pick someone so much less qualified, we've done that before. It's that he's pretty much been on a downward trend the last several months in crucial states while Clinton has been on an upward trend in those same states. He's a considerably weaker GE candidate now than he was in February and Clinton is stronger. And that has been the trend for two months and I think it is important that it's the trend now because look at how much campaigning has been done. People know a lot more about both candidates than they did in January or February.

Like I said, I hear the Math and media - and the Goddesses know this would not be the first time the democratic party all held hands and jumped off a cliff together, we are the party of the noble loss - but I just can't believe that the party overall wants to lose this chance at a major victory across the board.

"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt

jackbrown's picture
Submitted by jackbrown on

This is a giant reach at best...

The head to head polling between McCain and Obama is very similar to the Clinton-McCain matchup, and cooking numbers, while a great national pastime for blog-junkies, doesn't do a great job of representing the true picture.

Bottom line is McCain is VERY beatable, and either Dem will do it.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

You say either candidate will easily beat McCain. We say Hillary yes, Obama not so much.

Clearly we all agree that Hillary will easily beat John MCain.

That makes Hillary the obvious unanimous choice.

---------------------------------------------------
" . . . we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender . . ."- Winston Churchill

x

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

Submitted by lambert on

That's why I don't feel any need to do a thing for Obama other than vote for him -- and since his supporters wouldn't be comfortable working with racists, anyhow, why not give them a break -- but instead look at downticket races, or policy issues like universal health care. And it seems that he, Donna Brazile, and the Boiz have all made the same calculation, so who am I to quarrel with the experts?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

cenobite's picture
Submitted by cenobite on

The head to head polling between McCain and Obama is very similar to the Clinton-McCain matchup, and cooking numbers, while a great national pastime for blog-junkies, doesn’t do a great job of representing the true picture.

Bottom line is McCain is VERY beatable, and either Dem will do it.

This "true picture" -- it is based on what? The hairs on the back of your neck? Many of us thought that Kerry couldn't possibly lose in 2004. We need to be hard-headed about this. The opinion polling, head to head, is very bad for Sen Obama and getting worse not better.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Paul L: Thank you for the kind words. I did give OR to Obama, for several reasons. One, he is well ahead in the polls so it seemed only fair, two I wanted to give him – and his supporters – every benefit of the doubt, and three it let me write in a definitive manner, with no loose ends. The decision for the Party leadership and their superdelegates isn’t going to be based on any of the metrics we’ve all been fussing over – not that the fussing was anything but worthwhile, explaining how the process works and how it doesn’t is absolutely valuable – but this time, this cycle, they will have to decide based on gut feel; politics as it should be played, I absolutely love it!

Oh and thanks ever so for putting up the pledged delegate allocation formula (that’s from the Democratic Delegate Selection document, and isn’t it a doozey?) Takes me back to that year of high school freshman algebra I spent staring at the extravagantly expanding breasts of the lovely young girl with the big blue eyes sitting next to me – ah, the memories!

I may have it wrong, but IIRC the actual formula is:

AF=1/2((SDV/TDV)+(SEV/538))

Based on numbers from the last three presidential elections (1996, 2000 and 2004) where SDV = state's democratic vote, TDV = the total popular vote for the democratic candidate, SEV = the state's electoral vote and 538 = the total number of votes in the Electoral College; must put those parentheses in just the right place or we might end up with President Sharpton. Why is this particular formula being used? No one seems to know. Plus, the total state allocation also includes the number of elected officials, party officials, and some At-Large delegates apparently just because, not to mention the “bonus delegates” given to states that played nice with Rules and Bylaws. Which would I suppose be fine and all except that giving weight to states that will not reward the Party with Electors in the general makes no sense at all. (Sigh. She was such a lovely girl….)

Aeryl, MOBlue, exactly. If Obama had won the MO primary by 100,000 votes he won’t win it in the general; probably neither of them will win it this year, so that victory is irrelevant when considering who will be the stronger candidate against McCain. Just doesn’t matter.

Aeryl, about MI: Clinton won 55.2% of the vote, majority. Play whatever games you like, give ALL of the other votes to Obama and she still wins by more than a 10% margin – a blowout in any election. What the OFB wants plus four bucks will get you a half-caf-half-decaf grande soy mocha with a dollop of whipped cream and still leave 20 cents for a tip – the “Creative Class” is generous like that, Reagan “trickle down” economic ideas are the best. Clinton won Michigan. Crushed the opposition. They need to deal with it.

Hipparchia, I hear ya but all we can do now is work with what we’ve got in hand. The primary system is, oh, what’s the term of art I’m searching for, ah yes – All Jacked Up. Needs to be fixed. Needs to be destroyed and replaced, actually. An interesting task for another day.

Intranets, old fellow, how are you? “Close” is, IIRC, the kindest word you’ve ever given me; much appreciated. As to “dumb” “not sound logic” and “pretend” those of us who ride the short bus do the best we can. My premise here, and it may well be “dumb”, is that the voters in the swing states know what they’re about. They understand that the whole point is winning the general, and so they will vote in their state for the candidate they see as most likely to win in that state. It is the Electoral College race that matters, surely we agree on that; I simply add in the notion that people voting in the PA primary have a fair collective sense of who will be the best candidate in PA in November, where “best” means most likely to win the state, and so forth. A far more reasonable means of assessment than sniffing around the pollsters, IMHO. (Oh, and how about that Guam vote, eh? Any thoughts on vote-rigging there, since Obama was supposed to take it handily? Any rumors on the integrity of the recount? I’m all ears.)

Lambert, thank you kindly for compliments and the sticky, as well as for the added assignment. I’ll do something tonight or tomorrow as time allows. The whole process is FUBAR, that’s one reason I can’t work up too much heat over inequities; beating people up over undemocratic processes within a fundamentally undemocratic process, well, great fun but misses the larger point – IMHO. Re: the BlueDogs, can you just imagine the machinations in the Senate should the VP be decided there? Joe Lieberman swings it to McCain and we have a split Administration, one where the Dem President has to spend four years in Cheney’s old undisclosed location governing by teleconference, to avoid assassination. Fabulous stuff.

Corrine, have at it. This is all public information; get busy circulating it. Take what you like, rearrange and add to, send it to everyone you know. Be the change, baby!

Cenobite, OMG, a Monte Carlo Analysis! Lovely stuff, I’d seen that write-up and agree, absolutely delightful, but, and thre is always a “but”, the problem is with the input data – the polls. GIGO, I’m afraid, plus how many superdelegates will either take the time to look at it or understand what it might mean? Just guessing here but I’ll put my bet down on Double Zero. Still, a terrific theoretical and definitely agree with you, you smart statistician you – absolutely a recommended read, for both the technique and its limitations.

Orion ATL: Please, put up some links to those articles. Hopefully I am not “on the same page” as Karl the Slug, the stench will never come off.

Koshembos: Yes, yes, yes and yes. What I’m trying to do here is get past all the what if and coulda shoulda and micro analysis, to put the question in a simple but rational way that avoids argument from people named “fruitless” and the like, and can be propagated in a few simple words “Hillary wins the states that matter”. Agreed, the Hillary ground game should have been better, but is that a rational reason to use as a basis for selecting the better candidate? Probably not, since in the general there won’t be any caucuses or county conventions or secondary selection committees – just a simple vote with actual voters and ballots. Someone who wins with ballots, in states that matter, that’s the Ticket.

BDBlue, agreed, so start writing. Dean, Pelosi and Reid – they are the target. If we can convince them, then Hillary gets the nomination. Go, sic ‘em!

Jackbrown: Please. Obama can beat McCain, I said so. Hillary beat Obama, in the states that matter; whipped his ass. Therefore – stay with me now, this is not hard – Hillary is the stronger candidate. End of argument. Now go away unless you have something new to offer. Nothing new, no more responses – please, everyone; if you pay attention to them, they just keep hanging around.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

Props, when the Scary Smart One gives you recognition (in a good way) you're doing something right!

http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/2008/05/p...

---------------------------------------------------
" . . . we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender . . ."- Winston Churchill

x

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

Submitted by lambert on

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Do_the...

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Reduced to a sentence, I am, but a good one:

"...winning a primary in a state where your party is in the minority is not an electoral advantage, even in a landslide win, because that does not change the relative strength of your party in comparison to the dominant party."

Exactly.

jackbrown's picture
Submitted by jackbrown on

Obama vs. McCain according to Pollster.com, an aggregate of dozens of polls,
pegs it at Obama 45.4% , McCain 45%:

Clinton polls stronger at 46.6% vs. 43.8 for McCain, and is trending in that direction as of recently.

And Kerry didn't lose, by the way- he should have forced Ohio to account for their votes and proved it.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Using your numbers - without any links, again, don't be so lazy next time - Obama v. McCain is a tossup. Clinton, however, has a clear lead over McCain. Hillary Clinton is the stronger candidate.

Glad to see you're catching on.

PS: Kerry who? The little Blue that came in second at the last Kennel Club show? Nobody cares anymore. We've moved on. It is 2008 now; try to keep up.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

National polls are meaningless, but when it comes to comparisons between Clinton and Obama, they are especially meaningless.

That is because there is a significant difference in where Obama and Clinton's strengths are. Obama is strongest in heavily Republican states, while Clinton does far better in swing states.

It might be a great thing for the future of the party if the Democrats lose Wyoming by only 15% because Obama is on the ballot rather than Clinton, but its meaningless in terms of the future of this nation. Losing by less in heavily GOP states, and losing by small margins in Pennsylvania, means losing the White House.

That being said, I do have a question about these polls because I doubt if they adequately account for the demographic differences that would occur if Clinton or Obama is the candidate.

I think that we can expect to see higher female participation (relative to male) if Clinton is the nominee, and higher AA participation if Obama is the nominee -- we're really talking two different demographic models here. Are ANY of these national polls compensating for that?

jackbrown's picture
Submitted by jackbrown on

If you insist on a footnote to backup what I spelled out for you, who's being lazy?

http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Pres-GE-Mv...

http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Pres-GE-Mv...

Regarding Kerry, my post was a response to cenobite who referred to Kerry's "loss", which I would simply call the second consecutive stolen election... since both Gore and Kerry actually won I don't buy the hype about Dems needing to change message, tactics, etc.- just the counting.

As for keeping up, here are the only numbers that really matter:

Obama: 1,865, 160 needed
Clinton: 1,696, 327 needed
#needed for victory: 2,024.5

Everything else in this thread is something akin to denial of the present reality- I'd suggest that you keep up with that.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

Dems "lost" in 2000 and 2004 because the GOP didn't get crushed in two key demographics: women and Hispanics. A shift of a few points in each demographic and Gore would have stomped Bush. A few points shift in '04 and Kerry would have overcome Bush's popular vote edge. Clinton gets those two key demographics as everything indicates. With Hillary, you don't have to suppose different turnout models to make your case. And now that Hillary has proven to be a helluva fighter, she's making inroads to her largest hurdle, white men.

Only tyrants rig elections.

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

is right. Comparing Obama vs Clinton to get Obama or Clinton vs McCain is beyond pointless.

It's six months til the election. Six months ago Guiliani was the Repub frontrunner and Hillary was our inevitable nominee. A lot happens in six months. Polls today mean very little for November.

Polls today also reflect 15 months of Dem on Dem warfare, the worst of it since February while McCain has had a free ride from us in all that time.

Recession or worse staring us in the face, losing two wars, and don't think average Iraqis won't weigh in with the only vote they get to make their point: IEDs which is going to devastate the case for Senator Surge is Working, fresh stories of Republican corruption and incompetence every week if not daily, the American people's proclivity to throw one party out of the WH after 8 years, and a dynamic Dem candidate with a tested, incredibly well funded campaign machine compared to McCain's lobbyist ridden, financially hamstrung operation. Not to mention McSame's phoniness, propensity to blow his stack and flip flop like a fish out of water.

We're going to cream him in November. My guess is Hillary knows it too and that's why she's hanging around hoping someone comes up with a video of Obama having sex with a camel.

Submitted by lambert on

Jack asks Who's being lazy?

You.

NOTE Jack, plenty of people use A tags without any problems. Generally, Corrente does NOT remove them. If you need help with the markup, please feel free to ask.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Nothing meaningful, same old regurg. Go find something new or on topic.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

You didn't include the links, you're the one who is lazy. Blaming Corrente for your laziness/incompetence is typical. Failure to make any new argument. Failure to add to the conversation. Go away.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

It’s six months til the election. Six months ago Guiliani was the Repub frontrunner and Hillary was our inevitable nominee. A lot happens in six months. Polls today mean very little for November.

Six months ago, nobody had voted yet. We're not looking at polls, we're looking at actual votes.

Jeebus!

--------------------------------------------------

" . . . we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender . . ."- Winston Churchill

x

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

or damn near; state polls are not much better, as we've seen again and again in this campaign. After the Dems have decided and the public has a chance to reflect a little, then we'll see.

I only responded because it was so absurd for jackbrown to cite poll results that show Obama behind compared to Clinton, acting as though that somehow argued in Obama's favor. With these fanatics Obama could crap on their faces and they'd lick their lips; "Mmmmm, chocolate!"

Sad, actually.

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

My point is that I don't think it is useful to examine winner take all between two dems.

In the swing states you have to consider:
- make up of registered Dems vs Rep vs independents
- the Obama / Clinton take of Rep and Indep
- the turnout of general voters versus primary voters

I agree people should focus on who can win the swing states, but I don't think it is as simple as more Dems voted for Hillary therefore she is the bet choice to win electoral college in a given swing state. While statewide polling is pretty lame, it does take into account part of the above concerns.

So for one thing you may have independents who do not vote in a primary, or even Republicans who might vote for Obama and would never vote for Hillary. I agree with your tables IF we were talking about states that were 70% registered Dems. But the reality is more complicated than assessing winner take all to a single Dem candidate.

You might look at the 2000 & 2004 history of swing states and compare the primary winner versus general election winner.

At any rate, my point is that you are trying to make the case of electoral college votes but then apply them to a Dem primary, which I think is not realistic.

Your table about Blue State electoral votes probably is relevant, but then again either candidate will win versus McCain in Nov, so I don't see that as a strong justification unless you are talking about fundraising, because those don't translate to the swing states.

It is akin to Obama supporters trying to point to how well Obama does in Red states primaries against Hillary... Again, so what? they don't matter in November and those states will not elect Obama in Nov.

jeqal's picture
Submitted by jeqal on

Your analysis makes sense. Thanks for the work you put into it. As a voter who watched all the BS in Michigan, you can rely on where my vote will be and where a triumph of angels would not inspire me to and hoard of demons would not possess me to vote for or drink Koolaid.
If he isn't concerned about the offense in MI, he will not be concerned about any issue of value to me.

"The great divide in this country is not by race or even income, it's by those who think they are better than everyone else and think they should play by a different set of rules," --Bill Clinton

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

about things we cannot know. If we knew this, and if we knew that, then we'd know more than we do; but we don't. We have to get by with what we do have, and the information is always sketchier than we'd like.

Unless the polls are hugely disparate, say looking at preferences between oh, me versus McCain and Obama versus McCain, where one person is way out ahead, I think you really do have to be very skeptical. Once the two major candidates are selected people will begin to sort out their hard choices, absent the taste of anticipated sour grapes and in the full glare of the consequences. By then, of course, if the Party has made the wrong choice it is too late for a take-over.

What we can do today is look at what has actually happened, where individual people went to the trouble to cast a ballot or show up at a caucus, not just answer a voice on the phone while making the grocery list or watching QVC or fighting with their spouse who voted for the "other" candidate.

I am supposing that the people who participated in these primary elections had a clear idea of why they favored one candidate or another, and that generally speaking they are culturally reflective of the geographic areas in which they live. I don't think those assumptions are really outlandish.

Where that leads me is to believe that they, the voters, are more likely to select someone who can win in their state; let me rephrase – choose between the two candidates and select the one who is likely to receive the highest general election vote total in their state, and thus be the person most likely to win. I don’t think that belief is overly a stretch, either.

Can we agree that, generally speaking, the voter preferences in the solid 5%+ margin states from 2004 have not moved sufficiently - Red or Blue - to put many of them, if any at all, in play? Obama winning the primary in Idaho or Wyoming does not mean he will carry those states in the general, true? Obama losing California and New York does not mean he will lose them in November, also true? It is, then, down to the Swing States.

To my mind, the best indicator we can get of who would be the strongest candidate in the Swing States is to look at the results of the elections just held in those states. When we do, Hillary Clinton obliterates Barak Obama. It is not even close.

I cannot see a conclusion here other than that Clinton is stronger in the Swing States than Obama, and that therefore Clinton is more likely to prevail over McCain in the Swing States than is Obama. If there is a flaw in this reasoning, please point it out; simply saying fooey isn’t constructive. By assigning the Electoral College votes as they would be in a general election, winner-take-all, the picture is IMHO made all the more stark, all the more clear; clarity is, after all, what we are seeking.

And no, I do not agree that there is much to be gained by looking at who won what in some primary in a past cycle. The assessment that needs making is this primary, this cycle, this time. This general election will be won or lost in the swing states. Hillary Clinton is stronger than Barak Obama in the Swing States, by an Electoral College count of more than 2:1. That is not to say that Obama will lose to McCain. What it does say is that Hillary Clinton will more likely beat McCain.

I fail to see what is still open to question. Hillary Clinton is the stronger candidate in the states that matter most. Hillary Clinton must be the nominee.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

you have to also include McCain's appeal to white men, independents and swing voters as well in your list--not to mention that he actually has a resume and real accomplishments, and a record of "unity" and working with the other party on bills and laws, etc. (he still sucks, but he has enormous appeal to millions of voters in every state)

Submitted by lambert on

... I think that's going to make a lot of people very, very unhappy. And I think they will be willing to share their feelings. Rather reinforces the E-L-E-E-T meme, wouldn't you say -- further alienating exactly the people he needs to broaden his base.

A bit off topic, but with bringiton stomping all the opposition so effectively, there's really nothing for me to do but natter about on the margins. Haw.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

What if, just blue skying here, Hillary holds a big party the day before Obama and declares herself the victor? Why not? The claim by Obama is specious, it means nothing but it will get publicity. If she has her party a day ahead, poof, there goes the air out of that balloon; all the press will be about who had the better party, who got what press coverage, meta-meta instead of his coronation story.

Somebody call Carville....

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

Don't need to bring anything new to the same old arguments.

Obama's tied or leads in superdels. 10 supers have switched from Clinton to Obama and none have switched the other way. Since Super Tuesday he's gotten 5 to 1 more of them than she has. It's very likely (rumors all over the place) that a lot of the supers are already committed to Obama but don't want to go public because they don't want to hit her when she's down from a combination of fear and loyalty. Obama and his supporters have been insulted with every fucking name under the sun but are waiting (with varying degrees of patience) for you and her to get it. It's over.

He leads in endorsements by governors, members of Congress, pledged delegates, popular vote, states won (by a large margin and in a lot of states with blowout margins), and cash on hand bigtime. BTW if you really believe in her electability so much put together a million of her supporters and get them to contribute $25 each right fucking now so you can convince the majority of the Democratic party that even if she can't field a competent, winning campaign she can at least raise money from her stalwarts. I for one don't want Obama paying off the mulitmillionaire Clintons' debt with one dollar of my contributions. I want it all going to bury McCain and if there's any to spare defeating goddam Republican senators and house reps. Bill can go cozy up to another fucking thug dictator who murders his opponents and union organizers to pay off her debt.

93% of the primaries are done. There are six states to go (including Puerto Rico). They will probably split three for her (WV, KY, PR) and three for him (OR, MT, SD).

Most of us will patiently wait for you to come to your senses in a few weeks but it's Saturday night, I'm tired after canvassing today for my local house candidate, I'm into my 5th beer and I'm not feeling very charitable after being personally insulted and having my intelligence insulted here for days. You write eloquently but you're deluded. It doesn't matter how you slice, dice, blend and puree the numbers trying to make her case. She's lost.

Process that emotionally and figure out what you're going to do now. There's 23 Repub senate seats up for election and 12 Dem to defend, not to mention every house seat. If you're too emotionally crushed by this nomination fight to support Obama then help them. Both Obama and Clinton have sucked up pro staffers, volunteers and a lot of cash that normally would go to those campaigns long before now. It's time we all turned what we have to offer against Republicans. Like him or not President Obama can only be as progressive as his congress let's him be.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

We'll make it a surprise party for her, and hold it on May 19th!

---------------------------------------------------
" . . . we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender . . ."- Winston Churchill

x

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

Submitted by lambert on

Thanks.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

plus "I'm into my 5th beer" really sealed the deal; opened my eyes, fer shur.

Same old rant, even a drunk can spew it out. Go sleep it off. Maybe sober you'll have something directly responsive to say, but I doubt it.

Hillary kicks Obama's ass all over the block in the states the Dems have to win. She absolutely owns him. Why in the hell would I want to back the loser?

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

will come from one of his very very many Credit Suisse/Hedge fund/Wall St/Ethanol/Lobbyist and Lawfirms/Nuclear Power/etc and other "big money fundraisers", like the one he held just on Thursday-- "He headlines a big dollar event Thursday in Chicago--still aimed at collecting money for the primary--not the general--election." -- http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/05/...

Why's he collecting primary money and not general election money? And who do you think is going to be there? (hint--it's not you or his other small individual donors, who are not the ones who made his totals in the hundreds of millions of dollars)

oops, i forgot to mention Gas Companies--from January--"... the one in Gold Coast for 250 A-list contributors paying more than $1,000 each to visit Obama in a ritzy condo 10 floors up.
... Desiree Rogers, Obama fundraiser hostess.

The big Obama fundraiser Thursday at the home of Peoples Gas president Rogers ..." -- http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section...

We'll have to ask his Campaign Finance Chair billionaire Penny Pritzker about his banking big bucks too -- Obama Finance Chair Linked To Subprime Industry -- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/28...

Submitted by lambert on

but he forgot one or two points:

1. You repeat every metric you guys have on your blastfax from Axelrod except the one that bringiton posts on: The electoral math.

2. Then you insult us by saying our support is "emotional" ("Oh, you know what women Hillary supporters are like.")

3. And then you complain about being insulted.

But what would I know? I'm a racist. Uncreative, too. Don't get too drunk; reading this in the morning won't help your head.

Oh, and I closed your ital tag for you. No problem. Mom always cleans up after you.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

Six months ago, nobody had voted yet. We’re not looking at polls, we’re looking at actual votes.

You're looking at votes in Dem primaries and trying to extrapolate that to GE votes against a Republican six months into the future. The vast majority of voters who voted for Obama or Clinton will not stay home or vote for McSame in the November election. Go look at the state vote totals, not just lately but when Mittens, and the Huckster looked viable. Look at the states where Repubs had serious statewide downballot races to fight over among themselves. Their turnout is puny while in state after state people have reregistered to vote Dem. Most of them are not going back for the guy who doesn't know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

Cuz I got some stinky laundry I'd like to drop off.

-------------------------------------------------
" . . . we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender . . ."- Winston Churchill

x

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

about this line of argument, since the resident trolls haven't even tried to confront and the good solid smart honest critic intranets did not, I think, do any significant damage. Plus Anglachel, a very reassuring nod.

Needs some work, and a couple of big names to roll it out. Interested?

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

but the point isn't the "vast majority," it's the minority of voters in swing states that will stay home or vote for McCain.

How big is that minority? I have no idea, but it wouldn't take many. Look at Florida in 2000 or Ohio in 2004.

------------------------------------------------
" . . . we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender . . ."- Winston Churchill

x

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

Submitted by lambert on

... this sounds like private mail. And it's late for me; I've going to bed. Also, you might monitor here and here where I floated it.

Poor markg8. All's golden words are spent ...

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Yes. A Troll-Free Zone. Later.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

and influence people.

Calling us stupid, deluded, and/or racist ain't helping your cause.

--------------------------------------------------
" . . . we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender . . ."- Winston Churchill

x

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

Submitted by lambert on

because I cleaned it up for you.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

Like I said I'm losing my patience so as I've been told so many times here, with all due respect fuck off.

Submitted by lambert on

Now we now that Bringiton's argument is correct, and that you have no answer on the electoral math argument. That is a very important result! Thank you.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

And I got told to fuck off because he's losing/lost his patience over what other people have said to him. (I know I haven't insulted him for oh, at least weeks.) Perfect.

Go sleep it off, fool.

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

I cannot see a conclusion here other than that Clinton is stronger in the Swing States than Obama, and that therefore Clinton is more likely to prevail over McCain in the Swing States than is Obama. If there is a flaw in this reasoning, please point it out; simply saying fooey isn’t constructive.

BIO, what I've been trying to say (and I thought I was being more clear in my last post)... You are drawing your conclusions from the Democratic primary and applying it to general election.

General election voters (Dems, Rep, Ind)
Primary voters (Dems who vote in primary)

It depends on the state, but the Dem primary voters are a much smaller subset of all Dem voters. In some states it includes some Ind, and in some states it includes GOP crossover voters.

Dem primary voters are given a choice between HRC and BHO. However in Nov the voter pool consists of additional votes:
- Dem voters who don't vote in primaries
- Ind & GOP voters who don't vote for McCain
- a loss of votes from McCain supports who vote in primary

The best candidate for Nov is the one who will garner the most STATEWIDE votes from the pool of ALL voters, not just primary-going Dems.

The only real metric of this is polling. You have identified a strength in a certain segment of voters (primary going Dems), but unless you can make a case for either some way to extrapolate to statwide voters, or that Independents and non-McCain voters also following these trends...

In addition there is a great deal of evidence that the primary totals in the swing states were highly manipulated by GOP crossover voters. Did these cross over GOP voters pad Hillary or Obama totals and what percentage of primary voters were GOP? In Ohio it is a pretty large number considering how many ballots they ran out of and the now record number of Dem registered voters (due to voting in primary).

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

or that cigarettes cause cancer.

BIO did a good job with solid evidence. Not polls, votes. Your whole argument is that he hasn't proven he's right.

We won't know until November, but BIO makes a cogent argument supported by facts. If he could somehow prove his thesis now, he would be the hottest political scientist in the country.

It's one of the most insightful analysis I've seen, this year or any. Combined with Anglachel's post, it's hard to make a cogent argument against it. You certainly haven't done that.

IOW - You haven't proven BIO's wrong. You haven't even raised reasonable doubt.

-------------------------------------------------
" . . . we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender . . ."- Winston Churchill

x

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

Submitted by lambert on

Do we have any hard numbers on cross-overs? I think I saw some recently, but damned if I can remember where or even who they were for. Readers?

I think what Intranets is arguing in a nutshell is that D primary voters aren't good proxies for D general voters, and that therefore polling is in fact the best method for ascertaining general voting. Yes?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

I read that silly post. The guy nails Hillary for her impossible pandering on freezing ARM mortgages and the gas tax holiday and you're response?

Yeah, that really makes me want to vote for Obama. Right after I hump my cousin and go to the Klan meeting.

While her surrogates go from hill to holler in Wv and KY telling them "the n*gger's gonna take it if you don't vote for her!"

I'm encouraged that strategy bombed in NC and IN. The Wellesley girl Hillary in Carhartts, slinging back shots of Crown Royal, when she's never even fueled up a car and can't figure out how to get coffee out of a gas station coffee machine. Oh I'm sorry that was an expresso machine. Stupid policy proposals are easier to debunk when the desperate candidate goes weirdly out of character pretending she's something she's not. It's gonna make those phonebanking calls to KY and WV much easier. I have no illusions we're gonna win there at this point it's for practice and fun.

BTW myiq2xu when you give it up then we try to get you back into the fold. Until then you and everybody else here is working for McCain. Got that? That goes for Repubs too. We've turned a lot of them, strike that, Obama's turned a lot of them to our side already. There's a whole hell of a lot of 'em (not 'er) that hate the War in Iraq, want to see bin Ladin's head on a pike (like I do) and think borrowing hundreds of billions from the Red Chinese a year while they take our jobs (ask me about Bill's investments there, I dare ya!) to pay Venezuela and everybody else for our oil is fucking insane.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

This is boilerplate. Bringiton is arguing that November is a certain win with Clinton and a less certain win with Obama. Fundraising is not a relevant argument---it doesn't necessarily come from the people who are actually going to vote.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

And as my sig line shows, don't wait for us to surrender before you try to win us over.

It will be a long wait, especially with the arguments you make.

-------------------------------------------------
" . . . we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender . . ."- Winston Churchill

x

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

...have a time machine to his own personally manipulated future. He doesn't. He makes an argument that doesn't take into account tearing the Democratic coalition apart. The loss of vast swaths of our voters as Hillary follows her only possible path to the presidency she's now set for herself, to be tougher, meaner than McSame on foreign policy. Is that what you want this race to be run on? Who hates Muslims more?

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

Who made the false accusations of racism?

-------------------------------------------------
" . . . we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender . . ."- Winston Churchill

x

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

"a great deal of evidence that the primary totals in the swing states were highly manipulated by GOP crossover voters"

The R crossover, not much, dominantly went to Obama; does that mean that lots of Rs will vote for Obama in November or was it as you say manipulation, because Republicans would rather face Obama than Clinton? I don't know for sure, but I really distrust the proposition that many registered Republicans will vote for either Dem in the fall.

In the swing states more D and I votes will go to McCain if Obama is the nominee than will go to McCain if it is Hillary. It is racial bigotry, and I'm sorry about that, but I can't fix the moral turpitude of the country until next year; this year I'm focused entirely on winning the White House.

Voters in the Swing States are shifting in droves, away from the Republican Party. In 2004 the balance was 35D/33R. As of Q1 this year, the balance is 38D/27R, in those same states I reference in Table 1 above.

The voters who left the Republican party are the only ones that the Dems can hope to pick up; seriously, the hard-core Rs are not voting for any Dem. Those who have left, who have reregistered as D or I, are the ones who chose Hillary over Obama and they turned out in record numbers to do so.

Y'know, all we ever hear about is how Obama has the great ground game, the activist GOV operation, turning out the voters in droves, yadda yadda. But in the Swing States, the ones the Dems need to win, voters preferred Hillary. Record numbers of voters turned out all right, but the majority of them turned out to vote for her.

And not by a little. She beat Obama soundly in the states the Dems most need to win. Why would anyone want to go with the candidate that does least well in the crucial states? I simply cannot see how losing, losing big time, in the key states is somehow supposed to be a positive for Obama. Instead of just telling me I’m flawed, all the arguments are flawed, explain how I’m wrong.

None of this is perfect as prognostication. I am, however, much more comfortable arguing based on actual voter preference than on polls, and think that real voter actions are more likely to be meaningful than whatever someone says over the phone. Your perspective may be different.

Relying on the decisions of voters in a partisan primary to predict the strongest candidate for the general election is exactly the process both parties employ. In this case, the partisan voters of the Swing States have chosen Hillary. The partisan voters of the Blue States also prefer Hillary. Only the voters in the Red States prefer Obama, the voters who cannot deliver their states in November. To me, that settles the issue.

It isn’t that I’m a huge fan of Hillary; I’m not. And it isn’t that I think Obama is a bad person, although I do rib him, and I don’t think he’s hopeless as a candidate – I think he can win, but he is more of a risk. I do want to like him, and if his supporters (present company & Leah excepted) weren’t such smug and abusive assholes it would help.

I do, however, think that Clinton is the stronger candidate in the general and winning the White House is all that matters to me. This line of argument, her dominance in collecting Swing States with the most Electoral College votes, Electors that she can win in November, is part of the reasoning that leads me to see her as the more powerful candidate.

Obama can try again in 2012. A few more years of seasoning will do him no harm. That’s the secret of that $100/lb Spanish ham he fancied; a long, slow aging. :-)

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

You are drunk. You are rambling, and incoherent. I know you don't recognize that, but it is because you're drunk. Go to bed, before you embarass yourself more than you already have.

I'll still be here tomorrow. Come back when you're sober.

Take two aspirin, drink some water and go to sleep. Now.

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

Yeah, I hate to ruin your link to that "brilliant" other blogger you guys are so impressed with but no I'm not very sleepy. It's between posting here and counting off on my fingers to write Clinton broken heart haiku at TPM and frankly that gets boring pretty quickly.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

Hillary would have already won. If the delegates were apportioned proportionate to the electoral vote it she would be winning by a landslide.

Winning red state caucuses should not be more important than winning blue and purple state primaries.

--------------------------------------------------
" . . . we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender . . ."- Winston Churchill

x

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

I think what Intranets is arguing in a nutshell is that D primary voters aren’t good proxies for D general voters

Christ. You don't have a clue do you? I've spent months phonebanking on this nationally and locally here in the Chicago burbs. Not to mention banging on doors which I do all four seasons. I spent 3 days in Indiana canvassing, most of it in whitebread suburbs in Lake County that should have and might well have gone Hillary but will not go Repub this time.

Locally, since the 2/5 primary that is our main job, figuring out if white voters really meant it, if Wright changed their minds and if they will stick with Obama and our downballot candidates. If I thought he'd kill us or Hillary gave us a better chance I'd tell you in a minute. That's not the case anywhere I call or canvass locally or nationally.

You're flying blind and have no clue what's going on, on the ground. It's no wonder you don't know where to land.

Submitted by lambert on

Why would I take the views of an Obama canvasser seriously on this? Surely you must see that your sample is skewed? It would be like taking Lafayeette and Gary as proxies for the country. The votes are very much equal. That's what matters, not what you say.

As far as what's happening on the ground, yes, I remember my caucus experience very well, and may have some things to say about it.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

You can wankfest/haka all you want, it changes nothing.

Obama's lead is based on red state caucuses and primaries. Hillary won most of the blue and swing states.

Deal with it.

-------------------------------------------------
" . . . we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender . . ."- Winston Churchill

x

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

what percentage of those voters in "swing states" or any states for that matter, who voted for Hillary against Obama in the face of her unrelenting attacks that even Hillary supporters agree were on average about 65% unfair compared to Obama's 42% in states she both won and lost, are going to vote for McSame?

Another question: what arguments do you think McSame is going to make to indies, disaffected Repubs and Dems (Hillary supporters or not) that will win them over in the GE against Obama?

I wanna know. I hear a lot of "Obama hasn't seen nothin yet, the swiftboating will kill him!" from people here.

So c'mon let's hear the specifics. I'm not impressed that he got $213,000 from oil company employees out of $233 million. I could have raised that much from naturalized Christian Pakistani gas station owners in NJ in a week if I still lived there.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

I said I'd talk to you tomorrow; no more tonight. That's an end to it.

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

I leave you with a copywrited haiku that I think we can all abide by Michael Murry, from the "The Misfortune Teller" via TPM

Rob the future now
They will never break our will
Those grandkids of ours

jackbrown's picture
Submitted by jackbrown on

I simply made the mistake of including <> tags to my links, which your blog removed.

I do appreciate you letting me post here, even if you consider me an inferior piece of trash.

Onward toward a more Democratic future!

Submitted by lambert on

If the A tag is properly formed -- quotes balanced, etc -- it should be be removed. And A tags lead to better writing, because the link needs to be embedded in the prose, unlike just dumping URLs higgledy-piggeldy, therefore I want them to work. If this happens again, let me know.

Trash? I don't know. In the online world, all we have to go by is what's written. So....

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

I can't take these martyrs and incoherent threadjacking rants. I don't know how you put up with them.

"I have a question about X, ranting paragraph of talking points not related to X. I want to know you ignorant know nothings because I have been on the ground and in Afghanistan and work for a grassroots polling, and quit deleting my posts because you hate me."

BIO, what I am saying is that in November:
Simplifying Primary voters into only Dems...
The people who voted in primary are a subset
of general election voters.

Probably less than 1/2 of general election voters. Your assumption is you can take the ratio of primary Clinton votes to Obama and apply it to the remaining Dems in Nov.

I'm saying it is more complex because we don't know that non-primary dems have the same view as the more active primary voting populace. Also we don't know if say Hillary is the nomination how many Obama primary voters will show up. In addition, one candidate might garner more Ind or GOP votes (which count as 2x compared to stay home voters)

Finally, which candidate would generate more GOTV on the other side. One reason I think McCain was chosen is that he does not energize the Dem base. I feel that in some states Hillary will motive the GOP, but on the otherhand Obama is woefully unvetted and already given tons of ammo to use against him. Aside from being black and "muslim" as the GOP panders to its "base".

A- Dems who will vote for either
B- Dems who will vote for Obama or stay home
C- Dems who will vote for Clinton or stay home
D- Dems who will vote for McCain or stay home
E- Independents who will vote for either
F- Independents who will vote for Obama only
G- Independents who will vote for Clinton only
H- Independents who will vote for McCain or other
I- GOP who might vote for either
J- GOP who might vote for Obama only
K- GOP who might vote for Clinton only
L- GOP who vote for McCain or stay home

In reality for November we only concern ourselves with B,C,F,G,J,K as to which is a better candidate in a swing state. You table applies mostly to A,B,C. So the question is how big of a share of total votes is F,G, J,K? And do we know how many Obama primary voters are saying I prefer X but will vote for either X or Y in Nov? Your second choice might actually be stronger in the long run when you factor in Independents and GOP votes.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

I’m saying it is more complex because we don’t know that non-primary dems have the same view as the more active primary voting populace.

and I call shenanigans!

The arguments that BIO is using are no different than what the Obama campaign uses to argue that he's the 'more electable' candidate.

The only difference is that Obama emphasizes data from "Red" states in a effort to show that he has "broader appeal" than Clinton.

BIO posits that its the "swing states" that the emphasis should be placed on -- and the logic behind doing that is pretty solid.

Obama supporters who are quite happy to talk about Obama's electability because of his primary successes in Red States suddenly become concerned with the "details" and "complexities" and "unknowns" when the argument shifts to "swing states".

Its symptomatic of the way Obama supporters think... they demand extreme amounts of rigor when confronted with analyses they don't like, but accept at face value even the most absurd analyses when the "conclusions" are consistent with their prejudices.

My experience at FDL shows how this works -- because I had provided data showing that Obama was benefitting from misogyny (I never actually said that -- just used the SUSA 50 state poll to demonstrate that misogyny existed), my methods were questioned by one of FDL's front pages (Siun). There was nothing wrong with my methodology, of course -- the data itself was straightforward, and all I did was do some averages -- and it wasn't my data.

The very next day, Siun hosted a "book salon" for the author of a book that claimed that there was a "hip hop generation" among african americans that was profoundly different from their parents -- a generation that Democrats were in danger of losing because they were not concerned with the same issues that older African Americans were.

These conclusions were based on a poll that was designed by the author -- and given the margin of error, the results were not what she claimed. And she polled a grand total of 34 African Americans between 18-24, in only two cities (LA, Atlanta) and extrapolated that to the entire generation of AA's throughout the country.

I mean, the whole thing was pure bullshit -- the author was a charlatan who used a self-designed 'push-poll' with a very limited sample to generalize about the the african american electorate in general, and the 'hip hop generation' in particular.

And the argument came down to a verbatim framing of GOP talking points -- that the Democratic Party wasn't doing enough for African Americans, and risked losing their lock on that demographic -- espescially the 'hip hop generation'. But there were no issues that the author identified that the Democrats could emphasize to attract the 'hip hop generation'. The book was a thinly disguised 'nominate Obama or black people will desert the Democratic Party' threat.

And this crap wsa taken at face value by Siun, because she's an Obot.

Lost in Space's picture
Submitted by Lost in Space on

Because that seems to be the fun part of the argument. Would they go Republican? I highly doubt that even if the thought process goes that far, Republicans would actually accept them as part of the family, except as fancy props for their own ends and nothing else. There are some "beach-heads" for the GOP in the AA Community (like with Religious issues), but they are of a very limited scope and deal only with specific issues voting - and hasn't shown any real success with performing an exodus from Democrat to something else at all.

Siun sounds likes someone still riding with the pedal to the floor to me. A Shark Bite awaits her when this is over, regardless of the Primary Outcome.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The enemy of my enemy is STILL my enemy. Those who forget this end up being Vulture scraps.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The enemy of my enemy is STILL my enemy. Those who forget this end up being Vulture scraps.

Submitted by lambert on

See, markg8 is an Obama operative canvasser, so he gets to say stuff like that.

Hillary supporters aren't, so if they even mention this they're racists. I'm one, so I'm a racist.

Ditto the Clintons.

See how it works? Simple, really. It is, indeed, the national conversation about race. Except it's really a conversation where only one faction gets to speak, and everybody else gets to shut the fuck up. Ah well. Ends justify the means, and all. I'm sure we can have make-up sex later.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

In Lake County I was in Dyer and Schererville which are nothing like Gary Lambert. I talk to all kinds of voters, Dems, indies, Repubs, Libertarians to determine how they'll vote in November. And I'm telling you that the theory whites will decide en masse that Obama's skin color or Rev. Wright is a more important factor to them than the recession and the war is wrong. Most of what I do is for downballot candidates in a former heavily Republican county. I've seen hundreds of 4s going 2. If you know anything about field work you know what I'm talking about. Even my idiot congresswoman's second cousin told me that outside of being a 5 for her he's a 3 leaning 2. Triple R's
who used to hang up on us or refuse to take our lit are polite and intrigued. Indies and Dems thank us profusely for the work we're doing.

I actually do this stuff in the field while you never seem to get out of your self imposed blog bubble where you and your likeminded posters reinforce each other's beliefs. Too bad for you.

What your race rant is about I have no idea. You're trying to put words in my mouth I haven't said. But that's what you do don't you?

Submitted by lambert on

Cute haiku from markg8:

Rob the future now
They will never break our will
Those grandkids of ours

My response:

blue sky, white clouds, ice:
my sledge grows lighter daily
empty dog food cans

Thanks for letting the millenial cat out of the bag, markg8...

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

That was from that guy Murry. Here area couple of my offerings. Enjoy

Campaign breaks foul wind
fingers point Penn or Ickes?
voters run from smell

Clinton in Carhartts
whisky shot, blue collar gal
who are you kidding?

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

Empty resume
Post-partisan promise
Don't step in Unity

----------------------------------------------
" . . . we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender . . ."- Winston Churchill

x

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

Submitted by lambert on

Of course I know what snark is, markg8. And I also know that snark can hide deadly intent -- I've used it that way, certainly. So I responded in kind.

In your first haiku, you're the grandkids; we're trying to break your will and rob you of the future. Clear enough. And the future you want to give me is out on the ice floes with dog food!

All in good fun! It's easy to do. Don't get us started!

Barry prods a ham
It costs a hundred dollars
Rolls a gutter ball

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

Jeremiah Wright
Spiritual Advisor
One more under the bus

------------------------------------------------
" . . . we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender . . ."- Winston Churchill

x

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

Submitted by lambert on

5 - 7 - 5, myiq. Them's The Rulez!

A knock at the door
Clipboard, Obama logo
Who owns the data

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

Rich kid radical
Just some guy in neighborhood
Weather Underground

----------------------------------------------
" . . . we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender . . ."- Winston Churchill

x

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

Funny, I don't recall Lambert ever saying race or Rev. Wright were the reasons people wouldn't vote for Obama.

Good try though, thanks for playing, come again.

" . . . we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender . . ."- Winston Churchill

x

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Markg8, your "haiku" (and they aren't actually, there is a definite form that constrains haiku; your little ditties don't meet the form) are not funny, nor are they instructive. They are simply nasty. Anybody can do nasty, in a ham-handed way. Don Rickles turned it into an art and made a nice living out of it. I knew Don Rickles, mark, and you are no Don Rickles.

There is something about people who are fanatical, and it isn't just the OFB although they provide an instructive example. Once that unreasoning adulation sets in they lose any sense of irony or humor. With many of them, most of the Republican leadership for instance and all of the religious right, it was never there to begin with. Those people self-selected for a community without irony or humor, because they were more comfortable among their own kind.

It may be possible, in the very near future, to tie the presence or lack of brain activity during exposure to ironic humor to a specific set of genes. In turn then, it would be possible through genetic screening to eliminate all embryos lacking the genetic material that codes for irony appreciation. Oh, happy day!

Submitted by lambert on

The haikus were fun. And for a guy who's not in any kind of a bubble, our Obama canvasser sure is here a lot, isn't he? And though it was fun to watch him drag the discussion off track -- good intel -- perhaps it's time to note that never once has he been able to produce an onpoint response to bringiton's central contention: The only math that matters is the electoral college math, because that's what the SDs should use to decide, if they want a winner. On bringiton's behalf, I repeat:

Clinton dominates these states, crushing Obama 117 to 66. Clearly, the voters of solidly Blue States agree with voters in the Swing States, overwhelmingly preferring Clinton as the Democratic nominee. While these states should stay in the Democratic column, it only makes sense to run the candidate who has shown the ability to win them – especially when they are the same candidate who so handily wins the Swing State group.

The nomination decision is no longer disputable. It cannot be that anyone rational would expect the Democratic Party to nominate a candidate whose support is based on primary results from states that are unlikely to deliver Electoral College votes in November. ... The only matter at hand is fielding a candidate who can achieve an Electoral College majority; Red State resident or Blue, everyone must agree that the candidate with the best chance of winning the general election must be made the nominee.

We know all the metrics Axelrod's propagated, because markg8 repeats them over and over again. But he has no on-point answer too this one. And though haikus are fun, they're a distraction. So!

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

I thought you liked Bill Clinton.

Rich kid radical
Just some guy in neighborhood
Weather Underground

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

Why should we go anywhere else to find out what you meant?

Is W.O.R.M. contagious? The Obama supporters seem to be catching it.

--------------------------------------------------
" . . . we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender . . ."- Winston Churchill

x

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

Both Clinton and Obama would have different paths but better shots than McCain at winning the presidency.
For every "swing" state bringiton claims only Clinton can defeat McCain in there's one or two others Obama will win that Clinton can't.

His contention that you can extrapolate dem on dem primary battles into electoral math six months down the line is flawed and has been aptly debunked by others here.

Submitted by lambert on

Bringiton destroys "the math" talking point... Nothing from markg8... [Must... Contact... Axelrod...]

Asked "What will he do?"
Converts say "Check the web site!"
This suit is empty

You really shouldn't have introduced us to this, markg8. Now it's gonna go viral...

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

I knew Don Rickles Is Rickles dead? As for th rest of it, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

There is something about people who are fanatical,...

I do love it so when you pontificate oh worldly one. But I'd say folks who use tortured logic to justify overthrowing the will of the voters for a candidate that has clearly lost are a wee bit more fanatical than those who face reality.

Those people self-selected for a community without irony or humor, because they were more comfortable among their own kind.

I couldn't have described Corrente any better myself. Thanks.

It may be possible, in the very near future, to tie the presence or lack of brain activity during exposure to ironic humor to a specific set of genes. In turn then, it would be possible through genetic screening to eliminate all embryos lacking the genetic material that codes for irony appreciation. Oh, happy day!

You make Ben Stein's case for him. Congratulations.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

Empty rhetoric
the clothes have no emperor
I must be racist

---------------------------------------------------
" . . . we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender . . ."- Winston Churchill

x

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

Submitted by lambert on

Good one.

The last substantive refutation on this thread is bringiton's comment here. Scroll up; you will see.

Everything else is haikus and conceptual tinsel. Good one.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

For every “swing” state bringiton claims only Clinton can defeat McCain in there’s one or two others Obama will win that Clinton can’t.

Ok, do back it up with data. If you think he's wrong about the defined 'swing states', then I feel bad for you. Whoever wins the correct number of those swing states will be the winner in 2008 (just as in 2004 and 2000). Care to tell me what brilliant WY, MO, TX combo Obama is bringing with his unity ponies to take the place of swing states?

Or do you mean for every swing state Clinton wins (out of the 12 listed) Obama wins one or two others?? But that doesn't add up.

His contention that you can extrapolate dem on dem primary battles into electoral math six months down the line is flawed and has been aptly debunked by others here.


I haven't seen anybody debunk it, just you trying very hard to sidetrack discussions into bizarro tangent-land. I have tried to stress that if you win a state by 51% in a primary, it doesn't translate to a statewide general election victory. In fact, with Ind and GOP voters, the losing primary candidate might have a better chance to win in Nov. There is little to back it up other than polling, however.

On the other hand, a better argument is that if the Dem primary were hypothetically winner take all like GOP primaries in these swing states, then Obama lost the game when it comes to critical swing states.

He isn't talking about what the primary and/or DNC rules are, he is only tlaking about metrics to determine the best candidate to win in Nov. I personally don't agree because he is oversimplifying the general election, but he does present a metric here, which you fail to even discuss at all.

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

Inevitable
passion evaporated
Looming afterthought

Submitted by lambert on

For the record, markg8 quotes Michael Murry, indicates the material is copyright, but unhelpfully does not protect the blog by giving a link. I found the work; here it is. I believe that the single stanza quoted by markg8 constitutes fair use.

Stadiums and crowds
Baritone anaphora
Con men smile, always

Inevitable
Means "Lay back and enjoy it"
Never never no--

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

Her only chance left
camel sex on the boob tube
See I argue good

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

Inevitable
passion evaporated
Looming afterthought

Wow! His fans say he's inevitable, but his momentum is fading, and we're worried about November. Very much excellent!

New York Senator
and zombie terminator
has no quit in her

-----------------------------------------------
" . . . we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender . . ."- Winston Churchill

x

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

On the other hand, a better argument is that if the Dem primary were hypothetically winner take all like GOP primaries in these swing states, then Obama lost the game when it comes to critical swing states.

If we were Republicans we'd have those Republicans rules. We're not, we don't. As for the rest of that stuff it just doesn't sell. There's no evidence superdels are buying any of her electability arguments. But if they did and overturned the will of the voters they'd wreck the party. Obama won the race for the nomination. No amount of parsing the numbers by fanatics who can't wrap their minds around that fact yet changes anything. Sorry guys that's just the way it is.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Read carefully and pay attention, because I’m only going to run through this once.

I don’t have time for your nonsense. It doesn’t interest me. It doesn’t provide anything of value. It sucks up space and interrupts the flow of ideas, the exchange of information that is worthwhile. If you had anything worth engaging, I would; that’s why I come here. But you don’t. You’ve presented the same stuff, over and over and over, from the very first time you appeared. You are old news.

None of what you throw out matters now. The primaries are over; the few that are left are completely predictable. We’re done with that, and guess what? For all of the pushing and shoving and denigration (90% from the Obama camp, and I say that as a largely disinterested observer; when this race narrowed down to two I was open either way, but the behavior from your side, including yours, put me off) there is still no definite winner.

I know you and the Obama camp have declared that the race is finished, along with all the earnest lying sacks of wasted protoplasm that appear on the TeeVee as though I would trust them, but it is not. There is the matter of formality which, like haiku, must be respected. Until the Convention is concluded, literally until the closing gavel comes down, the nomination is not made. I’m all about the literal, mark; the rules, the laws, the social compact that keeps us from descending into mob rule. So take your claim that it is all over and stuff it. That is a lie, and not even an interesting one.

What you come here with is the language of a missionary, trying to win converts. Assuming what you say about your political activities is true, you are to be commended. Wonderful that you’re involved. But the campaign nitty-gritty, arguing about policy and history and personal narrative, is over for this primary, finished, done. We all know all we need to know about Obama and Clinton, and the voters of the Democratic Party – enough to matter – have already spoken. All that is left is for the party leaders – the superdelegates associated with Dean, Pelosi and Reid – to make up their minds and allocate them selves. Those three have said, clearly and repeatedly, that they will do that sometime in June - and not before.

The discussion now has moved on. We no longer need to care about who said what when about some event or policy, who voted which way, who their buddies are, the price of Spanish ham or the color of their clothes; all of that is moot. None of it is important anymore, and so nothing you have to say about those things is important any more. Please stop cluttering up the space with this trash.

All that matters now is finishing the process, by selecting the candidate most likely to beat John McCain in November. That’s it. There is no other topic. And the analysis of that, the decision-making process, the arguments one way or another about electability in the general election, are all that matter. That’s what this post is about – who is best suited to win the general.

If you have thoughts – coherent thoughts, ones you’ve considered and organized and tested yourself until they have structure and an edge to them – by all means, weigh in. But the repeated recycling of your GOV my-guy-is-better-because rhetoric is repetitious well past the point of annoying and also irrelevant. I don’t care about it anymore. It no longer matters.

Now go take your spiel and pound the pavement, by all means; knock yourself out. But stay away from me with it. I am out of patience for you. Go, be gone; don’t come back to my threads unless you have something on-topic to offer, and only then when you can keep it brief and focused.

Have a blessed life.

Submitted by lambert on

Lather, rinse, repeat
Lather, rinse, repeat. Lather.
Rinse, repeat. Repeat.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

Read carefully and pay attention, because I’m only going to run through this once.

No I don't think I will. Take your pompous bitter condescension out on someone else. I'm going to lunch.

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

markg8.. this is what I hear when you speak

We’re going to cream him in November. My guess is Hillary knows it too and that’s why she’s hanging around hoping someone comes up with a video of Obama having sex with a camel. --Submitted by markg8 on Sat, 2008-05-10 20:26.

Her only chance left
camel sex on the boob tube
See I argue good

Submitted by lambert on

Markg8 goes to lunch promptly at noon (CST).

Guess he is on staff.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by lambert on

will you straighten out that stupid rules talking point? The truthiness is so thick with this guy, you'd think it was a hundred dollar ham.

Incidentally, I think markg8 provides a very valuable service. We get to see what Obama has an answer for and what he doesn't. For the rest of it, sunlight is the best disinfectant. And I love the duelling haikus!

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by lambert on

This haiku:

Last fall there were rules
Hillary agreed to them
she likes change now too

You know, how Hillary is breaking the rules, and how the pledged delegate count is the rule, and how anything that favors Obama is a rule...

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by hipparchia on

*nh mi oh mn wi
open contests, anyone votes
dems, reps, indeps
she takes primaries for 41
he takes caucuses for 20

ok, so *new hampshire is only semi-open, but these 5 states could arguably be an indicator of [a] how non-dems might vote, and [b] how people in general might vote on secret ballots, which is how we're all going to vote [or not] in november.

tanka, and yes i took a coupla liberties with the form

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

Like no campaigning in Florida? That anyone who campaigned in Florida was ineligible to receive any of Florida's Delegates? You know, the RULE that Obama broke?

What RULE said Obama had to take his name off the ballot in Michigan? (Hint: None, it was a trick he thought of to make Hillary look bad. Then when his trick didn't work, his supporters told people to vote "uncommitted.")

And since when were RULES more important than core political principles? The votes belong to the voters, not the candidates.

Rules rules rules rules rules
disenfranchise two big states
lose in November

---------------------------------------------------
" . . . we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender . . ."- Winston Churchill

x

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

Maybe he can win
more likely he'll Dukakis
The femme is certain

I'm not on the clock, I can do this all day.

---------------------------------------------------
" . . . we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender . . ."- Winston Churchill

x

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

Submitted by lambert on

No, this is Hillary's

Do you want to win?
Where I won, winner's votes:
Electoral college.

And Obama's

No, I'm not Adlai
and I'm not Dukakis. My
base is broad. Really.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

From their press release:

For the last few months, the most remarkable feature of the race has been its consistency and stability. Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both running historic campaigns and both have captured the votes and hearts of distinct and important constituencies within the Democratic Party. Obama has won Primaries in states where the demographics favor his campaign and Clinton has won in the states that favor her campaign.

However, while Senator Clinton has remained close and competitive in every meaningful measure, she is a close second and the race is over. It has become clear that Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee.

At the moment, Senator Clinton’s team is busily trying to convince Superdelegates and pundits that she is more electable than Barack Obama. For reasons discussed in a separate article, it doesn’t matter. Even if every single Superdelegate was convinced that the former First Lady is somewhat more electable than Obama, that is not enough of a reason to deny him the nomination.

With this in mind, Rasmussen Reports will soon end our daily tracking of the Democratic race and focus exclusively on the general election competition between Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Apparently they’re allowed two hours for lunch. Or maybe one hour to eat and another hour to recharge the batteries.

Not to dwell, but something did catch my eye upthread in one of markgrate’s droppings. I told him to go to bed, because he wasn’t making sense, and this was in his reply:

…no I’m not very sleepy. It’s between posting here and counting off on my fingers to write Clinton broken heart haiku at TPM…

I hadn’t previously been convinced that the OFB who show up here are actually operatives delegated to harass and divert; you’d think the campaign would have better uses. But that line stopped me cold; in the whole of the blogosphere – hell, in the whole range of available entertainment options at 1AM on a weekend – poor mark is constrained between Corrente and TPM? That doesn’t sound like a choice; that is an assignment.

Pretty spooky, and pretty sad for mark:

…and frankly that gets boring pretty quickly.

I’ll bet it does.

Congratulations, Lambert, and apologies. I had thought you were just being paranoid but no, Corrente really does have its very own assigned disruptor. Shared duty with supporting the OFB effort at TPM, but still; you are definitely no longer C List. I'll bet you even have your own file; pray they don't connect it with my drawer at the FBI.

Sobering thought; if this is indicative of the Obama campaign’s operational staff, we are well and truly fucked come November. If I needed a clinching argument against nominating Obama, a campaign run through the likes of markg8 would be it.

Moving on.

Submitted by lambert on

Axelrod's day job is corporate astroturfing. Why wouldn't he put that capability in play for He Who Is The One? Back before we all got purged from Kos, it was amazing -- they came in waves, the talking points would shift in unison, and they all followed the script from here -- though I read the article only after the Kos purge happened.

Personally, I think it's great. Our operative has not refuted your argument and keeps repeating off-point stuff, so it's not on his fax of talking points. That's very good new. Well done, all.

I am going off to lay down more primer. Talk to you later....

NOTE What I wonder is what the incentive structure is. I think it's piece work for some, which is why deleting their hit comments, but encouraging long posts with analysis and links drives them away. I'm betting for marky mark it's hourly, so we get the long pieces, but OTOH he must feel dreadfully exploited after awhile. No wonder he drinks. Living the dream. Paid to blog. Heh. Wonder if he's an Obama Fellow?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

I'll be knocking on your door soon and in my blood dripping claws I'll be clutching paperwork that will show me your birthday, when you registered to vote, what sex you are, and what your political affiliation is by the ballots you pulled in previous primaries.

I understand with the new DNC data we're getting soon we'll know what magazines you subscribe to, your favorite internet sites, what color your eyes are, your shoe, hat, and waist sizes, height, weight, what - if any - kind of car you drive, who you may be married to, who you'd like to be married to, your friends, your enemies (real and imagined) your hobbies, your wildest dreams, your secret fears, your favorite flavor of ice cream (this is crucial), what you did last summer, and for reasons unknown to me your astrological sign.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

Pick our candidates!! Why are you even working, mark? If we just sit around until Nov, they'll pick our president for us too!!

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

I'm sure that a Republican pollster like Rasmussen is just trying to do the best job possible and is in no way trying to drive the strongest candidate from the race.

I can't be the only one who noticed that the poll on the day of this announcement had Hillary doing better against McCain than Obama. Not much, but a couple of point. If that keeps up, it could become a bit embarrassing for all of those trying to push Obama over the finish line.

"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

about lobbyists, Rasmussens are people too. Except they don't use people to poll you. They outsource it to machines, like robots, OMG! They're Obombots! See how easy it is to ignore the obvious?

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

Y'all cut "him" to the quick with that last analysis.

There have been times at "other" sites where it seemed like the trolls arrived in waves with the same matching orders.

As an example, on the day of Obama's Greatest Speech on Race EVAH! they started hitting the comment threads before he was done speechifying to talk about how inspiring, moving, and definitive of the Wright issue it was. On the site I was on that day two different "people" claimed they hadn't heard the speech but were moved to tears just reading the transcript.

I've also noticed how Obamameme hit the OFB sites all at once. For example during the ABC debate I was popping back and forth at several sites, and all of them had comments like "45 minutes and not a single policy question yet" but from ostensibly different "people."

It was almost as if a group of them were all in the same room together , logged on separate computers but getting instructions from a central source. It takes us Hillbot types hours or days to propagate anything, and I'm not getting any instructions as to what to say.

I'm pissed though, I do all this blogwork just for the sheer joy of it. Not one thin dime in monetary rewards.

But my strength is the strength of ten (trolls) because my heart is pure!

---------------------------------------------------
" . . . we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender . . ."- Winston Churchill

x

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

It occurs to me they expect to be rewarded when Obama wins, hence the frantic effort to proclaim victory.

Perhaps promises of jobs in the new administration, helping to create Obamareality for America?

Then again, being paid by the comment would explain their prolific output, and their rage at sites that delete troll comments. Blogospheric sweatshops?

Is it possible they were outsourced to India? I can imagine poor Hindu children chained to computer desks with scripts in front of them.

-------------------------------------------------
" . . . we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender . . ."- Winston Churchill

x

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Lambert gives homework, and I’m falling behind. No links, I’ve thrown them up before and the misrepresentations just come back anyway. Howard Dean knows the rules, as do Pelosi and Reid, so I’m not worried. If the whole thing depends on little me hooking up links and quotes, there is no hope.

Delegates to the Convention come in many flavors and are selected by a variety of methods. Most have one vote each, although some have only ½ vote each. Some of them are “pledged,” meaning they have made some sort of promise to somebody that they will vote in a certain way. Others are “not pledged.” Some states have laws prescribing that “pledged” delegates have to follow their promised allegiance. The Democratic Party Rules say that “pledged” delegates should make every effort to follow their promises. However, and this is the nut of it, the Rules also say very clearly that no delegate is bound to any candidate; all of the delegates, "pledged" or "unpledged", are free to give their vote to whomever they please – to “vote their conscience.”

[This is very like the Electoral College, where Electors are empanelled based on the popular vote outcome and ostensibly assigned by the states to a specific candidate. But the Constitution very clearly says that the Electors are to remain independent and cannot be compelled by any force to cast their vote for any specific candidate; they are independent operators, Federal officials acting with the full force of the Constitution behind them, independent of any state authority and with complete autonomy and sole discretion over their vote and thus the election outcome. So much for democracy and one-man-one-vote.]

For the purposes of the Democratic primary, the Obama camp is claiming that they will at some point have collected the majority of available "pledged" delegates. The “magic number” they are touting is 1627, which is the majority of "pledged" delegates if the "pledged" delegates from Florida and Michigan are excluded. With MI and FL as part of the convention, and of course they will be, the “magic number” is something much higher. If FL and MI "pledged" delegates are seated with full voting strength, the majority of "pledged" delegates will be 1783.5; if they are seated under some penalty, then the majority number is somewhere in between.

The majority of "pledged" delegates will be somewhere between 1627 and 1783.5, depending on if and how the delegates from FL&MI are seated. We can’t know that now and the earliest we might know is on May 31 when the New Rules Committee meets, but we may not know until sometime later in June – or even later than that. Depending on whether or not challenges materialize, we may not know until after the Convention is under way. Additionally, winning the majority of the “pledged” delegates is a false basis for declaring victory in the primary for two other reasons; an absolute majority of the total number of delegate votes present at the convention is required for the nomination, not just the “pledged” delegates, and as already discussed the “pledged” and “unpledged” delegates are equally free to vote for whomever they choose. The nomination will not be established until the convention ends.

Why then would the Obama campaign talk about a victory party on May 20? It is a public relations stunt, designed to quash his opponent’s chances at winning the nomination through persuasion of the superdelegates. I think it cheesy and the kind of hubris that tempts disaster, but it worked in the general election for George Bush in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 so maybe Obama is on to something. He is, after all, an admirer of Republican ideas.

Once the Convention is called to order and the reports of both Rules and Credentials are accepted, the convened delegates assume the full authority of the Democratic Party. Many times in the past, delegates have traded away their votes and realigned to select a candidate not originally seen as the favorite; having a plurality or even a majority of the seated delegates is no guarantee of getting the nomination. Only after a majority of the assembled delegates vote by roll-call for a specific candidate can the nomination be offered. That candidate must then formally accept the nomination for it to have effect. Even after the nomination is offered and accepted, the delegates retain full authority over the Party’s business including the nomination; while they are still assembled, they can rescind the nomination should they so choose and give it to someone else. The delegates yield that authority only when the final gavel strike dissolves the Convention.

The last act of the Convention is to convey legal authority to act for the Party, in a circumscribed way, to the DNC which acts as Trustee for the Party through the Executive Committee and the three Standing Committees. Within that delegated authority, power is vested in the DNC Executive Committee to remove either the Presidential or the Vice-Presidential nominee for “good and sufficient cause.” In that event, or should a nominee die or resign, the DNC Executive Committee would act on behalf of the Party and designate a replacement nominee. The last time that happened was when Thomas Eagleton resigned in 1972, and Sargent Shriver was nominated by the Executive Committee for the Vice-Presidency in his place.

So we see that the Party Rules actually invest all of the nominating power not in the hands of the voters, as so many charmingly and innocently perceive, but in a tiered internal power structure – just as they always have. Our current nomination process is an elaborate sham designed to fool the gullible into thinking they have some actual say in the matter, but the Rules of the Party – supported in their authority by SCOTUS decisions based on both statutory and constitutional law – clearly keep all authority within the Party hierarchy, concentrated ultimately in a body of around 125 individuals who themselves are under the political sway of perhaps a dozen people. No nominee is legally secure until the Electoral College – another aggregation of individuals constitutionally independent of the will of the citizenry – has empowered them as President -Elect and Vice-President-Elect. Only then does their status become the people’s business, free of Party control and managed through the Constitution.

End of lesson. There will be no quiz.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

This is very illuminating.

Though I think lambert was referring to the FL & MI RULZ, that Mark is claiming Clinton & Obama agreed to.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

I reviewed the FL&MI mess once before and got snapped at for my trouble. Not going there again.

Doesn't matter anyway, water under the bridge, neither Obama nor Hillary have any authority or say in the process or oucome. At one point Dean asked them to work with the states to come up with something but they couldn't agree, each side blaming the other. Dean has now taken charge, with Pelosi and Reid. Those three will strongarm a resolution if they have to, and Rules will most likely make a decision May 31 or shortly after.

The OFB make up all kinds of stuff, in large measure as we've seen here just to disrupt and discourage. Cleaning up every steaming pile isn't worth it; better now to just walk on by. We need to put effort where it may make a real difference. Write to Dean, Reid and Pelosi. They are the ones who are now in control of the nomination.

Submitted by lambert on

This what I wanted:

However, and this is the nut of it, the Rules also say very clearly that no delegate is bound to any candidate; all of the delegates, “pledged” or “unpledged”, are free to give their vote to whomever they please – to “vote their conscience.”

It's not really homework.... Everyone is free...

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Just a gentle tease, Lambert. It is a compact relationship here, as I see it. You give me space, I need to reciprocate by responding when asked to clean up, expand or explain. Fair to all, IMHO.

Submitted by lambert on

... he can go fuck himself sideways. Bringiton puts matters more tactfully:

Why then would the Obama campaign talk about a victory party on May 20? It is a public relations stunt, designed to quash his opponent’s chances at winning the nomination through persuasion of the superdelegates. I think it cheesy and the kind of hubris that tempts disaster, but it worked in the general election for George Bush in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 so maybe Obama is on to something. He is, after all, an admirer of Republican ideas.

Just another example of "create our own reality" lekkitude, except this time with the nominating machinery. Never thought I'd see it from "my own" side. Why am I never cynical enough? Is that why I'm not "creative"?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by lambert on

Those nice people over at TalkLeft linked to this post, so if you want to maintain the thread with the smart folks over there, please do. (I can't, I'm not the subject matter expert on this.)

WARNING: I was credited, which I've dealt with in comments and mail there, because I, er, blogwhored it. ....

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Thanks, Lambert. No worry about credit for me. We should talk about whether or not this has legs, and if so what to do about it. Shall I email my thoughts?

Submitted by lambert on

No, the credit should be correct. Proper citation is a liberal principle, along with links! Not an ego thing.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by lambert on

Neck muscles creaking
Relaxation exercise
Shift change for the trolls

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

tas's picture
Submitted by tas on

Barak Obama argues that winning the majority of pledged delegates should decide the race – but he is wrong.

Well, fuck democracy then!

Submitted by lambert on

As bringiton explains at great length, those are the rules.

Live by the rules, perish by the rules, guy.

And in this case, the rules could be a good thing. They were put in place so the party wouldn't, lemming-like, rush over a cliff. Not that anything like that would ever happen.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Are SDs not upset about this? In my experience few people have egos the size of members of Congress and other elected officials. Am I to believe that Obama isn't going to piss off quite a few of these folks by simply making up his own metric and calling victory? Just as I can't help wonder if his running from debates and now running from KY and WVA wouldn't also anger a few party folks, if only because it makes him look weak and pathetic.

This entire gambit to try to project strength when you've just shown yourself to be weak is so Bushian, I can't believe there won't be a number of democrats pissed about that.

I swear that it's like Obama is not only not asking for my vote, he's asking me not to vote for him. Because I can't think of a way a democrat could run a campaign - leveraging misogyny, race baiting and now trying to bring it to a Bushian close - that is more alienating to me than what he's done.

"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

A party nomination is not an exercise in democracy. That would be the general election, give or take - a lot. The parties only pretend that the selection is democratic, and the voters pretend to believe them. Sort of like a marriage. Read the whole comment, reflect, then complain.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Late getting back to you, sorry about that, RL demands

I’m saying it is more complex because we don’t know that non-primary dems have the same view as the more active primary voting populace. No, we don’t know. I’m not at all sure how we might find out. I don't think the polls can be believed.

Also we don’t know if say Hillary is the nomination how many Obama primary voters will show up. No, we don’t, nor vice versa.

In addition, one candidate might garner more Ind or GOP votes (which count as 2x compared to stay home voters) They might, although I am highly skeptical that many Republicans will vote for either Dem.

Finally, which candidate would generate more GOTV on the other side. I feel that in some states Hillary will motive the GOP, but on the otherhand Obama…. Again, hard to know. Plenty of GOP Hillary haters, and also plenty of racial bigots – R & D & I. Don’t know how that sorts.

One reason I think McCain was chosen is that he does not energize the Dem base. What does? If GW Bush in 2004 didn’t energize the Democrats and Independents to throw his lame ass out of office, I just don’t know who could.

The alphabet soup. Yes, all considerations, but some more so than others. Can’t see any R’s voting for either D. What is the rejection rate for Clinton or Obama, the D and I voters who won’t vote for one or the other out of bigotry? Don’t know.

I wrote that piece in the imperative, in part because I think it is a reasonably plausible approach and in part because in this atmosphere if you don’t shout you won’t be heard. I understand it is a less-than perfect approach, but there aren’t any perfect approaches here. So much tension, so much heat and anger and intransigence, more than I’ve seen in any primary by a lot and ’68 was pretty bad for emotion and animosity. I can’t look at one candidate or the other and say that the future is clear, that the outcome is wholly predictable. I’m also not convinced that polls are the answer. They’ve been all over the place state-by-state this year, and were no more accurate as of Indiana than they were in New Hampshire. Why would they suddenly become reliable?

Accepting that we have a whole host of unknowns and many things unknowable, it makes some sense to me to try and deal with what we do know. The primary election outcomes are at least definitive, and they are recent. Most of them have been head-to-head just between Obama and Clinton, and so there is no argument that Clinton benefited from a diluted opposition. I can’t for the life of me understand how being so soundly beaten in both the Swing and Blue states can be seen as either a matter of indifference or argued into a positive for Obama. As to his supposed ability to win in Red States, I am very dubious. Of all the Red States, Clinton might take West Virginia; Bill was/is very popular there, and she seems to be picking up that vibe, but I don’t see her getting any others - even Arkansas. I can’t see a single Red State going to Obama; he can get some votes in CO, from Denver and Boulder, but the rest of that state is pretty racist and very fundy.

Here are some graphs from the Pew Foundation, tracking party registration since 2000. After ’04, Republican registration has fallen off substantially in Blue States, 28% to 21%, with almost all of that change going Independent. Good news, Democrats should be able to hold these states. In contrast, the change in Red States has been small with Republican Registration down 3% but no increase for the Dems. To me this signals that Democrats cannot count on winning any of those states; any pickup there would be a bonus, but should not be counted on.

In Swing States, however, the shift has been more pronounced in the Democrat’s direction, While Republican registration has fallen from 33% to 27%, Democratic registration has actually increased from 35% to 38%. This is encouraging for Democrats, although not overwhelmingly so. It does, however, mitigate the argument that any Democratic would have to pull Republican votes for victory. Rather, the increased numbers of Democrats means that fewer Independents will be needed to over come the reduced Republican strength.

Photobucket

This does not mean that any one Democrat is the same as any other in these Swing States. The stronger candidate, the one who has demonstrated an ability to draw significant support, is logically the correct choice to run in these states, and by any measure of common sense the most likely to attract the needed votes. My argument is that strength follows strength. I can’t see that there is a case to be made for the benefits of weakness.

Obama’s ability to stay with Clinton in the delegate race has depended on his collecting support in the Red States. Obama cannot win those states in the General. Clinton cannot either, but she does not need to; she can carry the Blue and Swing States, where her strength is clearly greater than that of Obama. Obama’s primary strength is an apparition, an artifact of the process, not a measure of his potential strength in the general election.

Last, again consider that the underlying premise of the partisan primary process is that it will yield the strongest candidate for the general election. If we reject that premise, then we have wasted the last four months of effort. If we agree that the premise is valid, it only makes sense to consider that the victor in the only states that are actually available and winnable, the critical Swing States, is by that very virtue the best candidate to win them in the general election.

It’s been a pleasure. Any more thoughts, please be in touch.

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

I agree it is major folly to look at who wins red states as anything useful. The only stretch of an argument for red state primaries it that is Nov comes down to the perception of "popular vote" then having a larger share of voters in red states will help. But that is pretty weak reason to pick Obama for Nov.

If the DNC and supers were smart they should only be looking at either money potential and swing states.

One thing that strengthens your argument would be to show the % of independent voters in swing states is very small. It appears however to be almost 1/3rd of voters. So that is why I say the Obama v. Clinton of Dem voters may not scale. It also might be useful to know how many independent voters did vote in a primary and who they supported more. ie. maybe only 10% of Dem primary voters were Ind versus 90% were regular Dem voters. So in November the Ind will have much more influence than just the primary results might indicate. You of course would have to know if Ind favor one candidate over another.

There is also a difference in election between Obama and Clinton compared to election between white man vs. black man or white woman vs. white man. Maybe that is over simplified, but people will vote differently. You can safely assume people factored that into their primary selection, so hopefully that would scale to Nov.

Also, I wouldn't put much weight into increased Dem registration. In states where your vote determines party there were a lot of Rep voting in Dem primary. So the 3% rise may not be that much at all. OTOH, Bush and GOP scandals have done quite a bit to support, also the ruling party is penalized with protracted unpopular wars.

You don't see any talking heads saying, gee, who cares if Obama has all these delegates from red states, or even winning the popular vote from overwhelming red state victories.

The only thing that should matter is electoral vote power. If you look at the amount of red state delegates they mean nothing in Nov except for possible increase in popular vote, which it should be clear to everyone that popular vote means nothing. I haven't seen markgrate addressing the worthlessness of red state wins.

And no I'm not discounting Dem supporters in red states, I'm saying they contribute nothing to winning in November. Sure, if all of the sudden WV or WY are winnable that is one thing, but it is safer to try and pick up enough swing states. Also, do you want your Dem candidates hopes for Nov completely dependent upon red states who have never voted for Dems and/or especially a black statewide officeholder.

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

ie. to strength your argument, you should take EP data from the swing states and put in a table % of voters who identify and Ind and who they supported and then scale that to November situation. So if say in OH Clinton had the majority support of Dem voters and Ind voters, it makes a better case then just who won the primary. And vice versa in Obama won states if Ind supported Clinton then it might mean lower support from the 1/3 of voters who are Ind.

You may not give a lot of credit to polling which does change, but it is the only fair sample of all possible Nov voters and who they choose. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

Clinton wins in OH(20), WV(5), FL(27), AR(6) compared to Obama
Clinton loses in IA(7), CO(9), WA(11) compared to Obama
possibly loses NM (5), NV (5) but they both are looking like losers

So OH and FL trump any extra states Obama might win.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Very much appreciate the critique; you are correct on the weaknesses, and I'll look some more at what can be done to bolster them - or, as well I suppose, what doesn't support the thesis.

If nothing else we collectively seem to have driven the OFB from this thread, by itself a great moral victory. Much appreciation to all who contributed with that.

You know, I hope, that I always read what you write, and consider it carefully whether I agree or not. I'm pleased we have had this conversation.