In a post entitled "Reductio Ad Absurdum" Josh shows us once again that he is quite adept at ignoring the obvious when it suits his needs. He rails against Clinton supporters who point out different scenarios that make Clinton look better than Obama when it comes to the getting the Democratic nomination. Josh is upset because "[t]here's a set of rules everyone agreed on," and no one should talk about anything outside of those rules. Such discussions are "just silly."
Josh brings up this as an example:
I imagine playing poker around a table with friends. Player A has a Straight Flush; Player B has four of a kind. Then B says well, sure, if you're counting straights, but if we were adding up the numbers rather than going by straights winning, I'd have won.
Yes, if that were what was going on it would be silly. But it isn't. When Evan Bayh is written up in the NYT for saying superdelegates should consider the Electoral College voting when making their decision, Josh calls it a gambit and equates it with ruling out caucuses. Josh then claims disingenuously that this is "just a back door way of getting rid of proportional allocation of delegates." That is a crock. It's about the superdelegates taking what's best for the Democratic Party in the general election into consideration when deciding who to cast their vote for, and Josh know that. One wonders why he feels the need to pretend otherwise?
What Josh is doing there is kind of like the poker game he describes, only the guy with four of a kind says, before everyone lays their cards down, that four of a kind beats a straight flush. If the guy with the straight flush folds, four of a kind wins even though it could have lost according to the rules. The Clinton Campaign is calling that bluff, and demanding that Obama (and his supporters) follow the rules as they are, which includes letting the superdelegates decide what they think is best for the party. Josh is certainly free to keep trying to bully the superdelegates into voting in lock-step the pledged delegates (but it is kind of funny that he never seems to ask superdelegates like Kennedy or Kerry to follow the will of the voters in their state).
I know that Josh isn't a fan of following this part of the rules, because it puts his candidate in jeopardy of losing, but as he says, there's a set of rules everyone agreed on.
- joc's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[CSE]+#b94+
Front page
Comments
You're forgetting rule zero
I really think you're missing the point here, JOC. (Although see here, especially the comments, for a discussion of Teh Rulez and the general failure of game analogies in the discourse on primaries. This is called the Ludic Fallacy, apparently.) There's just no story here, because Josh is playing by the rules. It's just that one of the rules is unstated....
So, herewith:
See how easy it is? All Josh is doing is failing to mention Rule Zero. But he doesn't really have to. All the Villagers already know about it. It's the old "You call that a black swan?" argument.
[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
Josh is in the tank for...
Obama. I didn't believe that until just recently but now that's becoming pretty obvious to me.
That does mean that his analysis of the various electoral scenarios is essentially bogus. When I see that he's writing about that I immediately stop reading. His bias is quite obvious at this point.
I just wish he'd go ahead and state his preference. It's okay that he has a preference. He should just quite pretending he's giving us some objective analysis or anything. I just ignore those posts now.
There are other things worth reading on that blog but the electoral analysis is clearly coming from one side of the Democratic political divide.
How ironic that the name, "talking points memo"...
... now completely describes that media property.
See, I used to regard it as a source of news. Oh well.
NOTE Readers, for those of you who came in late, Tom in the comment above is a long-time Fellow who posts infreqently, but always valuably. He's not Shrill
like, er, me. So his comment should make those of us who had hoped that the blogosphere and new media properties like TPM would check the press sad.
[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
What happened to the Horse's mouth?
And Greg Sargent for that matter?
Was Greg unwilling to drink the koolaid?
x
------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers
I've tried my best to clear this up
http://www.correntewire.com/obama_rules_...
Jerome Armstrong on Josh's Latest and More
Can be found - here. In addition to agreeing with JOC about Josh Marshall's lack of logic, he includes a number of other interesting links that are reality based or at least counter the current Boys' narrative. I particularly recommend the link to Peter Daou.
"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
myiq2xu
What happened to the Horse's Mouth?
And Greg Sargent for that matter?
Was Greg unwilling to drink the koolaid?
I'd love to know that too, myiq2xu. The Horse's Mouth was down for retooling or something, but that was almost 3 weeks ago. It's a pity b/c I like Sargent and think he's a pretty decent media critic.
http://hopeandonions.blogspot.com
Who Is Josh
And why give him business? Aren't there watch-dog groups that already monitor big media?
Only tyrants rig elections.
Kos Joins the Whine Fest
The rules are not the rules because they do not guarantee my candidate wins! See - http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/24/152655/959
"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
the will of the voters
If I remember correctly, the Obama cult were praising Rep John Lewis' courageous decisions to switch sides because it was his duty "to express the will of the people."
Funny how this acceptable, yet, when Richardson was called on it, well, we all know that "some animals are more equal."
parade of losers endorsing anyway--
Richardson, Kerry, Hart?!?, etc ... I'm betting Dukakis is next. ; >
none loved or even liked by Democrats, compared to Bill or Al Gore. (altho i hear Carter is an Obama fan, but not endorsing)
what do you guys think of this?--
so annoying-- http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/arc... -- "...if Clinton can’t be the nominee, she intends to make sure Obama can’t be president. ..." & about damaging the party, bla bla bla
(i commented but i think the thread's not too active anymore...)
x
Interestingly enough, I saw a post over at the Hillary Clinton forum where someone had tallied up the number of delegates each would have if all SD's were to commit to who won their state. Clinton came out ahead in total delegates. I would bet none of the blogger boyz wants to know about that one.