OK, now the Illuminati are just *[expletive deleted]ing* with us.
By Moe Lane Posted in 2008 | Schadenfreude | The Best Democratic Primary EVER — Comments (45) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Here we are, on the cusp of the last primaries, and it's time for the ultimate On the One Hand / On the Other Hand:
On the one hand? Latest polls for South Dakota and Montana:
South Dakota: Clinton 60, Obama 34
Montana: Obama 48, Clinton 44
On the other hand? These polls come from ARG. If you don't know why this is so hysterical, ask a poll junkie - from either side, it doesn't matter. Suffice it to say that they've been... ah, erratic. In other words, no real change there... except that a little bit more acid just got dripped on various Democratic souls.
Pity.
I had a whole response written up to this, but it got deleted when Firefox crashed. So let me make the short version: I have not heard any Obama supporters actually make such arguments, women's votes count, they were just outnumbered. On the other hand Hillary supporters have made the opposite argument specifically wrt black voters.
Also, Hillary won the latte-sipping states (NY/CA/MA). Among Obama's latte-sipping states are Mississippi, Nebraska, Idaho, and Texas (if you go by delegates, since it was a caucus as well as primary). Also, despite being an Obama supporter I dislike coffee and have no idea what a latte is (I assume it is coffee b/c it comes from Starbucks). Also I drink been way more often than wine, because I am in college. I am also underage, so take that, establishment!
Finally, to get back to the point, ARG sucks. They could be off by 30 points in NoDak's Mexico.
HillDog did better in states with Primaries, HopeBamma did better in states with caucuses. I think that at the caucuses they were giving out free balloons, pony rides or something to attract the young and hip to Saint Hopebamma.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
'Tis true that Obama has done better in said caucus states. On the other hand, most of the caucus states are Western states, in all of which Obama did well (except for ones with large latino populations). So this may be in large part because the states where Obama was gonna do well were also the ones with caucuses.
FWIW, Opinion polling shows Obama with a lead, and has for months now.
It is, in fact, assumed that anybody who has gotten this far into the blogosphere can safely be expected to know that ARG has pretty much sucked this election cycle to date. :)
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
It is very very good. I have never had 2 crash but 3 is even better. Recommend very highly. IE 8 isn't bad either as painful as it is for me to say it.
Second statements should be taken as wholes instead of snippets of conditionals.
So "If she wins"
and
"Latte sipping Crooks"
Very important.
Third as to votes not counting.
The people that got disenfranchised are floridians, michiganders, and anyone who voted for Hillary in a primary. For some reason the DNC felt the need to toss 4 delegates from Hillary to Obama. Why ? because they like him and she is annoying ? your guess is as good as mine.
Bottom line though
1. The democrats don't trust voters to pick their candidate.
2. Even with putting in nannies for the Dem voters they felt the need to jigger things again.
And you wonder why the party of personal responsibility has trouble with Democrat philosophy ?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
If the votes are counted as is in FL/MI, it will disenfranchise all of the people who stayed home because people like Hillary told them that the primary would not matter, and in Michigan it would disenfranchise every single Obama supporter as his name was not on the ballot. Even ignoring that, it is unfair to change the rules mid-stream. Obama was the relative unknown at this time, and so robbing both him and Hillary of a chance to campaign in FL/MI is advantageous to Hillary in an undemocratic manner.
As for Dems not trusting voters...keep in mind that this was put in place to be a check against the antiwar, grassroots, Liberal part of the party. Being antiwar and Liberal, I agree that it is stupid, and if it was just pledged delegates Obama woulda won much more cleanly. So the Democrats who don't trust the voters, they're not the wing of the party I am from, they are the wing closer to your party. At least that is what I have heard, I would go and verify it all but my Internet is running hella slow
And I don't really care how you guys square that particular circle, just as long as all y'all handle it in the same stellar way as has been the rest of this primary.
Moe
PS: That being said, your guy was an idiot to voluntarily take his name off of the ballot in Michigan.
PPS: When you get your Internet fixed, be sure to lose whatever attitude told you it was smart to sneer at us as being mistrustful of voters. This is a moderator telling you that you don't have the moral authority to lecture us on anything. Grok?
The right answer is "Yes, Moe."
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I am fine with them letting them back in in the manner they did, which is a good cross between nullifying the argument about them so it is not a source of uncertainty in people's minds, and making sure that Obama can clinch victory very quickly. Especially after SD/Montana, and considering Congress is whipping votes for Obama now supposedly.
RE PS: So did John Edwards, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, ... . It was a fair interpretation of the rules. The person who is being an idiot is Hillary, for not accepting the inevitable like a month ago. Or taking any of the opportunities to drop out.
RE PPS: I am not trying to say that yall's party is mistrustful of voters. In fact, many of the people on our side talk of emulating the movement yall have created - one that is trustful of voters. I think that trust of voters is uncorrelated with party affiliation - what I was/am trying to say is that trust of voters has nothing to do with the Republican Party saying it is the party of personal responsibility (which would imply that the further you get ideologically from the Republicans the more mistrustful of voters you are, an assertion I was countering). I think my branch of the party too is trustful of voters (and for that matter not racist. I don't know a single racist Democrat who isn't an old person/who is from my wing of the party. People here always say the Democratic Party is racist...of all the racists in the party, of which there are some, they ain't in my crowd). And the two premises I was arguing with don't apply to us. Now I have totally lost my train of thought...so I'll just cut it off here.
What does "Grok?" mean?
...Bob Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land? I don't know whether to genially mock you for your lack of geekcred, or mock myself for clearly being too old to have anything remotely resembling a fashionable conversation.
Moe
PS: I think somebody recommended upgrading to the FF 3 beta. If your Internet problem was that the browser get eating up memory until the whole thing locked up, that's the way to go.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Had a lot of fun with SST, and Time Enough for Love, but 5 years later, I'm still struggling with TEfL. It has some inordinately boring and contrived pieces that I just can't seem to slog through without reason (though I really loved "The Laziest Man" story).
"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Everyone needs a little Mother Thing once in a while.
"Government of the people, by the people, for the people."
A. Lincoln
stories, he was an OK writer, but not a great one. But his ideas made you think.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Mock him Moe! Please!
I really do like it when you mock. Jeez, mock me; I'll submit.
(....or I shall taunt you again!)
What do we want?! (refrain = Mocking!)
When do we want it?! (refrain = Now!)
He don't Grok it. I wonder if Obama does?
You are right, I don't have geek cred, which is why I didn't know what :this: means. Also, the Internet problem and the Firefox problem are actually separate, first Firefox wasn't working but now it is fine, then the Internet was not working and it wouldn't work even with another browser, but everything seems to be fine now.
I am sorry but by fighting for the job she has managed to demonstrate qualities you would like to see in a president. She knows what she wants isn't shy about doing what she needs to, to get it.
Obama's whining does not come across nearly so well.
By your argument Obama should step aside so someone who can win it will have a shot.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
First of all, polls show that it is basically a tossup between Obama and McCain right now. this site, which has a trendline which is a bunch of polls aggregated, shows them at 45-45 (it really means 45.0, it usually shows the first decimal place but they just happen to be at a round number).
You may think that it is downhill for Obama from here, but that is a judgment call and other smart people well-meaning people will disagree.
Second, it is all well and good for Hillary to be a fighter, but she also should factor in the good of the party. At one extreme, dropping out after losing Iowa would be stupid. At the other, if it were October and Obama and McCain were in the midst of the campaign, and Hillary were suing the DNC to try and somehow nullify the convention and get her name on the ballot (I doubt she would have grounds to sue but speaking hypothetically)...people wouldn't say she was being a fighter but that she was just hurting her party. At some point between those two extremes it gets to a point that the damage to the party should override her being a "fighter."
Given that in 2004 Kerry was ahead 52.87% - 45.30% at this point in the cycle.
Well... at this point in the cycle, sort of. Say what you like about Senator Kerry, but at least he was competent enough to actually clinch the nomination early.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
...this isn't RS's first Presidential election, and we were all told regularly that we were doomed back then, too. So many of us have gotten the panic reflex out of our systems already. :)
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
For the record, I didn't say y'all were doomed, I said it was a tossup.
As for Kerry, he was competent enough for Howard Dean to implode with that stupid scream thing.
The reason this happened on the Dem side and not the Republican side is not because of the candidates but because of the winner-take-all system. With that system, and with the results not changing (they would have because Obama would have picked a different strategy, but setting that aside...) Hillary would have clinched on uber Tuesday with wins in CA/NY. At least I assume, I haven't done the math.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Which wing of your party got behind the smoking bans and the trans-fat bans and the zero-tolerance policies at schools and the thermostat controls and is trying to kick US Military recruiters out of every school and town they can? What about the mortgage bailout?
Not one of those policies (and a whole slew of others that the Dem Party is famous for) is trusting of the voters. Not one. It has been a long-standing plank of the Dem Party that We The People can not be trusted to make the right decisions and either suffer or enjoy the consequences. Nothing is ever your fault (unless your a Republican). Everyone's a victim. Just let the government run everything right down to your kids' sexual practices and what colour you can paint your house.
If you think Any wing of the Dem Party trusts the voters, you need to take another look at the policies they've been pushing for 70 years or so...
"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me
Oh that is good
I had to read that three times before I actually managed conceptualize what you had said.
Counting the votes of people who voted disenfranchises those that didn't bother.
Is there some sort Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle coupled with Vacuum Energy going on in the democratic party ? It seems if people don't vote it implies a near infinite set of possible voters who are being disenfranchised. They just have to exist long enough to cast a ballot and disappear before anyone can ask for valid ID.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
If for some reason the US government decided to have a "straw poll" for President in September, with the explicit understanding that the election would happen in November which would be the real deal and this was just for the heck of it, and then someone won and the next day it was announced that that person would be President, and the November election was canceled, people would cry foul. Many would not show up to the September poll, especially those for whom it is not so easy, for example the elderly, people working >1 job, people with small children, etc.
Even if you forget that argument, the Michigan vote would still disenfranchise all Michigan Obama supporters. Even if you give Obama the uncommitted vote, that would a)disregard Edwards voters, and b) disregard people whose ballots were discounted because the wrote in "Barack Obama" (according to Chris Bowers over 27,000 people wrote in a candidate).
If y'all didn't have a vested interest (that is, operation chaos) then nobody would be arguing that counting votes in such a way that gives Obama 0 votes in Michigan constitutes a fair popular vote.
But really what it comes down to is this: The whole reason that the popular vote is an ish is because there are two schools of thought: one is "the rules are the rules" and the other is "screw the rules, what do the voters want?" If you are trying to figure out what the voters want, counting 0 in Michigan for Obama doesn't do it. And you can always look at opinion polls, which show Obama with a clear, consistent, and growing lead.
All the folks that felt strongly for the Obamassiah could have written in his name if it wasn't on the ballot.
Whiners.
Just wait until Obama loses in November. There's gonna be such a load of 2000 all over again!
Ackphttt (Bill the Cat for President.)
"Government of the people, by the people, for the people."
A. Lincoln
Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion
I'm beginning the last best hope of the Democrat party was the ambulance chaser.
Oops.
.
The Obamabots have leaked, on the eve of these last primaries, that Team Clinton has sent out feelers about the Veep slot. I question the timing.
At this point, maybe 10% of the country can maintain a sustainable state of caring about any of this. Oh, sure, if you ask them they'll nod quickly and mumble something about the election... but in terms of altering the national mood we've got another six months to go before the American people actually turn on their electoral sensors.
I would worry more about this, except that it occurs to me that this means that my political opponents are wasting a godawful lot of money right now.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
The other silver lining is that the Clinton deadenders are among those of us with too much time on their hands, and they have one more reason to get torqued off at the Obama campaign.
So, do you think HillDawg and OsamaObama can keep their spending and fund raising up?? They have raised and spent so much already, will their fans be willing to shell out more for the genral election?? I'm hoping not
Maby the Democrat party will Primary itself out of relevance and spend itself out of existance-they do seem to love spending....
What are we, Democrats? :)
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
seems to be a fairly effective tool of the liberal media. I just want a conservative Pres with a conservative Congress, house, and Judicial branch. I'll sink to a Dem level if it helps get these things. After all "peer pressure" and name calling seems to form political opinion in College Campuses, maybe it works with grown ups too!
Then why do we keep losing the Congress and Senate?
"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me
If they give in on enough of our issues (crime, guns, abortion, taxes, spending) then yeah, they can beat us.
When the craziest thing any of their candidates had done or said was "I reported seeing an Unidentified Flying Object. It was unidentified. That's what I reported. I didn't know what it was, so it was a UFO to me."
"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me
Refresh my memory...
"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me
Sure the ship will sink, but you'll feel so GOOD about yourself
It looks like whoever the Dem candidate is they will be selected not elected. And Hillary will go into the convention having skunked Obama for the last two months.
And there are so many ways they can play it.
Don't let a flawed primary system deprive your vote of meaning.
Just because the primaries are broken doesn't mean they have to break the party.
If you're a woman your vote doesn't count.
If you're white your vote doesn't count.
If you believe in god or your guns your vote doesn't count.
If you aren't a latte sipping crook your vote doesn't count. (Internal class warfare for the dem party)
Just off the top of my head.
And if she wins both it only amplifies it.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777