Is Clinton vs. Obama really necessary?

[Notaguru2]

She has no path to victory.

 

[B_jacknapier]

Yeah, well that's like, just your opinion... MAN.

 

[Notaguru2]

1. The media was heavily biased against Hillary because she is a woman and were very sexist in their coverage. (It is Hillary voters that have to be convinced this is not so, not anyone else.)

Untrue. Give one example; just one. She was portrayed as the "front runner" until she took some shellacking's from Obama mid-primary. Remember the 14 state winning streak?

2. The set up of delegates per state was unfair. Hillary won the popular vote of Texas but Obama received more delegates. That is true in other states as well. (Sure it was a complicated primary and caucus system that caused this in Texas, but it still is a fact Hillary had more popular votes and Obama had more delegates. How is that going to be explained to HIllary people's satisfaction.)

Cry me a river. It only became unfair when she didn't win the delegates. Look, delegates are awarded by district. How is that unfair? The people were and are fairly represented.

3. With Florida and Michigan according to some reports, Hillary has more popular votes that is if only primary votes are counted. But if caucus votes are then added in Obama then comes back on top by a bit. Never mind the fact that Obama wasn't even listed on the Michigan ballot. If Hillary supporters and Independents in Florida and Michigan are mad because the Florida and Michigan delegations are seated, Obama can kiss those two staets off his electoral college vote list.

Florida and Michigan aren't in play anyway. The DNC made a rule before the primaries started that the delegates would not be seated. Hillary agreed. Now that Billary needs the delegates, she all of a sudden is coming out on the side of "every vote must be counted". Ok, I'll concede ALL of the delegates and votes to her - she still loses the delegate battle. Next argument?

4. Those swing states. Hillary supporters are convinced that in electoral college votes Hillary has more votes in the general election than Obama. It is true that only electoral college votes count. (See 2000. Gore had over 200,000 votes than Bush, but Bush became President anyway compliments of the Electoral College.

Correct. It doesn't matter what "could be". All that matters is who gets 2205 delegates first and that has been decided; Obama.

5. Some Hillary supporters are convinced that undo pressure is being put on Hillary to bail out and super delegates who are really for Clinton are being really pushed hard to forget their own opinion and vote for Obama because he happens to be ahead at the moment.

She can stay in for all I care. Its BILL CLINTON that is contacting Obama's people right now to make the case for her spot on the ticket. This was reported today on MSNBC.

6. The Democratic Party just screwed up everything from the beginning. Not only Hillary supporters will agree with this, but most Obama and Independents will agree with this. If there was a way to shoot themselves in the foot the Democratic Party did it. Howard Dean was a disaster when he tried to run for President. He has been a bigger disaster as Chairman of the Democratic Party.

Actually, it was political genius on behalf of the republican controlled houses in both Florida and Michigan. Their partisan move to change the primary dates caused this. Those house new beforehand what the stakes were and that's why they did it. This was orchestrated by the GOP from the start, with the help of the DNC's rules. Don't forget the GOP's involvement in this process that started it all.

It was a bad move on Obama's behalf to take his name off the Michigan ballot, because we can't give him votes there that were not "technically" cast for him. So, how do you square this with voters who didn't get to vote for their guy?

The real solution is a new primary in both states, but that won't happen.

Boil this down and here's what will happen; Florida's entire vote will count and delegates distributed. Michigan's vote will count for Hillary, but Hillary will fight to prevent the remaining votes from going to Obama because both he and Edwards were still campaigning at the time.

Lastly, Howard Dean gets fired after the convention for causing this fiasco. Hillary finds her way onto the ticket, and McCain gets beaten handily in the general because at the end of the day, AMERICANS ARE SICK OF THIS WAR.

 

[B_jacknapier]

What's wrong with the war? :-|

 

[dreamer20]

This is what is wrong with the war:


http://www.lpsg.org/33691-war-on-terrorism-chasing-ghosts.html

Lately I've come to a very good thought, I guess. It was while I was watching TV, and seen the coverage of the umpteenth declaration of the good ol' "War on Terrorism" speeches of Bush. Here's what I thought.

I thought that all arrests and successful investigations of latest acts of terrorism come from countries where these investigations are handled by police forces, while military is never, or hardly involved. On the other hand, we (the US) have employed a lot of military forces and come up with a lot of nothing.

This made me think that the term "war on terrorism" is not a matching metaphor. While war implies that you have a concrete opponent, a clear objective, and clear conditions that make you a winner or vanquished, the struggle against terrorism isn't so easy. Therefor, anyone who expects to win this "war" is misled, moreover, this so-called war must be considered as a permanent struggle against an abstract opponent, which will never be won. A "victory" in this case will mean that terrorism is only subdued for some time, forced to hide and remain inactive because of a lack of possible targets, and the increased danger of the terrorists' plans being uncovered through agents infiltrating into the terrorist networks. History proves this, as terrorist organizations which have been infiltrated by the police and intelligence agencies usually grind to a halt, and are very limited in their operations.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Senor, you express your opinions and I express mine. If you can not follow my what I've stated perhaps you should read from a major media source.

Don't delude yourself. What you say is not difficult to follow.

Hillary Clinton can still win the Democratic Nomination. The criteria that Hillary Clinton must "catch" Obama in pledged delegates or surpass him is a fabrication. That is not the requirement to win the Nomination. Just like Obama, Sen. Clinton will be convincing the SuperDelegates she is the best candidate to go up against John McCain and that she will make the best President. Hillary Clinton still has a strong argument. All SuperDelegates are still in play, even the ones who have endorsed until they cast their votes at the convention:

Yes, all this is remotely possible.
It must be pointed out, however, that the Super Delegates are currently voting ... with their feet. And they're not going to Clinton's corner.
We'll have to see how things turn out in early June.
I think Obama will take South Dakota and Montana.
Clinton may win Puerto Rico, but I have no idea by what margin. She was leading by 13 percent some weeks ago, but with Obama's ever-increasing momentum and Bill Richardson campaigning there, I have no idea what a current poll would show.
I don't know of any reason to think that she will do as well as some of the more optimistic scenarios in that article you like to quote.
The fact is that the convention will choose the candidate based mostly on the number of pledged delegates each candidate has. Obama is certain to be ahead.
I don't think it's clear at all that the Super Delegates think Clinton would be a better president than Obama.
Nor is it clear that she is significantly more likely to win the election.
Some Clinton supporters may be saying they could not support Obama as the Democratic standard bearer.
But they say that now.
When push comes to shove, when Clinton is no longer on the table, where else where they really have to go?
The Super Delegates will know that -- just as they will know that choosing someone over the person who had the most pledged delegates, and probably, at the end of the day, the most individual votes, exclusive of Michigan, would hugely antagonize much of their base.
Clinton can say she gave it a good, and even a very good, run ... but she just hasn't done well enough.
And the few remaining contests don't promise to materially alter that situation.
Impossible? Perhaps not. But the most outside of outside chances.
I think she would make a fine president.
But now my best hope is that she will make a fine vice president.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

There goes another Clinton talking point. Going off the Pollster.com averages, Obama currently wins 283-255, losing the Kerry states of Michigan and New Hampshire, and winning the Bush states of Iowa, Indiana, New Mexico, Colorado, and Ohio. If you give him a tiny 3-point "primary boost", he picks up Virginia and Michigan, for a 313-225 lead.

But that's if the election happened NOW. Unfortunately, we have about 6 more months of this drama to go through and who knows what Republicans have in store for Obama. I don't get too excited looking at current polls for many of them are not good at predicting the future.

It's a good sign, but not one that I'm willing to go celebrate over.

 

[Notaguru2]

What's wrong with the war? :-|

Damn, you crack me up =) Have you been living in a vacuum?

 

[bosatbk]

Trinity -

Any response to the latest polls that show Obama improving?

 

[Freddie53]

Untrue. Give one example; just one. She was portrayed as the "front runner" until she took some shellacking's from Obama mid-primary. Remember the 14 state winning streak?



Cry me a river. It only became unfair when she didn't win the delegates. Look, delegates are awarded by district. How is that unfair? The people were and are fairly represented.



Florida and Michigan aren't in play anyway. The DNC made a rule before the primaries started that the delegates would not be seated. Hillary agreed. Now that Billary needs the delegates, she all of a sudden is coming out on the side of "every vote must be counted". Ok, I'll concede ALL of the delegates and votes to her - she still loses the delegate battle. Next argument?



Correct. It doesn't matter what "could be". All that matters is who gets 2205 delegates first and that has been decided; Obama.



She can stay in for all I care. Its BILL CLINTON that is contacting Obama's people right now to make the case for her spot on the ticket. This was reported today on MSNBC.



Actually, it was political genius on behalf of the republican controlled houses in both Florida and Michigan. Their partisan move to change the primary dates caused this. Those house new beforehand what the stakes were and that's why they did it. This was orchestrated by the GOP from the start, with the help of the DNC's rules. Don't forget the GOP's involvement in this process that started it all.

It was a bad move on Obama's behalf to take his name off the Michigan ballot, because we can't give him votes there that were not "technically" cast for him. So, how do you square this with voters who didn't get to vote for their guy?

The real solution is a new primary in both states, but that won't happen.

Boil this down and here's what will happen; Florida's entire vote will count and delegates distributed. Michigan's vote will count for Hillary, but Hillary will fight to prevent the remaining votes from going to Obama because both he and Edwards were still campaigning at the time.

Lastly, Howard Dean gets fired after the convention for causing this fiasco. Hillary finds her way onto the ticket, and McCain gets beaten handily in the general because at the end of the day, AMERICANS ARE SICK OF THIS WAR.

Well we certainly agree on your last paragraph. It is the fact the the GOP orchestrated this and Howard Dean was a fool for fallilng for it that makes me the angriest.

I'm not sure though that you undersstood what I was trying to say. McCain is the enemy not Hillary. I never said any of the perceptions were correct. What I said was that in order to when Obama has to deal with and do away with those perceptions.

The fact that Hillary may win the popular vote and is this close and people are demanding her to bail out is only alienating the Clinton supporters. Notice Obama is wisely steering clear of this attempt to railroad Hillary out of the race. Obama is fully aware that should the Hillary supporters desert the Democratic party, his getting the nomination will only be a geseture as he will go down to flaming defeat.

What I was trying to point out is that you that have been with Obama through it all have a major job to do. To put Obama in the White House it is the Obama supporters that have to WELCOME the Hillary wing.

Several months ago, when Hillary was neck and neck with Obama in delegates, the cry from the Obama people was but Omaha is ahead in the popular vote. Now that it is apparent that HIllary has a good chance of having more popular votes, suddenly the rationale has changed. Granted Hillary supporters changed their position to fit the present condition as well.

You asked about Texas being district by district and was that fair? In the general election ALL the states electoral votes will go to one person. Even if the vote is one million and one for candidate A and only one million for candidate B. All 50 or whatever number of electoral votes there is go to cnadidate A. Is it fair? Debate it. But that is the law. And that is how it will be done in November

Had the Democratic Party followed the winner take all system the Republicans use, Hillary would already be the nominee.

Don't worry, Obama will get my vote if he is the nominee. I'm not foolish enough to piss in the wind in anger like some will do. The piss won't get on Obama. It will get all over me. But the same goes for the Obama people as well. Pissing in the wind at HIllary will do nothing but guarantee the Obama will lose the election.

Again, from all that Obama has said in recent weeks Obama is very aware of this. His supporters need to recognize this as well. (And should Hillary get the nomination, her supporters have got to recognize this as well. She HAS to have the African-American vote, all of it including the third that might be inclined to sit out the election.

Again do we both agree on one thing. Howard Dean. If McCain is our next president, in my book the foundation of the defeat wont' be Obama nor Hillary, it will be Howard Dean. He screwed up his own run to be president and was awardd the chairmanship of the party for it. I was horrified when I first read that and it is the news is getting worse about his performance as the wees roll on.

Again, it makes me sick to thinik that an Obama supporter would vote for McCain or a Hillary supporter would vote for McCain. I just don't get it. I've never been AGAINST either one. I am FOR Hillary, not AGAINST Obama.

Sadly appears I am in a minority in that I am not AGAINST either one. It makes me sick that Democrats would consider either of this fine people the enemy.

We has Democrats should be proud that the first major candidate with a chance to win who was black and the first major candidate that is a woman are running against each other and are neck and neck going into the final stretch.

We Democrats should be celebrating this great achievement. Sadly we aren't. Tragic is what it is.

Hillary and Obama are not the enemy. John McCain is. This is what my gripe is. There seem to be very few of us that accept that.

 

[transformer_99]

Cry me a river. It only became unfair when she didn't win the delegates. Look, delegates are awarded by district. How is that unfair? The people were and are fairly represented.

Everyone knows that the Republicans redistricted Texas to overcome popular vote. The Democrats just found a way to award Obama more delegates than he earned in terms of popular vote in Texas.

2003 Texas redistricting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I really don't understand how anyone can indicate that a majority of the popular vote goes in favor of one candidate, yet the delegates are pledged & awarded conversely ? If delegates get awarded as electoral votes (winner take all) that isn't right, just as the way they were distributed according to districts is bullshit too. A vote should count as a vote and the candidate with even one more vote than the other, the least the delegates can do is align and assign their support of the candidates to reflect popular vote, even if the distribution is a difference of 1/1,000,000 of a pledged delegate.

 

[playainda336]

Anytime you have to utilize "if" statements, then you're negligent to a simple fact.

The "if" is not happening, therefore what you are left with is the truth.

I find it difficult that people are having such a hard time dealing with that.

 

[Industrialsize]

Everyone knows that the Republicans redistricted Texas to overcome popular vote. The Democrats just found a way to award Obama more delegates than he earned in terms of popular vote in Texas.

2003 Texas redistricting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I really don't understand how anyone can indicate that a majority of the popular vote goes in favor of one candidate, yet the delegates are pledged & awarded conversely ? If delegates get awarded as electoral votes (winner take all) that isn't right, just as the way they were distributed according to districts is bullshit too. A vote should count as a vote and the candidate with even one more vote than the other, the least the delegates can do is align and assign their support of the candidates to reflect popular vote, even if the distribution is a difference of 1/1,000,000 of a pledged delegate.

The DNC did NOT find a way to award Obama more delegates than he earned. The "rules" of the Democratic primary have been the same and Haven't changed for DECADES!..Many of the rules were written by the Clinton camp back when Bill was in power. The Clinton camp, as well as all the other candidates, knew the rules before the primaries started. But now since Senator Clinton is losing according to the rules, SUDDENLY, she thinks they are un fair and need to be changed. If they are unfair and need to be changed, why didn't the Clintons change them when they were in Power??? Because they were written with her in mind as the "inevitable" candidate who would have the nomination locked up after super tuesday. I guess it;s not going as they had planned.

 

[transformer_99]

The DNC did NOT find a way to award Obama more delegates than he earned. The "rules" of the Democratic primary have been the same and Haven't changed for DECADES!..Many of the rules were written by the Clinton camp back when Bill was in power. The Clinton camp, as well as all the other candidates, knew the rules before the primaries started. But now since Senator Clinton is losing according to the rules, SUDDENLY, she thinks they are un fair and need to be changed. If they are unfair and need to be changed, why didn't the Clintons change them when they were in Power??? Because they were written with her in mind as the "inevitable" candidate who would have the nomination locked up after super tuesday. I guess it;s not going as they had planned.

Rules in place or not, anytime popular vote is circumvented in pledged delegates or electoral votes, there is a manipulation of the election process. A vote is a vote, a whole unit that is equivalent. We are not dealing with 3/5 votes anymore. Every person that votes has an equivalent vote. This should not be like the NBA where an imaginary boundary line makes the difference between whether a basket is worth 1, 2 or even 3 points.

 

[Notaguru2]

Rules in place or not, anytime popular vote is circumvented in pledged delegates or electoral votes, there is a manipulation of the election process. A vote is a vote, a whole unit that is equivalent. We are not dealing with 3/5

Wrong, again. Delegates are awarded by district. Example; if Hillary only campaigns in a state to win 12/30 districts and suppose even one or more of those districts are densely populated, she could theoretically win the popular vote yet get fewer delegates than Obama. This actually happened in Texas. She would up winning the pop vote, but including the caucuses she wound up losing the delegate count.

The only correlation between vote count and delegates is at the district level. Its great if you win 70% in LA County, but you still need the rest of the State to take California (for example).

A system like this prevents a candidate from focusing in ONLY on the densely populated areas to gain delegates.

Its a fair process, as each person is actually represented. However, I'd really like to see the model reformed to that of the GOP; winner takes all delegates.

Has anyone done the math (experts, not lpsg members, lol) to see if this had been a winner take all primary election, who would be ahead?

 

[Notaguru2]

Hey... check it out. I did some of my own research this evening. I took the approach that if the democratic primary was run the same way as the GOP primary what would the result be? In the GOP primary, its very simplistic. Whoever wins the most votes, gets all of the delegates.

What I found was rather revealing and causes me to understand a little more clearer what the Clinton supporters are talking about.

I don't think the GOP has "super delegates" either. I think what this illustrates is really how close this election is. Hang on... its not over yet!

Check out the attachment to see the map!

 

[playainda336]

Well...maybe Hillary chose the wrong party?

Lol. I think the Democrat styled primary is more fair than the Republicans though.

Because what happens is that constituents are equally represented by percentile.

If 49% say "Yes" and 51% say "No", is it really fair to the 49% to ignore the way the feel about a situation?

 

[swordfishME]

Hey... check it out. I did some of my own research this evening. I took the approach that if the democratic primary was run the same way as the GOP primary what would the result be? In the GOP primary, its very simplistic. Whoever wins the most votes, gets all of the delegates.

What I found was rather revealing and causes me to understand a little more clearer what the Clinton supporters are talking about.

I don't think the GOP has "super delegates" either. I think what this illustrates is really how close this election is. Hang on... its not over yet!

Check out the attachment to see the map!

If the Democratic primary process worked like the Republican process it would have been over shortly after Super-Tuesday. Clinton would have the bigger states and the momentum to win some of the states Obama won and thus the nomination.

Since the general works on the winner takes all system (can you imagine the chaos if the Electoral College votes were awarded on a proportional basis?) I would prefer the primaries to work the same way as well.

Maybe its time that this whole Electoral College mess is revisited and we move to a direct election for President
.

 

[Trinity]

The DNC did NOT find a way to award Obama more delegates than he earned. The "rules" of the Democratic primary have been the same and Haven't changed for DECADES!

That is NOT correct. In Nevada for example, there was a well publicized lawsuit which put Teacher's union against Culinary union and Clinton against Obama. The DNC ratified rules in August 2007 that created "special precincts" that allowed some voters to easily caucus than others in the casinos on the Vegas Strip. There was also controversy over the delegate apportionment power of the "special precincts."

The teachers said it was wrong for the party to set up special sites for one type of worker while doing nothing for others who have to work on Saturday. Further, they said, the system wrongly allocates more delegates from the at-large sites than from other caucus precincts, a provision that former President Clinton alleged would give the at-large caucus-goers as many as five times the number of delegates, if there was a full turnout.​

- The Boston Globe​

Rules in place or not, anytime popular vote is circumvented in pledged delegates or electoral votes, there is a manipulation of the election process. A vote is a vote, a whole unit that is equivalent. We are not dealing with 3/5 votes anymore. Every person that votes has an equivalent vote. This should not be like the NBA where an imaginary boundary line makes the difference between whether a basket is worth 1, 2 or even 3 points.

Wrong, again. Delegates are awarded by district. Example; if Hillary only campaigns in a state to win 12/30 districts and suppose even one or more of those districts are densely populated, she could theoretically win the popular vote yet get fewer delegates than Obama. This actually happened in Texas. She would up winning the pop vote, but including the caucuses she wound up losing the delegate count.

The only correlation between vote count and delegates is at the district level. Its great if you win 70% in LA County, but you still need the rest of the State to take California (for example).

A system like this prevents a candidate from focusing in ONLY on the densely populated areas to gain delegates.

Its a fair process, as each person is actually represented. However, I'd really like to see the model reformed to that of the GOP; winner takes all delegates.

Has anyone done the math (experts, not lpsg members, lol) to see if this had been a winner take all primary election, who would be ahead?

Transformer is right. Notaguru, you have the facts of the process, but where you are wrong is your assessment that it is Fair.

Take Nevada for example:

Senator Clinton won the Nevada Caucuses but Obama was awarded more delegates: Clinton 50.7% Obama 45.2% Edwards 3.8%

Barack Obama may have won the most delegates in Saturday's Nevada Caucus, even though Hillary Clinton bested his statewide turnout by about six points.
A source with knowledge of the Nevada Democratic Party's projections told The Nation that under the arcane weighting system, Obama would win 13 national convention delegates and Clinton would win 12 delegates. The state party has not released an official count yet.

According to RealClearPolitics Obama 14 delegates Clinton 11 delegates



How did this happen?

Obama was able to edge out Clinton, Obama aides explained, because two rural regions, sub-areas of one of Nevada's three congressional districts, apportioned an odd number of delegates, and Obama won the balance of them, taking away a total of three delegates to Clinton's one. In more populated areas, especially Las Vegas, the districts apportioned an even number of delegates. But Obama was able to come in a close enough second to Clinton to evenly split those delegates. The Washington Post​

And then you have this diddy:

On Jan. 19, party caucuses meet in each precinct to choose delegates to county conventions. The delegates selected are not bound to any candidate. At the county conventions on Feb. 23, delegates to the state convention are chosen. They are not bound to any candidate. The state convention is April 18-20, during which delegates choose 25 of the 33 delegates to the national convention. Sixteen of the 25 delegates are allocated proportionally to presidential candidates based on the support for the candidates in each of the state’s three Congressional districts. Nine delegates are allocated to candidates based on the support among all of the delegates attending the convention. The remaining eight unpledged delegates are chosen from party leaders. - Explanation ​

In total, that's 16 for Obama (14 pledged, 2 super), 13 for Clinton (11 pledged, 2 super) and five undecided/uncommitted (4 super, 1 add-on). That's a total of 34 delegates from Nevada. - listed​

The Texas Two Step was even worse. Fair? Democratic? I don't think so.

 

[deleted15807]

Keep it up Dems. The Republican strategists thought they didn't have a chance in hell now they are smiling. Smiling. They can actually take the White House in November and continue the disastrous Bush Administrations policies since ideology trumps reality.

GOP strategists mull McCain ‘blowout’

It sounds crazy at first. Amid dire reports about the toxic political environment for Republican candidates and the challenges facing John McCain, many top GOP strategists believe he can defeat Barack Obama — and by a margin exceeding President Bush’s Electoral College victory in 2004.

GOP strategists mull McCain ‘blowout’ - David Paul Kuhn - Politico.com