I Must Be Missing Something
Mar 12
So the latest line out of the Clinton camp is that Hillary Clinton has a better chance at winning in the general election because she’s winning all the “big” states’ primaries, like California, New York, and Texas. A Clinton spokesperson says:
The path to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue goes through Pennsylvania so if Barack Obama can’t win there, how will he win the general election?
To which tgirsch says: “WTF?”
Seriously, I don’t get this logic. Because Clinton beats Obama in a primary in a state, that means that Obama can’t beat a Republican in that state in the general? Does the Clinton campaign really expect us to believe that Obama would lose to McCain in New York or California?
States that are Democratic strongholds aren’t going to suddenly turn Republican because their preferred Democrat lost the primary. Particularly not in this election cycle.
In the words of Stephen Colbert, that’s the Stupidest F#@king thing I’ve ever heard!
#1 by Ted at March 12th, 2008
| Quote
Well, when the polls show your candidate does not do as well as Obama against McCain, you need to start making shit up to counter it.
#2 by Glen Dean at March 12th, 2008
| Quote
Keep listening to her. You’ll hear more.
#3 by digglahhh at March 13th, 2008
| Quote
There is definitely gotta be a sports analogy here, but I’ve been struggling to find it.
Here’s the best I could come up with - last year’s NBA Finals, anybody who claimed that San Antonio had a tough time beating Dallas on the road in an attempt to give Cleveland a chance at making the series competitive.
#4 by Kevin T. Keith at March 13th, 2008
| Quote
The logic is actually pretty straightforward:
Many of Obama’s state primary wins come in states the usually go Republican in the general election; Hillary’s come in large states that are usually Democratic or competitive for Dems.
So: Obama’s the most popular Democrat in states that don’t vote Democrat overall (i.e., he’s the most popular among Democrats in Republican-majority states). Hillary’s the most popular Democrat in states that actually give their electoral-college votes to Democrats. So if you want to have the best chance of winning the general election, you should vote not for the Democrat who gets the most primary delegates overall (especially if the two candidates are close in that respect); you should vote for the Democrat who gets the most primary delegates among those states most likely to be majority-Democrat in the general election, which is Hillary.
I should say I’m not endorsing the strategy, and I haven’t run the numbers state-by-state to see if the claim is even true. Also, there’s a strong counter-argument in the fact that Obama is unquestionably pulling lots of new voters to the polls in the primaries; if that holds in the general election it could tip the balance of voters and turn some former red states blue in this cycle - thus undermining the logic of counting only primary delegates from states that were red last time. But, all that aside, the argument is not unreasonable as a general proposition.
#5 by Ted at March 13th, 2008
| Quote
“So: Obama’s the most popular Democrat in states that don’t vote Democrat overall (i.e., he’s the most popular among Democrats in Republican-majority states). Hillary’s the most popular Democrat in states that actually give their electoral-college votes to Democrats. So if you want to have the best chance of winning the general election, you should vote not for the Democrat who gets the most primary delegates overall (especially if the two candidates are close in that respect); you should vote for the Democrat who gets the most primary delegates among those states most likely to be majority-Democrat in the general election, which is Hillary.”
That is not a logical proof. In order for that statement to be true, you would need to prove that 1) Obama’s wins in Republican states actually will not translate into wins in the general, and 2) Clinton’s wins vs Obama in Blue states will translate into larger wins against McCain (than what Obama would achieve). Neither is self-evident. If Obama can carry all of the Blue states and also put some Red states in play, then he is the stronger candidate.
Clinton vs Obama is not transitive to Clinton vs McCain, nor is Obama vs Clinton transitive to Obama vs McCain.
The most effective Democratic candidate is the one who can keep all the Democrats in the camp (ie win all the Blue states) and also pick up the largest number of independents and Republicans. Some of those Blue state Democrats might have preferred Clinton, but as long as they do not cross over and vote for McCain, there is no downside having Obama run in their states.
This is why candidates always move towards the center in the general election. They are trying to pick up the fence-sitters. And Obama has proven he is more effective at doing this.
Which is the long version of what Tgirsch first wrote.
#6 by tgirsch at March 13th, 2008
| Quote
KTK:
Sorry, but that still doesn’t make sense. After all, for it to hold any water, your argument has to be that choosing the second-place finisher in those likely-to-be-Democratic-in-the-general states would cause those states to be substantially less likely to be Democratic. I just don’t think there’s any evidence of that. New York and California aren’t going to go for McCain if Clinton loses the Democratic nomination. Ain’t gonna happen.
So throw out New York and California, and look at the other reliably Democratic states, and it’s more of a mixed bag. Once you get outside of New England, it’s a mixed bag. In 2004, Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Delaware, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, DC, and Hawaii voted Democratic. From that list, we can throw out Illinois (Obama), Michigan (Clinton), New Jersey (Clinton), Massachusetts (Clinton), and DC (Obama) as places that ain’t going Republican no-way, no-how.
So what does that leave? Connecticut (Obama), Delaware (Obama), Hawaii (Obama), Maine (Obama), Maryland (Obama), Minnesota (Obama), New Hampshire (Clinton), Rhode Island (Clinton), Vermont (Obama), Washington (Obama), and Wisconsin (Obama). Pennsylvania (probably Clinton) and Oregon (probably Obama) have yet to vote, but I fail to see how this landscape favors Clinton. Two of her biggest wins, Florida and Texas, are states that have been Republican in the last two presidential elections (well, maybe not Florida 2000, but that’s another matter), so those don’t really help her. As already stated, New York, California, Jersey and Massachusetts will vote Democratic no matter what.
And in any case, in the general, it’s less important what partisan Democrats prefer, and more important what that median voter, self-described independent prefers.
I think another telling way of looking at it would be to look at the states that were close (by my definition, close = winner got 52% or less of the vote) in 2004. If Clinton wanted to make an argument that wasn’t silly on its face, that would seem to me to be the place to start. Close in 2004 were New Mexico (Clinton by a nose), Iowa (Obama by a wide margin), Ohio (Clinton by a wide margin), Nevada (Clinton), Florida (Clinton), Minnesota (Obama), Wisconsin (Obama), Michigan (Clinton), Oregon (Obama), and Pennsylvania (probably Clinton). She actually has done better in these in-play states than Obama has, which seems to run counter to the conventional wisdom on this. But again, what matters in those states isn’t who the Democratic base prefers; it’s who the fence-sitters and independents prefer, and that clearly seems to be Obama.
#7 by Ted at March 13th, 2008
| Quote
Using 2004 as a model, let’s look at the states that Bush most narrowly won: OH, IA, CO, MO, VA. Assuming primary wins and losses translate into general wins and losses, the results in these states translate into a net pickup of 20 electoral votes for Obama (Clinton gets 20 for Ohio, but Obama gets 40 for the other 4).
Now let’s consider the states Kerry most narrowly won: MN, WA, WI. A clean sweep for Obama, or a 31 electoral vote advantage for Obama.
That makes a net advantage to Obama of 51 EVs in the most contested states in 2004.
In terms of protecting “the base”, consider all of the states that Kerry carried in 2004. Of the total of 20 states, Obama has won 11 and Clinton 6. Of the 6 Clinton won, five are solid blue states - CA, RI, MA, NJ, and NY. Hew Hampshire (4 electoral votes) could be in play.
Now I realize there are a myriad of ways to slice this, and I also admit an Obama bias. But these facts are fairly effective in debunking the “transitivity favors Clinton” argument.
#8 by Ted at March 13th, 2008
| Quote
LOL Looks like Tgirsch was working on the same comment as I was and beat me to the post.
#9 by LarryE at March 14th, 2008
| Quote
KTK -
Trying to edit all these arguments down:
The logic is actually pretty straightforward
Stripped to its essentials, the argument is this: Because Clinton beats Obama in states like CA, NY, and (expectedly) PA, therefore Obama cannot beat McCain in those states.
The argument is indeed straightforward. But it is not logical.
#10 by tgirsch at March 14th, 2008
| Quote
LarryE:
You said it a lot more concisely than I did. Thanks.
#11 by Kevin T. Keith at March 14th, 2008
| Quote
That is not a logical proof. In order for that statement to be true, you would need to prove that 1) Obama’s wins in Republican states actually will not translate into wins in the general, and 2) Clinton’s wins vs Obama in Blue states will translate into larger wins against McCain (than what Obama would achieve).
Well, it can’t be a deductive proof, because it’s a prediction of future events which are known to hinge on a lot of other unnamed factors. I don’t think it was intended as a strict proof - but that doesn’t mean it’s not a reasonable logical argument.
It basically comes down to this: If Obama can carry all of the Blue states and also put some Red states in play, then he is the stronger candidate.
That could be true, but the fact that he won the Democratic primaries in the Red states is no proof that he can put them into play in the general election. It just means he’s the most popular Democrat in a Republican state.
On the other hand, if any Democratic candidate can carry all the Blue states and a reasonable number of “Purple” states including at least one or two of the big ones like OH, FL, or IL, they can win the Presidency without carrying a lot of traditionally Red states. And Hillary has shown more strength in those swing states.
#12 by Kevin T. Keith at March 14th, 2008
| Quote
OH, IA, CO, MO, VA. Assuming primary wins and losses translate into general wins and losses, the results in these states translate into a net pickup of 20 electoral votes for Obama (Clinton gets 20 for Ohio, but Obama gets 40 for the other 4).
But there’s no reason to assume that, especially for the “Obama states”. Ohio actually is a likely Democratic state - it’s been borderline in every recent election, and went Republican in 2000, and possibly 2004, only because of electoral shenanigans by the corrupt state officers. Hillary has a good chance there, and did better than Obama; Obama would have to win at least 3 of the 4 other states you name to carry more electoral college votes than Hillary is likely to right off the bat.
#13 by Kevin T. Keith at March 14th, 2008
| Quote
I think another telling way of looking at it would be to look at the states that were close (by my definition, close = winner got 52% or less of the vote) in 2004. If Clinton wanted to make an argument that wasn’t silly on its face, that would seem to me to be the place to start. Close in 2004 were New Mexico (Clinton by a nose), Iowa (Obama by a wide margin), Ohio (Clinton by a wide margin), Nevada (Clinton), Florida (Clinton), Minnesota (Obama), Wisconsin (Obama), Michigan (Clinton), Oregon (Obama), and Pennsylvania (probably Clinton). She actually has done better in these in-play states than Obama has, which seems to run counter to the conventional wisdom on this.
That’s the argument Clinton made - that’s the argument I tried to explain (though I should have emphasized the swing states more than I did).
Of those states, the EC vote breakdown, given your calls for each candidate, is:
Florida (Clinton) 27 EC votes
Michigan (Clinton) 17
Nevada (Clinton) 5
New Mexico (Clinton) 5
Ohio (Clinton) 20
Pennsylvania (Clinton) 21
Iowa (Obama) 7 EC votes
Oregon (Obama) 7
Minnesota (Obama) 10
Wisconsin (Obama) 10
That’s an advantage for Hillary of 95 more-likely EC votes to 34 for Obama in states that carry the difference in the election. Obama’s lucky to have favorite-son status in IL, usually a swing state, but even so Hillary’s hugely ahead in the states that are not fairly certain to be either won or lost no matter which one is the nominee. And that’s “the logic”.
But again, what matters in those states isn’t who the Democratic base prefers; it’s who the fence-sitters and independents prefer, and that clearly seems to be Obama.
If they can’t give Obama the victory in the primaries, they won’t in the general election.
#14 by Morris at March 14th, 2008
| Quote
(Ohio) went Republican in 2000, and possibly 2004, only because of electoral shenanigans by the corrupt state officers.
You loons have been yelling about that for years. Prove it.
#15 by tgirsch at March 14th, 2008
| Quote
KTK:
No, that’s not the argument she made, with the possible exception of Ohio. Her camp argued that she’s the better candidate not because she does better in the purple states, but because she’s done better in the bluest of blue states. Again, those aren’t going Republican because of Obama.
Essentially, you’re assuming a fact that not only is not in evidence, but one that seems exceedingly unlikely: that in a general election, Obama would lose blue states that Clinton would win (never mind the rest of the equation). I can’t even believe you’re defending that logic. It seems absurd on its face. Are you arguing that Obama can’t carry the blue states in a general election?
If they can’t give Obama the victory in the primaries, they won’t in the general election.
Dude, what are you smoking? Do you really think those voters are going to behave the same way in an Obama vs. McCain matchup as they did in an Obama vs. Clinton matchup? That doesn’t even make any sense!
For what it’s worth, Obama won among Independent voters in Ohio, 50-48. So unless you think some large percentage of the 56% of self-described Democrats in Ohio who voted for Clinton would stay home or vote McCain if Obama were the nominee, I’m afraid the logic doesn’t hold.
That’s an advantage for Hillary of 95 more-likely EC votes to 34 for Obama in states that carry the difference in the election.
This assumes that only the candidate who won the Democratic primary could deliver the state for the Democrats in the general. An assumption that’s simply not borne out in the polls. (See below.)
Primary politics are not the same thing as general election politics, nor even close. For one, the kinds of people who vote in primaries are not a true cross section of the people who vote in general elections. The more interesting thing is to look at maps like these. The key states in that map are Washington, Oregon, Nevada, North Dakota, Colorado, Arkansas, Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia, and Florida. When you look at how those fall out in a matchup between either candidate and McCain, it’s actually a bit of a push. Clinton carries Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Florida, but loses Michigan and the Northwest. Obama carries the Northwest, parts of the West, and Virginia.
Personally, I take these polls with a grain of salt. I don’t see either candidate losing New Jersey (as this poll says Obama would) or Michigan (as this poll says Clinton would), nor do I see either Democrat carrying North Dakota (as this poll says Obama would). But I think these maps show that the electoral calculus is nowhere near as cut and dry as Clinton’s advisers would have us believe.
#16 by Ted at March 14th, 2008
| Quote
I think there is enough uncertainty in any of these projections that the best way to determine the Democratic candidate is to have primaries in each state, and then go with the one who wins the most delegates.
It does crack me up that Clinton says - with a straight face - that the Michigan primary was fair and the results should be honored. In Iraq, during Saddam’s reign perhaps…
#17 by LarryE at March 14th, 2008
| Quote
All of this crystal-ball gazing is interesting fun, but that’s all it is. The bottom line remains that the Clinton camp’s argument is that if Obama loses to Clinton in a primary, then he loses to McCain in a general.
And that simply makes no sense.
#18 by Will at March 14th, 2008
| Quote
Obama’s supporters make the same claim, that he would would be better against McCain. But of course you have no idea how the media will chew him up when they’ve gotten Hillary out of the way. And he is much more vulnerable. He says he’ll unite the country and reform campaign finance, which is pure fanatsy. He says his supporters will not vote for Hillary in the ge, which is idiotic. Michelle says she’ll have to think about that, which is a disgusting insult. He ducked his Senate responsibilities, resites the liberal wish list, and adopts a few Clinton policies. And you think he’s qualified to create and pass a national legislative agenda.
You also have no clue why the media is supporting him for now. You haven’t noticed that Olberman and the rest are employed by the oil and war industries, who, if they can’t have another puppet, will settle for someone weak and naive.
It’s been sad watching you dance around the issues with rhetorical tricks. But educated people are disgusted with the media smear campaign, which you have actually copied. We look at the candidates records and know the Clintons are the greatest policy experts of our time with a spectacular governing record a mile long.
#19 by Morris at March 15th, 2008
| Quote
“We look at the candidates records and know the Clintons are the greatest policy experts of our time with a spectacular governing record a mile long.”
That’s the funniest thing I’ve heard all day. Thanks for the laugh. What has Hillary ever governed?
#20 by tgirsch at March 15th, 2008
| Quote
Will:
Wow, that’s quite a paranoid rant, there, fit for a Republican!
#21 by Janusz at March 15th, 2008
| Quote
Ted wrote: “It does crack me up that Clinton says - with a straight face - that the Michigan primary was fair and the results should be honored.”
I can see your point re: Michigan. But at the risk of being positioned as “being firmly in the Clinton camp” (in all fairness, I’ve been equally critical of both candidates) I don’t think that’s the case in FL; it does strike me as peculiar that a revote is even being discussed there. All candidates were on a level playing field in FL and it was a Republican-dominated legislature that moved up the primary date; a revote in the state would be wasteful and unnecessary.
Ted wrote: “I think there is enough uncertainty in any of these projections that the best way to determine the Democratic candidate is to have primaries in each state, and then go with the one who wins the most delegates.”
Which is most likely the way it will go.
I understand that what you meant to say is the best way is to have primaries *or caucuses* in each state, but I’m going to use this to go off on a tangent. One has to admire the Obama organisation for their ability to carry many of the caucuses. They were able to mobilize people, increase the number of participants, and play the caucus game more effectively. That doesn’t necessarily make the caucuses representative. After this election is over, I think the whole primary/caucus mess needs to be rethought, from possibly alternating regions who would hold their primaries first or having the whole country vote on the same day, to examining whether caucuses are really “democratic” as opposed to primary elections.
#22 by tgirsch at March 15th, 2008
| Quote
Personally, I don’t think either Florida or Michigan should have their delegates seated or get a revote. Indeed, the whole point of moving up the primary was to make their primary more important. With this race as close as it is, as late as it is, letting them hold primaries now would arguably make them even more important, thus effectively rewarding them for their violation of party rules.
I think if you were going to do anything, maybe the 50% idea that’s being floated around would be the way to go. As far as Michigan is concerned, you’d have to give all of the “not Hillary” delegates to Obama, and I suspect even though that still favors her, her camp would object.
#23 by Ted at March 15th, 2008
| Quote
Janusz, I agree that Florida and Michigan are two different cases. But Clinton does not make that distinction in her speeches.
I also agree that the caucus is a silly way to award delegates, and is not as representative as an election. And while you are examining caucuses, take a look at the super delegate concept as well.
I do not agree that the playing field was level in Florida. If the democratic party had opted to prohibit campaigning in all 50 states, then I think Clinton, who initially had much better name recognition than Obama, would have been at a significant advantage. Since the FLA primary was early, Clinton did have better name recognition and thus eliminating campaigning did not give Obama a fair chance to establish his candidacy. So, in one sense, I don’t think the playing field was level.
My hope is somehow both states can hold traditional elections and have their delegates count - even though it will be to the disadvantage of my candidate.
#24 by Janusz at March 15th, 2008
| Quote
Tgirsch wrote: “Personally, I don’t think either Florida or Michigan should have their delegates seated or get a revote.”
In which case you are effectively disenfranchising a significant part of the electorate, hardly in the spirit of fair play or representative democracy. I don’t think anyone is disputing the results of the primaries, and in fact, the results are most likely more representative than the caucuses in Iowa or Texas. It seems that the “punishment” here, disregarding the voices of the electorate in two states, is far in excess of what the “crime” deserves.
Tgirsch wrote: “I think if you were going to do anything, maybe the 50% idea that’s being floated around would be the way to go.”
Now that’s just plain silly. You’re all over Clinton’s statement that the Michigan primary was fair (in fact, you did have a choice that was not Clinton though it clearly would have been better had Obama’s name appeared on the ballot), but you can say, I’m assuming with a straight face, that the result should be divided equally even though Clinton clearly received the majority of the votes. How are you going to explain to the voters of MI and FL that their votes are being represented fairly with such a solution. It’s truly no better than not recognizing their votes at all.
#25 by Janusz at March 15th, 2008
| Quote
Ted wrote: “If the democratic party had opted to prohibit campaigning in all 50 states, then I think Clinton, who initially had much better name recognition than Obama, would have been at a significant advantage.”
I would agree, to a point, that Clinton had greater name recognition. However by the time of the Jan 15 primaries, Clinton, Obama and Edwards were considered the three top contenders, and Obama had already won the first caucus in Iowa. So, in my opinion, he was already considered a viable force and had gotten significant media attention. The 50% offer seems to me to be particularly disingenuous as it eliminates the proportionality of the votes cast, effectively nullifying the results of the election. Hopefully a more equitable solution will be found.
#26 by Ted at March 15th, 2008
| Quote
Not sure which 50% proposal Tgirsch was talking about. There is a proposal where each delegate gets half a vote, which splits the difference between accepting the results of the elections and disallowing them. I could see that as a solution in FLA if an election can not be worked out. But not in Michigan. A one name election proves nothing.
#27 by tgirsch at March 16th, 2008
| Quote
I was referring to the same 50% that Ted was. Florida gets to seat 50% of its delegates, and that 50% is apportioned according to the vote. So if the delegate split had been 100 Clinton to 70 Obama, they’d get 50 and 35, respectively.
#28 by Janusz at March 16th, 2008
| Quote
Tgirsch wrote: “I was referring to the same 50% that Ted was. Florida gets to seat 50% of its delegates, and that 50% is apportioned according to the vote. So if the delegate split had been 100 Clinton to 70 Obama, they’d get 50 and 35, respectively. ”
Oooooops…my bad. Thanks for clarifying!
#29 by Janusz at March 16th, 2008
| Quote
Ted wrote: ” I could see that as a solution in FLA if an election can not be worked out. But not in Michigan. A one name election proves nothing. ”
In that case, it shouldn’t be considered for either. It would probably be better to honor the FL results, and arrange a new primary for MI.
#30 by tgirsch at March 16th, 2008
| Quote
Janusz:
So you’re basically arguing that there should be no penalty at all for moving the primary early in violation of party rules?
#31 by Janusz at March 16th, 2008
| Quote
Tgirsch:
What I’m basically saying is depriving the people of FL and MI of their right to representation is far in excess of what moving a primary date deserves. Particularly in FL, where it was essentially a Republican-dominated legislature that decided the date, to penalize Democratic voters in such a manner does not seem appropriate. And while moving the date may deserve some penalty, depriving voters of representation is contrary to the spirit of the primaries. I mean, isn’t that what all this is about?
#32 by tgirsch at March 16th, 2008
| Quote
That’s why I think you at least need to do the 50% thing. That way, the voters have some say, but the state is still penalized.
#33 by Janusz at March 17th, 2008
| Quote
No…the voters are penalize, and I maintain that is not appropriate. If you really feel the Fl Democratic Party or state needs to be penalize, why not look at some sort monetary penalty (I don’t know, I’m just throwing something out there). To deny people the vote, and half a vote is not a vote, is sending all the wrong signals. In a race this tight, people are acutely aware that every vote counts, and we don’t need voters who feel they are disenfranchised.
#34 by tgirsch at March 17th, 2008
| Quote
Then the only option would have to be a revote, because the initial votes in both states were not fair, since no candidate campaigned in either state.
I wonder, though, if somebody’s ambitious enough to do the math. If you seated the delegates as-is, what would that do to the overall “standings?”
#35 by Janusz at March 17th, 2008
| Quote
Which may make sense in MI, as not all candidates were on the ballot. I’m not sure it does in FL. All candidates were listed, and as none of the candidates actively campaigned there, the playing field was level. The talk of a mail-in ballot, considering the state has no experience with such procedures, seems cumbersome, and dangerous. Fl already has a history of electoral shenanigans, as I’m sure I don’t have to remind you.
#36 by tgirsch at March 17th, 2008
| Quote
All candidates were listed [in FL], and as none of the candidates actively campaigned there, the playing field was level.
Well, depends how you define “level.” The trend at the time was that where all the candidates did campaign, Obama either won or cut substantially into Clinton’s lead. The complete lack of campaigning gives an unfair advantage to the presumptive front runner at the time. Your “level playing field” argument basically presumes that active campaigning in the state would have had no discernible impact on the results in that state, and the trends in other states at that point in time say different.
#37 by Ted at March 17th, 2008
| Quote
Which is the point I was trying to make in comment #23, but Tgirsch did a better job (as he usually does) by introducing the fact that Obama was able to significantly reduce (or even overcome) initial leads by Clinton by campaigning in each state.
I agree that a mail-in ballot would not be a good idea since there is no database of scanned signatures. How about this. Obama plays Clinton one-on-one in basketball. Half court, clear to top of key, winner keeps, no dunking. First one to 21 gets 60% of delegates, loser gets 40%. Win by two.
#38 by Janusz at March 17th, 2008
| Quote
the basketball reference is completely lost on me!
I could buy your argument if Fl was completely isolated, without benefit of various media, internet, television, radio. I think we all know that is not the case. As I had stated earlier in post #25, the FL primaries followed the Obama win in Idaho giving him significant media play and recognition, and even before then, Clinton, Obama and Edwards had long been considered the front runners. Re-doing the primaries is no minor task given the logistics and expense, and lets face it, one generally doesn’t have do-overs in representative democracies just because one is unhappy with the result. I think maintaining the results in FL, and new primaries in MI is a reasonable compromise between the two camps.
But hey, I doubt the powers that be will give that a second thought just because I said it!
#39 by tgirsch at March 17th, 2008
| Quote
Janusz:
Re-doing the primaries is no minor task given the logistics and expense, and lets face it, one generally doesn’t have do-overs in representative democracies just because one is unhappy with the result.
It’s not “just because one is unhappy with the result.” It’s because it wasn’t a fair primary by any reasonable definition of that term. You don’t know how things would have been different if the candidates had actively campaigned there. You also don’t know how many voters stayed home because they knew the primary “didn’t count” — or chose to vote in the GOP primary, which did count — nor do you know if the candidates were evenly affected by those behaviors. See, that’s the thing: Seating the delegates as they currently exist in Florida would not be a fair, democratic result.
For all we know, a revote could help Clinton — she might do even better now (especially with the Wright kerfuffle) than she did in January. But if “getting a do-over” is unfair, then saying “Just kidding, we’re really going to count this, and if you believed us when we said we wouldn’t and stayed home, then screw you” is even more unfair.
#40 by tgirsch at March 17th, 2008
| Quote
P.S. I don’t think it was a basketball “reference.” I think he was actually suggesting that they play basketball. He was kidding, of course, but I don’t think that was supposed to be a veiled reference to something else.
#41 by criollo at April 6th, 2008
| Quote
Republicans know how to count, and their math is simple. They win the red states, we win the blue states, and we fight for the swing states. Obama is ahead because he has won in states that democrats will never win. However, he has lost in states that democrats have to win. You add the braindead logic of Howard Dean alienating voters in two swing states like Michigan and Florida to the most likely scenario of losing Ohio and a few other swing states and he has little of no chance of winning the general election. By the time the Republican machine is done with Obama you would think he is Farrakan’s brother. Their basic strategy of making sure that we democrats pick from the left has served them well for many years. Like someone else said, good loses over evil because good is stupid.