Corrente

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

Je repete...

More from Paul Lukasiak's groundbreaking work on democracy and the primary process:

Based on exit polls, among the approximately 16.3 million people who identified themselves as Democrats, over 678,000 more voted for Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama. If we’re going to “let the people decide" who the Democratic nominee would be, shouldn’t we be basing that on the will of Democrats themselves?

Er, yes?

Of course, since the Republicans have winner-take-all primaries, we would have to vote in huge numbers to influence them. But since we have proportional representation, Republicans don't have to vote in great numbers in our primaries. Just enough to affect the margin.

Any question in your mind that the Obama campaign is quite comfortable riding a wave of very old-style Hillary Hatred? Just win, baby!

0
No votes yet

Comments

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

I'd like to suggest that its not just "right-winger" who are being motivated to vote for Obama based on CDS, rather that a very large chunk of Obama's "independent" voters are well to the left of the Democratic mainstream.

And, while its probably true that these people won't vote for Hillary in the general election, its also true that they won't vote for McCain either.

As I noted earlier, Hillary actually has more support among "moderate" voters than Obama, and what most concerns me is that, once the GOP smear machine goes into high gear, a lot of those moderates will buy into the idea that Obama is some kind of far-left type whose lack of experience makes him very "risky". And the idea that moderates who would vote for Hillary will switch to McCain (not because they "hate Obama", but because McCain looks "safer") is something that needs to be taken seriously.

In other words, if we gotta lose votes because of the choice of nominee, I'd rather loose the "Hillary hater" from the left that won't vote for McCain, than the moderates who will switch to McCain.

Submitted by lambert on

Why am I even commenting? You do it!

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

Submitted by lambert on

Here.

Feel free to use this site for passive aggressive, unsupported hits on well-respected analysts, and to suck our traffic with your worthless outlinks, as I'm sure you will. We aim to please.

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

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

This argument that somehow primaries should be national populous vote, but the actual Presidential election is more electoral college.

You can't at once take advantage of and like the delegate system, and then talk about the will of the popular vote.

This is just gamesmanship.

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

Moderate independents and Republicans hate Hillary. Many of them will vote for Obama but they'll vote for McCain in the general if our nominee is her. You can pretend that Repubs will be able to mount an effective scare campaign this summer about him being "risky" but after a year on the stump the numbers don't bear that out. Look at any of the recent national polls and they show Obama beating McCain and Hillary losing to him. Voters want change and that's not Hillary or McCain.

corinne's picture
Submitted by corinne on

You can pretend that Repubs will be able to mount an effective scare campaign this summer about him being “risky”

It will happen. They're already planning for it. It'll make the swiftboating of Kerry look like child's play.

Jakebnto's picture
Submitted by Jakebnto on

Beating up on Obama because some of his supporters hate Hillary is - how do you say it - missing the ranch for the cows. Politics is partisan - I think I might have read that here a time or two - and you use the tools at hand. To misquote a famous American, you use the tools you have, not the tools you'd like to have.

I might have missed it, but so far I don't actually think either of the candidates has said or done anything about or to the other candidate that they can't walk back.

I certainly agree that Democrats should choose the Democratic nominee - but the primary system is what it is. Hell, the Clinton's probably wanted it this way, thinking it would be to their advantage, not their opponents.

There is no consolation prize in this contest. If Obama didn't use every tool at his disposal (wisely, we hope) then he would definitely not be the man for the job. The same goes for Hillary.

Jake

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

It's from Frank Rich's column yesterday which is mostly about time passing the GOP by:

The authors of the new book “Millennial Makeover,”
Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais, point out that
the so-called millennial generation (dating from 1982) is the largest in American history, boomers included, and that roughly 40 percent of it is African-American, Latino, Asian or racially mixed. One in five millennials has an immigrant parent. It’s this generation that is fueling the excitement and some of the record turnout of the Democratic primary campaign, and not just for Mr. Obama.

Needless to say these folks aren't going to be voting for the old white guy. As one wag said in a LTE to the Chicago Tribune today the Republican primary disproves Darwin's theory. Survival of the fittest it ain't.

Submitted by lambert on

Democrat's friend. Fully paid up Villager.

Authoritative, though of course totally lacking in data.

You know what? I think the millenials are going to be smart enough to see through Obama's bullshit. Of course, his acolytes and our famously free press are doing everything they can to prevent that.

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

Submitted by lambert on

So, Obama plans to disenfranchise real Democrats with Republican votes?

How is that ethical, markg8? 'Cause I sure don't see it.

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

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

I think the millenials are going to be smart enough to see through Obama’s bullshit.

If HRC wins the nomination it will be one of the greatest come backs of all time, but I can't see how it could happen.

And as creepy as the OFB is, as creepy as Obama's advisers are, I am not sure but what Obama doesn't deserve to win.

A friend pointed out that the Clinton's are very top down, whereas Obama is very grassroots organizing oriented. As someone who volunteered for Bill in '92, and '96 I can testify that that is so. A more grassroots approach would have a great benefit to down ticket races.

Truly I don't like either one of them, so whatever the party decides is OK with me. I feel like Arthur Silber.

tedraicer's picture
Submitted by tedraicer on

Tdraicer

Putting aside policy issues for the political question:

The political argument for Obama is that he is drawing in Independents and some Republicans.

The opposing argument is that many of those voters will ultimately vote for McCain, and that those who don't are mostly in states the Dems have no chance of winning regardless, And that meanwhile Obama is losing the white working class vote in key battleground states the Dems MUST win in November. (While I'll vote for Obama no matter what, it isn't at all clear to me that those voters in OH and PA will follow suit.)

I find those opposition arguments serious and worrying. Obama can settle the matter by winning (or coming extremely close) in PA and/or Ohio. But if Hillary wins both of them by significant margins, nominating Obama would be a serious gamble, exactly the sort of gamble the Super Delegates are supposed to prevent.

But one should never underestimate the ability of the Democratic Party to make the wrong move politically, so I won't be surprised if Hillary wins OH and PA by wide margins and Obama still gets the nomination. Quite concerned, but not surprised.

Of course, it could be the cards are so stacked for the Dems after 8 years of Bush that ANY Dem will beat McCain no matter what. But I wouldn't want to bet the White House on that.

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

I don't know anything about Lukasiak but after reading his post over at Marsh's site I can tell he's in the same league as Mark Penn. Sure Hillary has more votes if you don't count the caucus states and do include MI where all Dem candidates except Hillary and Kucinich took their names off the ballot and FL where she flew in the night before the election to advocate for their votes. I'm amazed watching people who say they are Democrats using Rove's math and campaign tactics. This guy has no credibility. And I have to question his judgment in throwing whatever integrity he may have had away in such a blatant attempt to skew the figures for a losing cause.

Submitted by lambert on

In the Greek sense, of course.

To anybody who knows the blogosphere, the statement:

I don’t know anything about Lukasiak but after reading his post over at Marsh’s site I can tell he’s in the same league as Mark Penn.

shows a devastating level of ignorance. Please, don't embarrass yourself and your candidate further with such displays; study up. I'm honored to have Paul here. You, if you had not been blinded by the "Taylor Marsh" hate trigger, would be as well.

Shameful.

NOTE Oh, and of course we have the obligatory attack on the intellectual integrity of anybody who disagrees with the, well, OFB members such as yourself. We consider the source.

UPDATE For anyone who came in late, the real point markg8 is working overtime to obfuscate is this. From Paul's post:

678,000 more voted for Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama."

markg8 thinks it's great that in a close election, Republican votes could decide the Democratic nominee, disenfranchising real Democrats. That's the bottom line on all the Obama campaign's verbiage about delegates.

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

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

"I don’t know anything about" as the intro to a critique - seriously, there's some balls - and "This guy [the target about whom the speaker has already announced he knows nothing] has no credibility" as the conclusion. What's not to admire in that line of reasoning?

There's something here, I'm telling you. Perhaps a short quiz, testing for the capability to recognize the ironic and if you fail, well, no voting rights. I know that's not properly progressive but really, must be some way to clear out the chaff and in addition to this kind of muddlehead all of the Republican base would fail.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

from lambert and bringiton, after the crap I heard from wingnuts after the Thornburgh-Boccardi report said I was the first link in the chain to the Killian memos, I've learned not to waste time and electrons responding to people who clearly have no idea what they are talking about.

In other words, when I come to the keyboard, I wear my big-boy pants... ;-)

Submitted by lambert on

Ugly, time-consuming work. But we leave the idiocy in here as a marker. As we know from 2000, and 2004, the record is important.

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

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

and untruth is not worthy of notice."

-- remembered from one Heinlein or another, possibly Citizen of the Galaxy. not sure where he stole it from originally but one of the ancient Greeks would not surprise me.

And another, paraphrase as the same idea is in several RAH works, "Numbers are truth. Everything else is just opinion."

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

surely you can take care of yourself. My observation was more in the way of a challenge to the commentor to sharpen up the thinking a little bit. Maybe read it out loud to any drunk in a bar and if they laugh out loud, do not press [Post comment].

But seriously, you got credited for the Killian oppo? Cool. Maybe I can hitch a ride in your black helicopter some time.

Submitted by lambert on

I could give mine, but you were there, the work was yours, et cetera.

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

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

You don't get to change them in the middle of the game when you're losing fellas. Maybe Hillary should have figured out how to win by playing by them last year when her minions instead were trying to intimidate the press into selling her inevitable argument for her.

Pretending you can only count primary voters when you can't organize and compete in caucus states is a ridiculous argument that will only lose you more votes down the line. Demanding loyalty from super delegates, most of whom are elected officials who won't benefit from you at the top of the ballot anymore than Dems did under your husband is an even dumber strategy that again will lose you more of those super delegates. Over the weekend Obama gained 11 while lost 2.

In TX where you'll be sad to hear CNN reports a dead heat right now 79% of both Hillary and Obama supporters say they'd vote for either one in the general, just like they say in about every other state. You may think your diatribes, insults and phony parsing of the numbers are having an effect but they're not. Most voters don't read blogs. And bullshit like the above is probably why. Most people don't have the time or inclination to read your oh so serious screeds which devolve into telling kids to get off your lawn. So I say to you the same thing I tell wingnuts when they tell me the surge is working, just stick to your positions and you'll marginalize yourself. That's fine with me.

tedraicer's picture
Submitted by tedraicer on

Tdraicer

>The rules are the rules

So you agree that the Super Delegates can vote however they wish and Obama's attempt to change that is wrong?

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

there was something i read that i can't find now, that is very relevant to this post. re: "the rules." armando/BTD did a post about rule and delegates and the actual bylaws of the dem party and how it elects a prez nom and for fuck's sake, it's gone and i can't post on it now. so i could just be stoned and wrong.

but if i'm not: bottom line to BTD's post that i want to say here: look at them closely. and specifically. i believe, and i could be wrong, but i think there is a Whole Lotta Room for interpreting which rules matter. remember: it's a party, and not an official gummint organ. so "commitees" can decide which people are "the voters choice" and those groups aren't elected.

like i said, i could be wrong speaking of the DNC and superdelagates and whatnot, but i think my general point is sound.

if you think how the "democratic" party picks its head is 'democratic,' you're a fool. i don't need to say more than that, and it applies to whomever is "the winner" by the convention. as an MI voter, i can't be more sure about anything.

tas's picture
Submitted by tas on

Feel free to use this site for passive aggressive, unsupported hits on well-respected analysts, and to suck our traffic with your worthless outlinks, as I’m sure you will. We aim to please.

Thanks for treating me like a troll, Lambert. I guess somebody forgot who he sent emails to asking for advice when he pondered switching Corrente onto the Drupal platform. I guess one really knows who their friends are after a while, eh?

Submitted by lambert on

Trollish comments get trollish treatment.

If you want to duke it out with Lukasiak on the merits here, then do that at the appropriate link, supplied, and I'll retract.

But attacking Lukasiak's integrity with "fudging the numbers" and then saying "click here to understand why" -- that's bullshit, dude.

Thanks for the Drupal help. Maybe your guy will come through with universal health care and won't wreck Social Security. If so, I'll be happy. In the meantime, I need to defend myself and those I care about.

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

Submitted by lambert on

This one. I used the tagging system to come up with it.

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

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

but the first time i thought i read it, it was much longer and more detailed.

but what do i know? i asked BTD, if he responds i'll post it here. thanks for the help and support, tho. i lurv you all always, esp you, friend LB.

tas, don't be weak and soft (or do, and call me if you're a woman in need of Fun). you've got a point to make. make it. tell lambert he's wrong, show your work. we're not "all the same" here and although i'm most in LBs camp, you'll find that if you really have something to say, we won't delete or ignore it here.

unlike, um, some other places.

tas's picture
Submitted by tas on

But attacking Lukasiak’s integrity with “fudging the numbers” and then saying “click here to understand why” — that’s bullshit, dude.

Whatever.

And fuck you too.

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

The fact is there was chaos last year setting the primary calender. Well into November none of the campaigns knew where to allocate their resources. ALL campaigns agreed with Dean that MI and FL should be stripped of all their delegates if they continued to try to jump ahead of other states. They were warned and decided to go ahead anyway and paid the price. Now that Hillary's message and campaign strategies have failed (inevitability, experience, sexism card, race baiting, change agent with experience, smears of Obama) she's reduced to trying to steal the nomination by any means possible.

Trying to get the super delegates to overturn the will of the voters is not only dishonest and undemocratic it's an incredibly dumb strategy. It isn't working and has only served to turn them off and make Obama's voters and supporters even more determined.

We lost the the senate, house, governorships and state legislatures all over the country with these two in the White House. They triangulated a lot of good Dems to the sidelines and then right out of office in 1990s. They installed all kinds of DLC clowns at the DNC to keep the party and it's fundraising arm under their control. You and they are seriously misguided if you think party regulars and Dem voters want to go back to the old days of starving county and state organizations for the benefit of Bill and Hillary. Super delegates aren't likely to take orders on how to vote from them no matter what they're promised if it means their state parties and candidates will wind up with the short end of the stick again.

So now Ben Smith at Politico is reporting that a high ranking Clinton official has told him they're going to go after Obama's pledged delegates starting in April. Smith says they may be promised the sun, moon and stars to switch sides. According to the official, “All the rules will be going out the window.”

So please don't quote rules to me when the candidate you support hasn't followed them and apparently has no intention of doing so in the future. I don't see how she can do it but if she manages to win the nomination with these tactics she'll lose in a landslide to McCain, it'll cripple the party for years and both she and her husband will be pariahs.

Submitted by lambert on

Thank you for commenting, markg8. Your comment is important to us. Please do not hesitate to comment again.

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

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

Well, I just saw this over at a blog called After the Sunset (http://justabovesunset.wordpress.com/200...)

Here Paul Lukasiak tries another tactic – he argues that Clinton actually has the popular vote lead. Here’s a cynical summary:

Apparently, if you only count votes up to Super Tuesday, discount every state that had a caucus, only go by the exit polling, and eliminate any voters who weren’t registered Democrats, then Hillary Clinton actually has the popular vote lead. In other news, based on exit polling and early voting from 2004 President Kerry will be running for reelection.

The idea that caucus states don’t count is odd, particularly when the Clinton campaign is simultaneously arguing that Florida and Michigan voters were disenfranchised. There’s just one problem with that. Even if you count Michigan and Florida voters, Obama still has the popular vote.

Now, the source for this is clearly Sullivan's Daily Dish...(the guy plagarizes whole phrases, and changes a word or two in others)

[Patrick Appel] Paul Lukasiak tries to argue that Clinton actually has the popular vote lead. Tom summarizes Paul's argument:

Apparently, if you only count votes up to Super Tuesday, discount every state that had a caucus, only go by the exit polling, and eliminate any voters who weren’t registered Democrats, then Hillary Clinton actually has the popular vote lead. In other news, based on exit polling and early voting from 2004 President Kerry will be running for reelection.

The idea that caucus states don't count is pretty bewildering, especially when the Clinton campaign is simultaneously arguing that Florida and Michigan voters were disenfranchised. Even if you count Michigan and Florida voters, Obama still has the popular vote.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/

and the quote being used is from Baloon Juice...
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=9706

Now, I NEVER claimed, or "tried to argue" that "Clinton actually has the popular vote lead" as Patrick Appel and his plagarizing friend would have it. Indeed, not only did I point out that Obama's current popular vote lead was 128K, but that number is higher than what the media is reporting (85K).

And, of course, Tom in Texas's claims to the contrary, my totals were based on data from all the primaries, including the "Potomac Primaries", not just, as Tom in Texas would have it, just the states up until super tuesday.

And that's what I love about the blogosphere. It really doesn't matter what the facts are.... all that matters is what people say you said the fact are.

Submitted by lambert on

But if you're going to plagiarize Bareback Andy...

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

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

It was Roger Simon at Politico not Smith. The Clinton campaign now has shot down their own trial balloon and says they will not be trying to flip Obama's pledged delegates. Then as a kicker said it was time the Obama campaign denied beating their wives too. The Obama campaign's response is essentially "have these people lost their minds?" BTW even with Eddie Rendall holding open the filing deadline another day and half the Clintonites couldn't find enough people to field a full delegate slate in PA. Ready on Day One!

Lambert please show me your blog posts from last summer where you were warning about the danger of indies and Repubs being allowed to vote in open Dem primaries and caucuses. I'm sure you have some screeds time stamped and dated in the archives that show this has always been a big concern of yours (like your adoration of Hillary) and not just the latest desperate line of attack against Obama. Might take you a little more seriously then.

Submitted by lambert on

Thank you for commenting, markg8. Your comment is important to us. Please do not hesitate to comment again.

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

tas's picture
Submitted by tas on

Oh, and speaking of passive aggressive…

Just for the record, I post a benign comment about Lukasiak's piece on a blog that I used to be friendly with and swap links with. In return, I get treated like a troll. I think it's very reasonable to be pissed off with this kind of treatment. Of course, you deem it as "passive-aggressiveness," since you apparently have nothing to reply to me with besides character assassination remarks instead of actual counterpoints. But on the face of it, if you expect me to be happy to be deemed a troll when I'm not, then I dunno what the fuck you're thinking.

Maybe you're going to be like one of those wingnuts who'll dismiss my points by pointing out that I use profanity. Since you're now on the side of telling us what Americans can and can't vote for our next president, I wouldn't be surprised... Given these two occurrences, Lambert, exactly what is the difference between you and a wingnut, anyways?

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

At any rate, I think the GOP has done their job very successfully on having all of these kool-aid drinkers on both sides spreading whatever smears and jumping at each other's throats.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

when you accused me of fudging the numbers, you attacked my integrity.

In fact, I wrote in my piece that Obama had a lead of 128K in the total vote.

I also provided a link to the data tables I used, with extensive notes regarding my methodology.

I hid nothing. I "fudged" nothing -- actually, that' not quite true. I "fudged" things slightly in Obama's favor, by treating all uncommitted Michigan voters as Obama voters, and treating all DC voters as Democrats (despite no other state having higher than 87% in Democratic Party ID) because of a lack of exit polling data.

And I left out caucus results for excellent reasons...
1) lack of exit polling data
2) lack of standardized reporting of results (some states reported raw participation, others only delegates elected to county/district conventions, and the rules for those delegates varied across states)
3) Caucuses don't measure the same thing as primaries do -- the general election doesn't include caucuses, just people going to the polls to cast their votes.

Submitted by lambert on

How would you expect to have friendly relations after saying a thing like that?

"You totally lack integrity, but I still consider you my friend."

Bullshit, dude.

As I said, if you want to duke it out with Lukasiak here, have at it. Knock yourself out. Express your aggression directly...

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