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

This is Your Brain. This is Your Brain on Kool-aid.

myiq2xu's picture

PocketNines's diary:

So listen up, I am going to make this easy for you. Do not screw this up. Use the three obvious points, and use concrete examples, which I have helpfully provided for you. If you do not say these three things, you are a total failure as a surrogate.

Point Number 1: If the popular vote determined the nominee, no candidate would ever go to Iowa or New Hampshire. They'd spend all their time in big urban areas all over the country from the outset of the campaign, racking up raw numbers. What would be the point of even visiting New Hampshire if you could camp out in Brooklyn? Concrete Example: Barack Obama would not have spent only a day and a half in California before the Feb 5 primary. He would have never gone to Idaho. Duh.

Point Number 2: If the popular vote determined the nominee, no state in its right mind would ever hold a caucus, instantly disenfranchising itself. Concrete example: Minnesota-Missouri. Minnesota gets credit for 214K votes, and Missouri gets 822K votes, but they each get 72 delegates. Is Missouri's voice 4 times more important than Minnesota's?

Point Number 3: The arbitrary distinction between who gets to vote in these primaries is nothing like the general election, where everyone registered gets to vote. In the primaries, sometimes it's just Dems, sometimes Dems and Indies, sometimes anyone. Concrete example: Texas gets a million more votes than similar overall population New York (2.8M to 1.8M), even though New York is far more Democratic, simply due to this arbitrary restriction on who can vote (NY = closed, Texas = open).

Overall point: regardless of the fact that Obama will win the popular vote, it is completely illegitimate in this race.

(emphasis added)

And from little lord k0s himself:

98.91% precincts reporting.

Vote% Dels
Clinton 54.3 52
Obama 45.7 46

That's an 8.6 percent margin, which we can round up to 9 percent. If it drops a few points lower, then it can be rounded down to 8 percent which was the consensus results.

Not that it really changes much, but the semantics are clearly important. It's less impressive to brag about her 8-point victory than "double-digit" lead. And, given her Ohio results, it proves that Clinton is losing ground to Obama among her core constituencies while he holds on to his own.

(emphasis added)

"Hillary didn't win by 10 points! She only won by 9.6+!"


No votes yet


Becki Jayne's picture
Submitted by Becki Jayne on

of the Orange Sippy Cup™ drink orange or lime O'Kool-Aid? I'm guessing orange.

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

I've been scanning the Betty Ford Clinic page and they've got nothing so far on the dangers of Kool-Aid. Honestly, I worry for these people.

Oh, and the "8.6%" (i.e. 9%) margin* was the unofficial result from the PA government website (CNN has her at a 10 pt. win). The official results won't be in for a couple of days. And when have the media ever relied on the (again) unofficial government numbers for its spread? My guess is that it'll start today. Look for NBC to push this (if anyone does).

*Right now, it has her at 8.5% (again, 9%, a mere 1% difference with the media results) with 99.07% reporting. My guess is this will be like NM in that the results should help her enough (to round up to 10).

Susie from Philly's picture
Submitted by Susie from Philly on

Or did PocketNine just successfully argue why Hillary should have the nomination?

Sima's picture
Submitted by Sima on

'She only won by 9.6+!'

I snorted coffee out my nose. I am SO glad I gave up the great cheeto stain about the time Edwards dropped out. That place is poison.

And the guy who says, 'If the popular vote determined the nominee, no state in its right mind would ever hold a caucus' is insane. This is a GOOD thing, we want NO STATES TO HOLD CAUCUSES, we want the popular vote to be the determiner. What an ultra-maroon. What a nincowpoop...

leah's picture
Submitted by leah on

I agree with Susie, some of those talking points would appear to be useful for Hillary supporters to use.

What I object to in this thread is the notion that there is something illegitimate about an Obama supporter trying to work out talking points.

Do any of you think that the same thing doesn't go on among Clinton supporters, and especially from the campaign itself?

It is a fact that a double digit number sounds more impressive than a single digit number, and the Clinton campaign knows that.

I think Kos's own posts last night were awful, mostly because I found them to be utterly divisive of people who need, at some point, to unite to defeat McCain, while, the whole time he insists that it is Hillary and Bill who are willing to trash Democratic chances in November.

But not everything said by Obama supporters deserves to be treated like nonsense, or the work of idiots.

I was one of the four people who started this blog and I voted for Obama, and I still have a marginal, highly marginal, tilt toward him as the nominee. My biggest problems with his campaign line up with most of those often mentioned here. I disliked his acceptance speech last night, and I thought Hillary sounded like a winner. I am not an idiot. And I have my own criticisms of the Clinton campaign.

And when I read that Hillary supporters won't vote for Obama in November, I can't believe my eyes. Anyone who feels that way doesn't know the first thing about either Clinton. Both Hillary and Bill would be the first to tell you that such a position is nonsense. After all, she wants to win in November if she gets the nomination, and she won't do that without Obama supporters.

MSNBC reported last night that something like 50 % of Hillary voters in Penn wouldn't vote for Obama in the fall. I think that can't be right, but it allowed Pat Buchanan to characterize the Democratic Party to be on the verge of a a real schism.

The campaign she's run in Pennsylvania has been a costly one for her; her negatives nationally have gone way up, and that isn't good, for her or for Democrats. And believe me, I realize what a negative campaign Obama has waged; the next to the last straw for me was bringing up Tuzla again.

I'm not talking about holding back on criticism, or on tough criticism. But could we leave the sneering and self-congratulation somewhere else?

Submitted by jawbone on

but said it meant the rounding gave her only a 9 point margin, and a Princeton poli sci professor who was on said single-digit victory vs. double-digit was important for the perception battle for SDs--and fundraising.

Earlier, this professor said about Hillary's ad with the short video of OBL (among many other actual crises president's have had to deal with) and her statement about obliterating Iran if Iran used nukes against Israel, that Hillary was trying to win the Republican warmonger vote. When the host expressed surprise at her statement, she said that, well, she was an Obama supporter, and that's how she saw it.

Re: the OBL shot -- Didn't Kerry run on accusing the Bush Maladministration of bumbling their search for OBL, and that having a Democratic president would mean the US would get to focusing on the alleged perpetrator or 9/11? And that would be a good thing? And, as a Hillary supporter, I guess that's what I saw in the use of the brief shot of OBL.

*, NYC's public radio station-Brian Lehrer Show

Submitted by lambert on

I think that voters have become very, very sophisticated at gaming the system, and are exerting leverage in this way.

NOTE You can always de-front-page, Leah, you know. Fellos get to do that. I don't have a great deal of sympathy for the front-pagers or for Kos; they're public figures like Broder or WKJM, so far as I'm concerned. If the post is just a random poster, then, no, zomnbies not appropriate.

[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

"A week is a long time in politics." There's probably better data to be had looking crunching past numbers and relating them to actual votes cast, as Paul has been doing.

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

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

I said the zombies had eaten all the brains.

"McGovern - Mondale - Dukakis - Obama

The few, the lame, the losers

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

What numbers is she looking at? CNN has Clinton at 10, which is what happens when you unofficially score a 9.6% spread (round up!), while the equally unofficial PA elections board has her currently at 9.2%. So, I'm assuming the caller is only relying on the PA board and not every other media outlet? We won't know what the official results will for a few days, but I bet it'll give her enough to round up to 10. What needs to happen now is for her to hold off the media anti-Clinton narrative to maintain the perception that she won by 10.

And if the caller wants to talk about perceptions, how about that popular vote count and the disenfranchisement of MI and FL?

And when did deterrence become warmongering?

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

the headlines would say "Hillary fails to cure AIDS."

That's our "liberal media"

"Brains! Must . . . eat . . . brains!

Submitted by lambert on

Calling them all brainless would probably rile Leah just as much, and rightly so. And isn't it the rule that when zombies eat humans (alive), the humans turn into zombies?

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

tedraicer's picture
Submitted by tedraicer on

With apologies to all marginal Obama supporters, or blacks who are voting Favorite Son, the crew at DKos are not woth defending. When an (assumed) Dem argues against the popular vote, saying Zombies ate his/her brains is being too kind. The fact is it is the campaign Obama has run that has left what should have been a repeat of 1964 looking more and more like 1988 (if not 1972). Now his DKos mob are arguing Bush talking points from December 2000? I'm afraid the evidence suggests such Obama supporters had no brains to eat.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

Don't they realize the zombies always win in the end?

"McGovern - Mondale - Dukakis - Obama

The few, the lame, the losers

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

"the notion that..." is a worthwhile phrase is something I disagree with. Sorry, I'm just sick of hearing that phrase. It carries a lot of baggage. That, and the Wednesday hangover.

leah's picture
Submitted by leah on

And in addition to that, I'm something worse than a dictator, I'm a nudge. I want people to see the rightness of my comments and make the appropriate changes all on their own. (Please note, I'm smiling while I write this)

Being a nudge is what makes me so sympathetic to HIllary Clinton, who is always being mis-characterized as a bossy big sister to the entire nation, an elitist who knows what's best for everyone. I was a bossy big sister as it happens, and I believe that Hillary is older than her brother, Hugh, which happens to be the name of my brother, too.

One thing I wish to make clear; I agree that the press is outlandishly unfair to Hillary, and to Bill, for that matter - and yes, if she cured cancer the headline would be her failure to cure AIDS, no doubt. I probably know more about this subject than most of you, some of whom may be too young to have been paying that much attention during the nineties.

I should also state that I was rooting for Hillary to win even bigger than she did - I would have been fine with a 20 point spread - I don' believe that the on-going campaign is the problem. Let it keep going.

It's the voices of division that worry me, aided immensely by the SCLM, and they didn't even a month or so ago. One way to change the tenor is for Clinton supporters to think about taking the lead, since so many of them have a keen appreciation for the divisive aspects of the Obama campaign, despite his desire to be a uniter, not a divider. Okay, I threw that in to make some people here happier, but no, I don't think Obama equals Bush.

whaleshaman's picture
Submitted by whaleshaman on

If we're going to get into an arithmetic pissing contest, this is important:

an 8.6 or 9.6 point spread is not expressed mathematically as 8.6 or 9.6 %, but just a difference in points between her amount as percent of the total vote and his [a subtraction thing].

BUT 8.6 or 9.6 points represent between 18.8 - 21 % OF his 45.7% of the vote [a division/multiplication thingy, n'est-ce pas?].

I welcome any correction here, but if I'm right, this certainly sounds, and actually IS, better that hearing she did 8% better.

As a matter of fact, I'd be crowing about it from the rooftops.