Corrente

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

"Why won't that stupid bitch quit?" watch

Matt Yglesias:

[T]he main obstacle to a satisfactory resolution of the Florida/Michigan situation is that Clinton continues to be in the race.

New England Patriots: The only obstacle to the successful resolution of the New York Giants situation is that the game is not yet over.

If she drops out and endorses Obama on May 7 or shortly thereafter, it'll be easy for Michigan and Florida to be "forgiven" in late May and allowed to fully participate in a rubber stamp convention in exchange for promising to never do it again.

Wow.

Forgiven. I like that.

I'm sure that the voters of Florida and Michigan will "forgive" the Democrats in November for not counting their votes. After all, how often does that happen?

0
No votes yet

Comments

zuzu's picture
Submitted by zuzu on

I just made this point to someone in an angry email about that DNC official who's telling Jake Tapper she's Tonya Harding and that the only way she can win is to destroy Obama and that she will make him "unacceptable" for the general election: the party is trying to give her the bum's rush in order to cover its own ass on Florida and Michigan.

FrenchDoc's picture
Submitted by FrenchDoc on

I think we've reached the bottom of idiocy, I am proven dead wrong.

Was any other candidate, no matter how loopy, ever subjected to such heights of nonsense and stupidity from the left and the right?

Talk about being vetted... she's still standing and has momentum.

Is it possible that HRC is just too good for the US? I could see her as Secretary General of the UN.

sane unaffiliated voter's picture
Submitted by sane unaffiliat... on

She is not stupid. The 2nd part I won't argue over.

ribonucleic's picture
Submitted by ribonucleic on

As I see it, Michigan and Florida Democrats fall into these categories:

1. Those who voted for Obama the first time - or would have if they hadn't stayed home in the wake of being told that their votes wouldn't count. They will leap at the chance to do so now.

2. Hillary supporters who recognize that their disenfranchisement was the fault of the Republican legislature who proposed moving up the primary and the Democratic leaders who stupidly went along with it in the face of a crystal-clear warning from the DNC. They are as likely to vote for Obama as they would have under any circumstances.

3. Hillary supporters who blame Obama but vote for him anyway - because he's the Democratic candidate, or because McCain is senile and scary.

4. Hillary supporters who blame Obama and stay at home or vote third party. I'm figuring this at 5% of the total of all four groups. YMMV

2,500,000 people voted for Kerry in Michigan in 2004. Subtract 5% and you lose 125,000 votes. That was less than Kerry's margin of victory. And I hope you'll at least concede that Obama is a more skillful campaigner than Kerry was.

By that math, you lose 175,000 votes in Florida. Kerry lost there by almost 400,000 votes anyway. And McCain's age will help him run as strongly there as someone whose last name isn't the same as the Governor's.

So I don't think any states will be lost. But still: 300,000 votes gone through the now-customary Party incompetence. Nothing to sneeze at.

But how many African-American votes will be lost - perhaps forever - when the white power brokers at the Convention say that, in their superior wisdom, they won't give the nomination to the black candidate who finished ahead in pledged delegates, popular vote, and number of states won?

How many youth votes will be lost - perhaps forever - when they see the system gamed this way?

How much of the extraordinary grassroots enthusiasm and fundraising power that Obama has generated [whether you think he deserves it or not] will be squandered?

Remember that these "disenfranchised" people will be grouching in all 50 states - not just 2.

But this is all irrelevant. Pelosi has made it clear that the superdelegates are not going to go against the pledged delegate total. Hillary is not going to be nominated. The writing is on the wall for any who care to see it.

If she wants to continue running a Huckabee-style campaign of polite irrelevance - because she feels she owes it to her supporters, to prove a point, whatever - I assure you no one will mind. It is her continued attacks against the presumptive Democratic nominee, weakening the Party's chances of a general election victory, that make people so rudely eager to see her turn her energies elsewhere.

Submitted by lambert on

"Huckabee-style campaign of polite irrelevance?"

Where the heck does that come from? There are plenty of adjectives that come to mind about the Huckabee campaign, but "polite irrelevance" isn't near the top of my list.

You equate the actual disenfranchisement -- votes not being counted that the voters expected to count -- with hypothetical walkouts, at some future date, by supporters whose choice wasn't nominated, or who bought into propaganda about The Rulez, and are unhappy with particular outcomes. By those standards, Dean supporters were disenfranchised in 2004. No sale.

Hey, and last I checked, the race was tied. I understand the haka about "presumptive nominee," and I understand the reasons for a strategy of constant repetition, but really, constant repetition doesn't make it so. If y'all were really that confident, you would have snapped up Carville's $15 million offer and stomped Hillary fair and square. Carville called your bluff, not only on all that new kind of politics crapola, but on how strong you really feel that you are.

NOTE Hey, rootless, would you call this guy out on "white power brokers"? Thanks.

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

ribonucleic's picture
Submitted by ribonucleic on

... of Huckabee not saying things like "John McCain hasn't crossed the Commander-in-Chief threshold". [Let us all hope he never does.] Or if he did say things like that, it was past the point where anyone was paying any attention to him.

A strongly negative reaction from the African-American community in response to Hillary winning the nomination by the grace of the superdelegates can be safely considered more than "hypothetical", I think. But if you like, let's talk actual MI/FL disenfranchisement. I welcome your explanation of how Obama is more to blame for that than Hillary - who happily agreed to have their votes not count back when she thought she wouldn't need them.

Even if I were to concede the Gallup tracking poll referenced at your link to be the Mother Of All Polls, the last time I checked, the Party is still deciding the nomination by the quaint method of counting delegates. By that inconvenient measure, the race is rather far from being a dead heat. 1622 to 1485, according to CNN. If you find those numbers irritating, please don't blame me. I'm not the one who told Hillary she didn't need to bother making plans for after Super Tuesday.

ribonucleic's picture
Submitted by ribonucleic on

Because Democrats flocked to him the first time around, is that it?

A. Citizen's picture
Submitted by A. Citizen on

..........because it's clear that a horrible mistake is being made. Obama has no chance, that's zero for the math-challenged 'believers', of beating McSame in the electoral college.

And...

He's determined than rather than stand aside, something his financial backers won't allow anyway, he will take Clinton down with him.

Clinton being the vile racist she is he stands a good chance of doing this by getting the AA and the dumb-ass 'creative class- vote to stay home.

If the convention developes into the sort of Republican friendly Obama-thon, see 1912, it's looking like now Edwards can very well put himself forward as a compromise candidate. One who can unite the warring factions. You not he's not said anything offensive of either side.

The SuperDelegates and the grassroots supporters of Edwards, of which there are many applaud his generous offer and....

Edwards leads us to victory over McSame.

Now....

If your happy...just thrilled with Senator SnakeOil and his divisive campaign or you think Sister Beezelbub with her stumbling campaign are the answer....one of 'em anyway.

Why great you can stay dismissive of this idea.

All the way through eight years of McSame.

Me?

I'd really like to take a pass on that.

A. Citizen

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

sane unaffiliated voter's picture
Submitted by sane unaffiliat... on

Lambert, what kind of math are you utilizing?? Clintometry? Obama is up by over 100 delegates. In pledged delegates, which is what is the deciding factor according to Pelosi, Obama is up 1413 to 1242.

Submitted by lambert on

Please. Go argue with Drum.

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

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

If you look at it percentage-wise, you'll see how extremely close it is. I believe it's either within 3% or 1% in terms of popular vote. And the delegate system itself (even without caucuses) are not true representations of the public will, but rather arbitrary.

They are tied and considering that neither can win the nomination on pledged delegates alone, it's up to the superdelegates to their job and pick who they feel is the stronger GE candidate.

I can only hope that the Democratic party scraps the proportional delegate system, caucuses, and superdelegates for the next election. It is bizarre, at best.

zuzu's picture
Submitted by zuzu on

A strongly negative reaction from the African-American community in response to Hillary winning the nomination by the grace of the superdelegates can be safely considered more than “hypothetical”, I think.

Why is it that nobody ever worries about a strong negative reaction from women in response to Obama winning the nomination by the grace of the superdelgates, or because Clinton was pressured to step aside when hadn't yet been beaten?

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

I think it's quite the exaggeration to say the majority of them will sit this out purely for spite. When 80% of SC blacks said they'd be satisfied if Clinton was the nominee, it undermines the CW that blacks will sit it out.

If anything, I'd be more worried about the turnout for women (who make up the majority of voters and are rightly pissed about this misogynistic clusterfuck) and the defection amongst working class whites and Latinos. Before the Wright scandal hit, the Pew stated that while 10% of Obama supporters would choose McCain if Clinton was the nominee, 25% of Clinton supporters would if the reverse were true.

If Obama is selected the nominee, he will absolutely lose the GE and it'll be ugly. I would wager that, if anything, that would demoralize or upset blacks even more.

Lost in Space's picture
Submitted by Lost in Space on

The White House will still have a better-than-average chance of going to John McCain.

I wish I were kidding about this.

- - - - - - - -
The enemy of my enemy is STILL my enemy. Those who forget this end up being Vulture scraps.

Bluegrass Poet's picture
Submitted by Bluegrass Poet on

supposed to be smart? Or am I missing some kind of satire? Sounds like some drunken lout in a bar (forgive me you guys), "If my girlfriend drops the charges of abuse, I'll forgive her and take her back."

These A list boyz seem to have bought their own hype and consider it their right to act as kingmakers. Voters should be instructed by their betters after all. That's what democracy is all about.

As for the stuff about the AAs not voting, that strikes me as bullying and blackmail. Who is saying that anyway?

I have reservations about Clinton and I have reservations about Obama but what really has me worried about the Democratic party is these members of its netroots. Looks like just another old boys network to me.