My Photo

Welcome to Mannionville

  • Politics, art, movies, television, books, parenting, home repair, caffeine addiction---you name it, we blog it. Since 2004. Call for free estimate.

Save a Blogger From Begging...Buy Stuff


The one, the only

Sister Site

« Just listen... | Main | The Veep »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

chris c

Uh, no. It was not a tie. Clinton started ahead with a bunch of superdelegates. Obama caught and surpassed her.

I would have been fine with Clinton winning. Bill Clinton was my Obama, if you will; the light at the end of a long dark tunnel called Reagan/Bush. I have enormous affection for Hillary and would be gungo if she was the nominee. She isn't because it wasn't a tie. If it really was a tie, she had all the establishment lined up behind her and so she would more than likely be the nominee.

But the fact is, even games that end as a 1 point win are not ties.

And I sure am tired of this kind of renegotiating what winning means. She had all the advantages, but lost the game. Got beat by a better player. Pure and simple.

Time to applaud the winner and move on.

Lance

Chris,

I've applauded the winner. I've acknowledged the brilliance of his campaign...during Feburary...the last few months? Not so brilliant. But I'm not redefining anything. The rule is that the winner is the one who gets the required number of delegates. Obama didn't get them by winning primaries. He got them pretty much after the primaries were over by convincing enough superdelegates to vote for him. This is the way things work. If you want to get technical, then, no it's not a tie...NOW. But as far as the primaries went, neither Hillary nor Obama won. Spin it any way you want to, but Obama is the nominee because the powerbrokers have made him the nominee, not because the voters did.

But my point is that this still counts. It's still legitimate. He's still the nominee fair and square.

Mike Schilling

Take it further. Say Edwards doesn't just hang in. Say he does enough damage to both Clinton and Obama that the three of them are far from the needed number but Obama has the most. Who wins? Who decides? How is it decided?

The delegates at the convention vote, and if no one gets a majority, they keep voting until someone does. That's how it worked in the good old days.

lina

It was not a tie.

Once one candidate got ahead by 100+ delegates, it was going to be almost impossible for any other candidate to catch up. The Democratic Party nominates its candidate via proportional allocation of delegates. The popular vote is meaningless.

The super delegate proces was intented to prevent situations like 1924. It may be elitist and House of Lords-ish, but it's what we're currently stuck with.

Again, this was not a tie.

MikeT

If, after all the primaries were over, Hillary had a clear majority of pledged delegates, would you still call that a draw?

BEW

Lance,

Look at the bright side. The Obama supportes haven't claim a landslide. Yet.

Lance

The super delegate proces was intented to prevent situations like 1924. It may be elitist and House of Lords-ish, but it's what we're currently stuck with.

Lina, that's kind of my point, don't you think?

Mike T, no, I would have called it a draw, just as I would have if I was going to rewrite the post. But what do you call it when neither side wins?

But if the situation was reversed would you have been calling for Obama to drop out? I wouldn't have, because I like the idea of a convention fight. But all you Obama people have committed to the idea that the winner is decided by the math not by the delegates.

Why is this so hard to understand, people? The winner is not the candidate with the most number of delegates at the end of the primaries. The winner is the one who gets a very specific number of delegates at the convention. That's why the news stories are still referring to both McCain and Obama as their parties' likely nominees or presumptive nominees. It's not going to happen, but the delegates are all free to vote for whomever they wish at the convention and they could all decide they want Al Gore or Dennis Kuchinich, if they wanted.

Obama did not get that number in the primaries. He needed the superdelegates and a favorable ruling by the RBC to set that number at just what he could reach now.

BEW, lol. But that's kind of what they're trying to do by brushing aside all consideration of Hillary's 18 million votes.

One more thing. There are in fact Hillary supporters who are beginning to use the word "stolen" when talking about the nomination and who are raising specious but ominous comparisons to Florida in 2000. I really don't care how you Obama people choose to think of the fact that Obama won. What I care about is that these angry and disappointed Clinton people understand what happened. Hillary came awfully close, but in the end the party leaders did what they are there to do and that's legitimate.

MikeT

That's kind of my point, too. The superdelegates for the most part endorsed the candidate who won the most delegates. I don't consider that a brokered result.

And, yes, if Obama was behind in delegates and the only plausible path to victory was for him to convince the superdelegates to overrule the pledged delegates, I would indeed have called for him to drop out. My support for Obama was contingent upon him winning the nomination. If he couldn't pull that off, it wouldn't be (what's the phrase?) change I could believe in.

Claiming victory is not the same as claiming a landslide. And I don't think any of us are brushing aside any of her voters (but, yes, their votes are now moot, as is my vote for Dukakis in 88). In fact, I've heard little else but how important they are to us.

pebird

Lance:

I would just say it wasn't a tie but an extremely close contest that could have gone either way. Obama did win, he didn't tie. But it could have been Clinton.

And I was one of those Edwards supporters. But Clinton was my number two - by default - I figured Clinton had it all along. Goes to show my powers of political prognostication.

The party leaders always have something to say - they did in 68 and 72 - does that mean Humphrey or McGovern didn't win the nomination?

Besides, we belong to a party, even if we don't understand all the rules and machinations, we are held by them and the party (all of us together) decides.

Democracy is a messy thing - it's more than voting - this split, close contest was a vibrant exercise in our values that Providence chose to demonstrate to us in a time when our country is losing its fundamental character.

Maybe that is what we should focus on, not parsing ties and what ifs.

Cosima di Lauro

"I have enormous affection for Hillary and would be gungo..."

"And I don't think any of us are brushing aside any of her voters..."

When one continues reading the rest of these two posts, one realizes that the statements above have the same connection to truth as, say...

"The check is in the mail." Or, "Don't worry, I'll pull out."

Stupid me, I thought that once Senator Obama got the nomination, his supporters' nastiness would stop. But no: instead of hatred (masked as righeous indignation) we now get trimphalism (masked as obvious arithmetic).

Cosima di Lauro

"I have enormous affection for Hillary and would be gungo..."

"And I don't think any of us are brushing aside any of her voters..."

When one continues reading the rest of these two posts, one realizes that the statements above have the same connection to truth as, say...

"The check is in the mail." Or, "Don't worry, I'll pull out."

Stupid me, I thought that once Senator Obama got the nomination, his supporters' nastiness would stop. But no: instead of hatred (masked as righeous indignation) we now get trimphalism (masked as obvious arithmetic).

Tom Hilton

I could quibble with details in the way Lance describes the process (as several previous commenters do), but I'm not going to, because this is the important part of the post:

Dear fellow Clinton supporters,

The nomination wasn't "stolen." It was brokered. That's a very different thing.

Got it, folks? Lance's point here is that the result is legitimate.

I don't expect Lance (or any Clinton supporter) will ever see the context exactly the way I do. The time for quibbling over that stuff is over; the essential thing is that we all see the end as legitimate. Not everybody does (and assigning blame for that? useful for the history books, not so useful now), and insisting that everyone accept the details of our view of the process doesn't get us closer to convincing the ones who don't.

Victoria

Good lord, this actually sent me to the dictionary for words like draw and broker!

It was EXTREMELY CLOSE.

Broker suggests those super-delagates made a deal Super-delegates were in a steady flow to Obama for two months. When they write that book on the primary I'm looking forward to, one of the things it will make clear is that the only reason they didn't get there in sufficient numbers sooner is that the Clinton callers were imploring them to, "Just hold back a little longer. Don't go yet." And they complied out of respect for her as a former first lady and her hard effort to see it to the end. Let us make note, by the way, that - amid the junk Hillary endured, there were also these gestures of respect.

It's so unusual for Lance to have word problems. I blame it on the Retrograde Mercury.

Batocchio

Lance, I appreciate your thoughts as always, you make some good points as always, but saying it was a tie or draw (correction duly noted, and classy of you as always) still strikes me as a false equivalency to soothe egos. Some of this is semantic; maybe "photo finish" is better. It was definitely close. But Clinton's chances grew increasingly slim. I never pushed for Clinton to drop out, especially because it was going to come down to the superdelegates, and she certainly had a right to make her case. However, while I certainly will listen to any candidate, I have absolutely no obligation to pretend every argument is good, valid and sound; quite the opposite. The best aspect of the liberal blogosphere, when it's humming, is to call bullshit, and to do so in a substantive way. (Funny is good, too.) Like quite a few bloggers, I went to bat for Clinton when I felt she was attacked with BS, most of all sexism, and like many, I also questioned Clinton's repeated use of right-wing framing. Most criticism of her on the blogs I frequent was due to how she was running versus the length of the campaign. And as Hilzoy pointed out, Clinton is a moral agent. Since Edwards dropped out and it became just Obama and Clinton, things just got nastier on many blogs. There are quite a few of us that tried to play peacemaker despite any preferences we had. I generally don't take things personally, but honestly, I do feel many of us who tried to play adult got smacked in the face repeatedly, especially in these past two weeks. I don't begrudge anyone their feelings, most of all Clinton supporters their grief, but I think it's also fair to expect some basic measure of respect in return. Most of all, the quick, facile accusations of bad faith have ranged from the annoying to (from people who should know better) truly depressing. We are better than this. Some bloggers are writing "airing of grievances" posts to clear the air, coupled with a commitment to work to move on. I'll be doing mine sometime within the week. I'll make sure to link this and several of your other posts on the subject. I appreciate your efforts, especially on this point: What I care about is that these angry and disappointed Clinton people understand what happened. Cheers.

FF

Actually, I don't care if it was a tie, a draw, legitimate or illegitimate.

I'm a lifelong Dem. and will NOT vote for Obama under any circumstances.
1. He threw his grandmother under the bus, twice.

2. He used race to win by painting the Clintons as racist.

3. He said nothing, not one single word, about the massive abuse to which Hillary was subject, and did his own part to contribute to it.

4. I have never,ever seen such uniform media bashing of one candidate and promoting of another. Name me one single major news outlet or A-List political blog that was even fair to Hillary, let alone in her corner. (And it wasn't just the commenters. It was the writers & bloggers themselves at The Atlantic, TNR, Huff, Kos, The Nation, Newsweek, The Wash. Post, The New Yorker (!), The NYT, you name it.) Even Richard Nixon had some supporters at the end.

5. Obama seems to believe that the lack of bipartisanship in Wash. is the fault of both the Reps. and the Dems. It isn't. It is due to the fact that the Rep. Party no longer has any moderates, let alone lefties. As near as I can tell, Obama is yet another Pelosi or Reid: people who don't want to rock the boat, who can't or won't fight - maybe because there is nothing they care enough about to fight.

6. Obama must be the least, or one of a very small number, qualified people ever to be nominated by a major party for the Presidency. In no other country in the world could a man with his credentials even dare to run. And he has done and said nothing, zip, zero to make me confident that he could do the job. We'd be lucky if he could even match Carter or Hoover for competence.

As far as I am concerned, Obama is the worst possible combination of Nixon & the Shrub (when not reading a speech from a teleprompter, he is every bit as inarticulate as the Shrub).

Am I over-reacting? Maybe, but at the start of the campaign, I was, if not enamored of Obama, at least very impressed by him.

He lost my support day by day by day, just as Hillary gained it day by day by day.

Call me irrational. Tell me I'm cutting my nose off to spite my face.

It doesn't matter. You cannot convince me that this man deserves my vote. Or, for that matter, that the Dem. Party, after two years of utter and absolute spinelessness, deserves my support.

Ken Houghton

Looking at the comments above, I repeat my previous observation: it's a good thing the Obama team doesn't need any help from Clinton supporters, since they're going out of their way to make certain they don't get it.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Data Analysis

  • Data Analysis

Movies, Music, Books, Kindles, and more

Categories

July 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        

For All Your Laundry Needs

In Case of Typepad Emergency Break Glass

Be Smart, Buy Books


Blog powered by Typepad