| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 4/4 |
| 2008/3/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49398 Activity:moderate |
3/9 Basically, the math is simple. Hillary's screwed.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/9/184226/0219/795/473137
\- i wouldnt discount the out-of-the-box thinking capacity of the
reptiles in hillary inc. i think factors in play are florida.,
michigan, edwards, ALGOR, "obama surprise", some judicial stunt,
mccain doing something to set up mccain-billary, modelling the
brains of menopausal women aka "the hillary base". on a positive
note is lot of cash for obama. who can keep supporting hillary
after the fucking "as far as i know" comment. jesus. remember
normal odds handicapping doesnt work when the otherwise doesnt
play by MoQ rules but will bite, gouge, hit under the belt etc.
brains of menopausal women aka "the hillary base" and the Power
of Bill. on a positive note is lot of cash for obama. who can keep
supporting hillary after the fucking "as far as i know" comment.
jesus. remember normal odds handicapping doesnt work when the
otherwise doesnt play by MoQ rules but will bite, gouge, hit
other sidedoesnt play by MoQ rules but will bite, gouge, hit
under the belt etc.
\_ Hi. Hillary supporter here. what is the 'as far as i know'
thing?
\_ Clinton was asked in an interview whether BHO is a Muslim.
She basically said "No, he's not. As far as I know."
\_ oh. ok that's pretty bad.
\- and then she went on to talk about herself ...
"oh i dont believe in smearing people ...
i've been smeared a lot. did i tell you i know
what it is like to be smeared?" constrast that
with obama's above and beyond the call comments
about "i am not a muslim" + "it's sad that
being called a muslim can be considered a smear".
remember michael igantieff's lesson from iraq:
character matters. [i.e. if you get into bed with
evil fuckers just because you agree with them
on some particlar end [say universal healthcare]
you will get burned.
remember michael ignatieff's lesson from his
iraq war mea culpa: character matters [MI = liberal
supporter of the war, who later came to the reali-
zation, if you get into bed with evil fuckers,
just because you agree with them on some particular
policy platform --- say universal healthcare ---
you will get burned ... because ultimately what
matters is they are evil fuckers.]
\- also see:
http://tinyurl.com/2ewyx6
\_ Here's the video:
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=55904 |
| 4/4 |
|
| www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/9/184226/0219/795/473137 Samwoman Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:49:33 PM PDT I am posting this excellent diary on behalf of the author: SilverMonkey. Proper Expectations and The Real Delegate Math by TheSilverMonkey, Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:10:45 AM EST Main Stream Media has been grossly exaggerating Hillary Clinton's position in the race for the democratic nomination. They have oft been quoted as saying that the magic number is 2024 and that neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama can reach this number without the aid of superdelegates (or automatic delegates, depending on which way you're spinning). Samwoman's diary :: :: * The first: the current total delegate counts have Obama at 1571 delegates and Clinton at 1470 (according to DemConWatch, but varies slightly depending on who you choose to get your numbers from) with 599 delegates remaining. Speaking purely mathematically, it is possible for both Obama and Hillary to reach the "Magic Number" via the pledged delegates. The second flaw in this argument is the fact that it is hypocritical in its composure. Both Obama and Hillary's current totals, and more importantly the ultimate goal post, already factor superdelegates into the equation: 203 and 244, respectively, and 795 for the total. The MSM is trying to frame the discussion about who can run up the majority of pledged delegates while using the superdelegate mile markers. To put this into perspective: in order to get to 2024 if superdelegates had no say whatsoever (which they technically do not) up until Denver, the victor would have to win a pinch more than 62% of the vote, which is obviously a good deal more than a simple majority. This becomes problematic when trying to describe who has won in terms of popular opinion, because the number make it seem like NEITHER candidate has. A few minutes thought can poke the holes in this presentation, seeing as there are only two candidates in this contest, and one has a significant lead, so one must be holding a majority opinion by pure logic. Most reasonable people who have been following the exchange with tend to agree that the superdelegates are fickle creatures, they can and have changed their minds in the process and likely will do so in the future. Endorsements, therefore, are at best unreliable indicators of he final vote and really should be discounted. However, to properly frame the case for popular opinion, we have to wipe them from the equation. This leads to my major point in this article: the popular vote Magic Pledged Number (MPN) is not 2024, it is 1627. What's the big deal, you ask, making a distinction between 2024 and 1627 if both their numbers lower respectively? Well, the pledged delegate majority is the best poll we can get of the popular national opinion for the candidate (given that it is, you know, the actual election part of the primary process). Also, it encompasses the argument Obama is putting forward to attempt to sway those fickle elected officials who comprise the superdelegates. More importantly, the 2024 goal combined with excluding additional superdelegates makes the race seem closer than it is and more likely to be a deadlock. Worded differently: it makes Obama's 46% lead seem like a pithy 37% lead (note: both are fairly substantial leads at this point in the race, but we're getting to that). This, in fact, is where the truly interesting part of this analysis peaks into the light: setting the expectations. We'll call these numbers the expectation floor (EF) for the candidates, meaning not a polling expectation, but the mathematical expectations they must overcome. For example: say Hillary pulls out a 60-40 win (Scenario 1). The Slate's super scientific Delegate Calculator crunches all its numbers and dishes out 95 to Clinton and 63 to Obama. Anyhow, assuming Scenario 1, Obama would have made no dent in public opinion in Pennsylvania and Hillary would have exceeded poll predictions. Assume as well an equally unlikely, but possible, 50-50 split in Mississippi. Hillary would have beat polls in both states, and should be that much closer to having this nom, according to Harold Ickes, "locked up", correct? By winning beneath her EF, she actually makes it more unlikely that she will win moving forward. Specifically, at that point she would have to win 72% of all remaining delegates. Suppose she digs into Obama's demographic support again, which she has not yet currently done at all, and manages to tie up North Carolina and Indiana. Heck, say she pulls 55% out of each, against the odds (call this Scenario 11). She would then only have to catch 86% of the remaining delegates to get the pledged majority. This would mean Obama was pulling less than 14% of the vote (effectively netting him no delegates). Huckabee has been outperforming those odds while being all but penniless and doomed. Each time she fails to get to the expectation margin, the bar gets higher and higher until it vanishes into nothingness. Aha, but Florida and Michigan will have a play, will they not? We cannot, in good conscious, disenfranchise those voters. A paltry $20 million a pop for Hillary favored primaries and it's a done deal. Adding in Florida and Michigan, the new pledged magic number is 1784. Meanwhile, Barack would just have to hold onto 45% to get to the lead. The progression is markedly slower, leading to a long, drawn out process, but the result is the same. What if, by some crazed political miracle the delegates in Florida and Michigan get seated as they are, in spite of the massive unfairness and rule breaking? Suppose Obama gets no delegates from Michigan, since his name was on the ballot, netting Clinton 70 free delegates based on her margin as the Uncommitteds wander off into the wilderness in search of purpose. Surely, then, the math would be in her favor, after changing the rules mid-game. All that conniving and game changing to net a 1% point decrease in her EF. Why is Obama's so much higher while Clinton's stays almost the same? They now constitute a significant enough portion or pledged delegates to stop a candidate from achieving the MPN In any event, the only real benefit from this scenario is it brings Obama down perception wise and makes it possible that he will not meet the MPN, but simply have the most delegates. And, of course, it shrinks Obama's current 150 delegate lead to around 62. Interestingly enough, Clinton's EF is smaller doing the revote in Florida and Michigan, since she did not come anywhere near meeting it the first time around in the arguably unfair contests, though it is highly unlikely she would do better the second time around. And one can assume Obama would net more than zero delegates in a second Michigan vote, keeping his EF in the mid-40's. But, he'll have been beaten up badly and likely will be losing a morale war, even if he'll be awash with money from swooning, delusional supporters. Never good as far as superdelegates decision making is concerned. And, of course, there is the latest Clinton trump card talking point: the popular vote. Even if she does not meet the strange, coldly logical EM number she faces, she can pull out a win in the popular vote. After all, over 27 million people voted and there is only a 600,000 vote advantage to Obama (Obama: 13,005,114, Clinton: 12,414,786 according to RealClearPolitics). Why, if you add Florida and Michigan (where Obama was not on the ballot, getting zero votes, which will never, in the Clinton camp's wildest dreams, be considered a valid line of argument, especially if she is still behind in delegates), she actually manages to squeak ahead in votes, by a whole 30,000! In any event, and ignoring the glaringly obvious problem that Nevada, Iowa, Maine, and Washington, the first of which was a close contest and the last three are fairly populous, all having voted for Obama by big margins, have not released popular vote totals. This means they are not included in any popular vote total you may see (go ahead and check if you don't believe me). It is entirely possible Obama's lead is in the range of a cool million votes, but I digress. Let us not jump to conclusions and assume a 600,000 vote difference, based on the numbers we have. ... |
| tinyurl.com/2ewyx6 -> abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2008/03/nows-the-time-w.html I had no problem with Hillary Clinton and thought she would be a fine President were she to win the nomination. After her performance the last few weeks, I no longer consider her an acceptable President. I won't bore people with my personal conversion narrative, the accumulation of outrages minor and major, which probably mirrors that of many other people (certainly the ones I talk to). Not because she's a personal friend - I've never met her - but because of the deeply ugly implications of Clinton's decision to burn a well-respected, decent, intelligent Democratic Party foreign policy advocate to secure a momentary political advantage. For those who thought that the Samantha Power story began with the avalanche of criticism from right wing bloggers over her attitudes towards Israel and ended with her resignation for calling Clinton's campaign monstrous, here's what pushed me over the brink. In a BBC interview last week, Power made a perfectly reasonable comment to the effect that as President, Obama would respond to events on the ground and not rely on a plan crafted in advance. did a conference call (see David Corn for the ugly details) twisting her words into an insinuation that this meant that Obama wasn't to be trusted on Iraq. This happened several hours after Power had quit Obama's campaign. It's a small thing, but sometimes it's the small things which tell. The Clinton campaign burned one of our own, one of what you'd think would be their own - all to gain momentary advantage over one or two news cycles. When you start throwing your teammates to the wolves for personal gain, you aren't on the team anymore. When you buy into and reinforce the other team's arguments, narratives, innuendoes and slanders, you've crossed over the line. but shame is not an emotion which seems to have much purchase in her campaign. I hope that her team enjoys whatever momentary blip of advantage they got from their despicable behavior. I suspect that I'm not the only one recoiling in disgust. I don't think that Obama should respond in kind, because he's better than that and because he understands that these methods are ultimately self-defeating. He should push back hard and expose her campaign's tactics for what they are - something he's already starting to do. But for the rest of us, well, Power rules are now in effect. Now back to regularly scheduled Middle East politics blogging. this is the time we destroy and rebuild it: Comments Clinton used what Powers said to try and suggest some inconsistency in Obama's position. I looked at what's been said and what ever my judgement about whether or not Obama has been inconsistent that doesn't diminish my respect for Powers. And would it be so unusual for Obama to be inconsistent? All politicians have to tailor their message to particular audiences. Obama did that with NAFTA - telling workers one thing and telling the Canadian govt another. I'm sure Clinton does the same sort of thing and if Obama points it out then that's just politics. But it does seem that Clinton just gets portrayed as a devil. The Canadian government looked at the notes and found out that the person who first summarized the meeting lied. What Obama's aide actually did was say, "Well, of course we're talking about our stances on this issue a lot, because we're campaigning in a state where it matters. But this really is our stance--sorry if you don't like it." The, "This isn't actually our stance" bit was a lie, according to all the corrections that have come out since. March 10, 2008 at 06:53 PM Not surprisingly, it is not surprising that the Clinton campaign was so quick to burn her, considering her stances on Rwanda, Balkans, et. For anyone who really believes in "never again" Samantha Power is someone to be believed in. whatever we call it, it is still a reality, and often a strategic inconvenience for the US. Hearing that Power was attached to the Obama campaign gave me one more reason to get excited about his candidacy. I only hope that the next administration listens to voices like hers more carefully, although I am not holding my breath. March 10, 2008 at 11:04 PM Senator Obama may indeed make a good president if he wins the nomination. And needs to rid himself of the other rottweilers on his campaign staff who are poisoning the political process. He should also jettison the Daley political machine hacks like Axelrod. These people may win the nomination for him through their dirty politics but if they join him in the White House as his advisors then our country is in for another Bush-like disaster. Professor Power deserves a lot more than the non-slap on the wrist that she got. She decided several weeks ago that she was a liability to Obama's campaign because of her past over-the-top comments about Israel. So she does the interview with "The Scotsman", deliberately gets the 'monster' comment into the media echo chamber, then submits her resignation and becomes a martyr for the cause. She may be "one of your own" but she is not one of mine. She is a neocon and should be working for Bush and not Obama. |
| www.breitbart.tv/?p=55904 Note: In the related links to this post there is a clip of Obama denying he is a Muslim, and also a clip of a potential Obama supporter confused about his faith. |