McCain's wrapped up the GOP nomination...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Wezil


It is the person the party should put forward.

If you don't like the person the party puts forward you get to vote for another party.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Kidicious


If you don't like the person the party puts forward you get to vote for another party.

That is generally how it works in most places.


Then again the rest of us can only marvel at a system that managed to elect GWB not once, but twice.

[Ramo]

If you can't debate then don't bother.

You keep saying absurd things about American politics. Over and over again. I'm just pointing that out.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Admiral
Well, no one can accuse of Clinton of not winning the expectations game.

She was two touchdowns down in the fourth quarter with time running out, and she just kicked a field goal.

[Ben Kenobi]

No, they haven't before. And the original intent of the provision is not relevant, nor applies (the supers don't see Obama as unelectable relative to Clinton). The self-interest of the politicos involved is relevant.

The point is not whether one candidate or the other is unelectable, but which one is the better lobbyist for the special interests of the democrat party. Their self-interest is to secure the nomination of the candidate most favourable to their causes. That may or may not be the candidate chosen by the people.

Maybe the intent of creating them is not relevant to you. Many of the superdelegates would see their mission as defined by why they were created in the first place.

When you hear people saying that the votes were tainted by those who weren't proper democrats, then yes, the supers could easily override if they feel that the voters did not vote for the candidate who best supports their interests.

[Ben Kenobi]

You keep saying absurd things about American politics. Over and over again. I'm just pointing that out.

Dino said the same thing I did word for word, and you answered his question without the snide comments.

Obviously I know nothing about American politics when Americans themselves are asking the exact same question and making the exact same points.

[Ramo]

You said this specifically:

They can and they will decide whatever strikes their fancy.

Total nonsense. It's particularly implausible in light of the fact that Obama cut Clinton's superdelegate lead in half over the past month. If Dino wrote that, I'd chide him as well. As I was saying, that is completely antithetical to their self-interests. Which is easily the most important factor involved. That would destroy the Democratic Party this election and piss off these pols' constituents.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


The point is not whether one candidate or the other is unelectable, but which one is the better lobbyist for the special interests of the democrat party. Their self-interest is to secure the nomination of the candidate most favourable to their causes. That may or may not be the candidate chosen by the people.

There self interest is to make sure a Democrat is elected President. If both candidates show that they can defeat McCain, then your observations are valid. However, if the pols' "darling" can't get elected, then there's little reason to nominate her.

[Ramo]

Interesting postmortem from Al Giordano:

What Clinton Did Right, What Obama Did Wrong

In the context of that it’s the delegate count that matters and – as we await the fleshing out of the results from the Texas caucuses – last night was at best, for Clinton, a draw in the battle for Democratic National Convention delegates, and may not even be that for her once all is counted…

As the Great Mentioners – Halperin and Fournier, among them – are today emphasizing the very points we made yesterday (that it’s the delegate count, stupid!), the Clinton campaign deserves a lot of credit for what it did right, achieving, at least, a ticket out of March 4 to remain in the contest.

1. The Clinton campaign worked rural areas of Ohio and Texas much harder than the Obama campaign. Bill Clinton worked from Texarkana to Pennsyltucky in smaller media markets and gained lots of local free media and decent sized crowds. And I’ll repeat: crowds do matter, even more so in regions that rarely see them in politics. Since Obama doesn’t have a surrogate of equal drawing power, these are areas that Obama had to go to himself, but with few exceptions, he did not. That was a reversal of his winning strategies in Iowa, South Carolina, and Wisconsin, states that were midsized enough to allow more blanket coverage. For Pennsylvania’s April 22 primary, Obama has to get back to what worked in those places; do a bus tour – or maybe a Lawton Chiles inspired walk across the state in Springtime - in that vast rural spread between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, and let his surrogates, including Michelle, shoulder the greater burden in the cities. You know that Bill will be in those places. Only the physical presence of Obama himself can trump that.

2. Senator Clinton offered more frequent updates of her stump speech. Although there was some negative to constantly switching up her message, the bipolar nature of being conciliatory one day and over-the-top attacking on the next offered the hungry news media the red meat it craves. That allowed Clinton to dominate the free media cycle over the two weeks since Wisconsin. Obama kept to his basic stump speech – some of which he’s been saying verbatim since 2007 – when he should have mixed it up and given new soundbites in each one. In the YouTube/C-Span campaign era, more and more voters have already seen the basic stump speeches by the time the candidate gets to town. She offered more novelty while he did not.

3. The Clinton campaign successfully neutralized NAFTA as a wedge issue in Ohio by playing off errors in the Obama camp. Obama should have used the debate in Cleveland to hang NAFTA around Clinton’s neck (not hard to do) but did not. Then his economic advisor Austan Goolsbee – whether he was quoted accurately or not – caused a mini-scandal by speaking with a Canadian consulate official who then hung him out to dry. Some TV commentators suggested last night that Obama should have unceremoniously fired Goolsbee: easier said that done, because Goolsbee is the candidate’s top economic advisor, much like Robert Rubin was to Bill Clinton (and in terms of merit, Goolsbee’s policy prescriptions are far more pro-worker than those of the hyper-capitalist, now Citi-banker, neoliberal Rubin). But there’s one thing Obama could do without firing Goolsbee outright: Demote him sacrificially, and place him under, say, a newly named campaign “economics czar.” Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich is one name that comes to mind. Reich not only knows economics, but he knows the political game much better than a less political wonk like Goolsbee.

4. Clinton has gained some traction with the drumbeat of “yeah, my policies and positions (on Iraq, on campaign finance, and other issues) suck, but Obama’s suck equally.” In particular, the influx of “independent” advertising expenditures by pro-Obama unions like the SEIU gave Clinton and company an opening to call Obama a hypocrite after the Obama campaign so successfully hung both Clinton and Edwards for not preventing such expenditures on their behalves in Iowa. Obama needs to make a public call to the unions that back him to cease all independent TV, direct mail, and other advertising expenditures. They weren’t effective anyway (largely because, by law, they can’t be coordinated with the campaign, and thus control of message is lost) and Obama has enough financial backing from his million small donors that he doesn’t need them anyway. He needs to get them off the playing field. If he does that, then he can, again, as he did in Iowa, hit Clinton’s independent expenditure groups more cleanly to draw a contrast on DC outsider vs. insider.

5. One of the smartest things that Clinton has done in recent weeks is to constantly mention the URL of her website on the stump. Last night it was in the talking points of all her surrogates. She’s out of cash again and needs influxes. That is precisely what John Kerry did right on the night he won the Iowa caucuses four years ago. I’m surprised that Obama hasn’t done the same. He would do well to start now. If he works that into his free media and speeches, he could raise $100 million in the month of March, which would be reported two days before the April 22 Pennsylvania primary.

6. The other really smart thing that the Clinton campaign has done is to berate (and “run against”) the news media. The truth is that both Clinton and Obama have their shills in the press corps and have parity, more or less, in that sub-primary. To careful observers, the irony of Saturday Night Live on NBC lampooning CNN for supposed pro-Obama coverage is probably the funniest thing that SNL has done since the Belushi era, but not in the way it intended: MSNBC’s commentators are mainly pro-Obama whereas CNN’s are mainly pro-Clinton. And yet the use of SNL – which has negligible effect on voters, certainly not on the youth, which see it as something their parents like – was wielded effectively to gut-check boomer political reporters and editors that are of Clinton’s generation. In fact, The Field would bet that SNL’s pro-Clinton spin of late comes right out of the show’s own market research: its audience – and potential for growth – lies not in the kids, but in the aging boomers. It was a market niche call on SNL’s part, and in that sense economically, not politically, driven. Clinton’s embarrassing mention of SNL and the “pillow talk” of the last debate was not pitched at the general public, but, rather, on the press corps itself, dominated, by and large, by clueless baby boomers that actually think what was cool when they were 20 something is somehow “cool” to kids today. It’s not, but it worked to make them finally get nasty with Obama.

Clearly, there are many things that the Clinton organization has done, and continues to do, wrong, and that the Obama organization has done, and continues to do, right. A dispassionate view from a perch unimpressed by mainstream media spin suggests, in fact, that Obama won the battle of the last two weeks, and advanced much more toward winning the war.

But as long as there’s a moment of spin zone right now in which so many are babbling about so-called “momentum” for Clinton – six weeks before the next big state primary! – and so much kneejerk gnashing of teeth among a certain sector of Obama supporters that want history to easily turn its pages (something that history simply does not do), Obama should call up a little of that political jiu-jitsu he’s shown before and act as if he’s in more trouble than he is, create the similacrum of a campaign “shake up” among economic policy advisors, provide more variety and more frequent changes to his stump speech, and get back to the plays in his playbook – particularly a renewed focus on rural voters – that worked to get him here, so far. Because for everything that Clinton “did right,” she didn’t advance a yard in delegate count yesterday, spent all her money (again), and in fact has fallen behind because more than 300 delegates, after yesterday, are no longer up for grabs as the clock ticks down.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
No, they haven't before.

Am I misunderstanding the Hart v Mondale contest?

And the original intent of the provision is not relevant,

If the intent of their creation is no longer relevent, why does the system still exist (or are you refering to just this contest?)?

2 questions WRT revotes: 1) I can understand a revote in MI as Obama wasn't on that ballot but why FL? All candidates were on that ballot and the voter had the choice to vote for whoever he chose.

2) Who would pay for it? The Dem party and not the respective states I hope.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ramo:

I don't see either Obama or Hillary as having much difference in terms of electibility, so I think it will come down to the superdelegates and the candidate that best represents their issues.

I understand your point here, but in this case I don't think it comes into play.

[Ramo]

My point is that it doesn't matter what flights of fancy an individual superdelegate has. At all. What matters is their self-interest. In general, that lies in keeping their constituents happy (for instance, there have been a number of switches from Clinton-supporting pols in places that Obama won handily - John Lewis being the most prominent) and keeping the Democratic Party strong for the general election. That won't happen if a significant pledged delegate lead is overruled. Many supers will not vote for whomever strikes their fancy.

Am I misunderstanding the Hart v Mondale contest?

The problem with the superdelegates here probably has more to do with the media narrative. Hart would've still lost without superdelegates, but the count would've been a lot closer.

1) I can understand a revote in MI as Obama wasn't on that ballot but why FL? All candidates were on that ballot and the voter had the choice to vote for whoever he chose.

No candidates campaigned in FL, so voters could see and interact with them and voters didn't turn out because they didn't think it was a meaningful contest. This would be akin to allocating delegates from a party's straw poll after the fact.

A few states, in fact, do a meaningful caucus and a meaningless primary (Dem WA and GOP LA, for instance).

2) Who would pay for it? The Dem party and not the respective states I hope.

States pay for primaries and parties for caucuses.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
1) I can understand a revote in MI as Obama wasn't on that ballot but why FL? All candidates were on that ballot and the voter had the choice to vote for whoever he chose.

2) Who would pay for it? The Dem party and not the respective states I hope.

1) Because the Rules of the Democratic Party -- which all candidates pledged to uphold -- state that (except for Iowa, NH, Nevada and South Carolina) any state which chooses its delegates before Super Tuesday will not have those delegates seated.

2) I think you're right.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ramo


The candidate who represented that constituency dropped out after FL. The primary reason why Obama did so badly in this constituency last night - Goolsbeegate - only happened because he realized that Clinton was more vulnerable than him on NAFTA. But that doesn't change the fact that we're dealing with two people who are not protectionists.

And none of that changes the simple polling exit data, which shows that the lower you are on the income or education scale (factoring out identity voting), the more likely you are to vote for Clinton. Which is why, even though supposedly she is "more vulnerable" on NAFTA, her edge in Ohio was large, while she bare squeeked victory in Texas.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Ramo:

I don't see either Obama or Hillary as having much difference in terms of electibility ...

The polls I've seen indicate Obama would beat McCain by about 10 points, while Hillary is running neck and neck with McCain.

Of course, this is March and a lot of things can happen between now and November.