Clinton's new math

[Tsa`ah]

Attempting to move the goal post at every opportunity isn't good enough for Clinton, neither is complaining about the rules.

As leads in specific categories have slipped and ground has been lost, we have heard Clinton change her stance on MI and FL and later point out the fact that had the DNC adopted the GOP rules ... she'd be the candidate.

Sadly it hasn't ended there. Clinton is now claiming the lead in popular vote and a big stretch of claiming she'd have more electoral college votes based on the states she has won.

The new "Clinton" math basically throws out the caucus results, adds in MI and FL .... but doesn't give Obama any votes for MI since Obama wasn't on the ballot. Only in the event of not giving Obama any MI votes does Clinton hold the lead. Giving Obama a popular vote count shows him maintaining the lead by 83k.

The questions in all of this is simply "Is Clinton doing more harm to the party with this math?" ... or would it bode better for her and her political future if she just continued on with her campaign and not try to challenge the rules?

[Ilvane]

In Florida, the former First Lady "won" 105 delegates to Obama's 67, while in Michigan Clinton "won" 73 to uncommitted's 55. For the sake of argument, let's award all those uncommitted votes to Obama. That brings his two-state total to 122; Clinton gains 178. Has she caught up in the current pledged-delegate count? Nope. Obama led 1589 to 1424 before, according to RealClear Politics; he now leads 1711 to 1602. What's more, it's impossible for Clinton to close the gap by June 3--even with Florida and Michigan in her column. Assuming she wins 60 percent of the remaining primary delegates--a very generous assumption, considering that Obama is heavily favored in Oregon, South Dakota and Montana--she'd still trail by 55 (2059-2004) at the end of regulation.

Source:
http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/05/08/why-florida-and-michigan-won-t-matter-in-the-end.aspx

[Clove]

Party at Ilvanes!

[oldanforgotten]

Attempting to move the goal post at every opportunity isn't good enough for Clinton, neither is complaining about the rules.

As leads in specific categories have slipped and ground has been lost, we have heard Clinton change her stance on MI and FL and later point out the fact that had the DNC adopted the GOP rules ... she'd be the candidate.

Sadly it hasn't ended there. Clinton is now claiming the lead in popular vote and a big stretch of claiming she'd have more electoral college votes based on the states she has won.

The new "Clinton" math basically throws out the caucus results, adds in MI and FL .... but doesn't give Obama any votes for MI since Obama wasn't on the ballot. Only in the event of not giving Obama any MI votes does Clinton hold the lead. Giving Obama a popular vote count shows him maintaining the lead by 83k.

The questions in all of this is simply "Is Clinton doing more harm to the party with this math?" ... or would it bode better for her and her political future if she just continued on with her campaign and not try to challenge the rules?


Oddly enough, if they took a revote in Florida, she'd probably still win handily. Michigan would be a very very close vote. Michigan has some very large college towns as well as Detroit, two areas that would heavily favor him. I would not be surprised, especially given the way the national opinion polls have swung, that Obama could win Michigan in a revote.

Either way, her presumptions of having the lead in the popular vote requires people to believe that 0 of the uncommitted voters in michigan would have voted for him, and that Florida's vote was meaningful despite very low relative turnout due to the advance notice of the primary not counting, and that people voting in caucuses don't count.

She's gonna win by 25+ in KY, he's gonna win by 10+ in Oregon, and combined with wins in Montana and South Dakota, he has too much of an edge. He also has money to burn. She's in a lot of debt, and one of her biggest event cash cows (Buffett) just jumped ship.
________
Buy Iolite Vaporizer (http://vaporizers.net/iolite-vaporizer)

[Mabus]

Oddly enough, if they took a revote in Florida, she'd probably still win handily. Michigan would be a very very close vote. Michigan has some very large college towns as well as Detroit, two areas that would heavily favor him. I would not be surprised, especially given the way the national opinion polls have swung, that Obama could win Michigan in a revote.

Obama's campaign fought a revote in both states.

As to Obama not being on the ballot in Michigan, he removed his name from the ballot. There was no requirement to do so. He should get no votes, or delegates, from the state because he chose to remove his name. If he is granted any votes or delegates from Michigan it would definately be some "fuzzy math".

Once inclusion/exclusion of Florida and Michigan are decided (June 3rd, I think) there will be an absolute count of delegates needed to gain the nomination. Even then the delegate count is not final until it is voted and approved at the convention.

That would be a strange conclusion to the campaign; Obama going over with delegates from Michigan he never earned.

Anything can happen. If Clinton stays in it could be one hell of an interesting summer.

[Clove]

Party at Ilvanes!

[oldanforgotten]

He removed his name, along with Edwards, as a result of an agreement with the democratic party.

He didn't fight the revote outright, he fought the concept of paying for the revote with his campaign money, because he knew he would essentially have to pay for all of it once the Clinton campaign ended and declared itself bankrupt.

That being said, he probably would have lost both states again anyway, which would have led to a potentially uncomfortable change in momentum.

They were stripped of their delegates and no campaigning was allowed within the state. Therefore, to blindly count the votes and delegates is also fuzzy math.
________
Dodge Ram (http://www.dodge-wiki.com/wiki/Dodge_Ram)

[Mabus]

He removed his name, along with Edwards, as a result of an agreement with the democratic party.
Source please.

From the way it looks several contenders decided to remove their names in order to deny Clinton early momentum in Michigan. I have seen no official agreement between the DNC and the candidates mandating removal of names from Michigan, and I do not believe that was the reason.

Obama was also the only candidate whose ads aired in Florida, against an actual DNC agreement on not campaigning there.


He didn't fight the revote outright,
Yes, he did. In Michigan Obama lawyer Robert F. Bauer wrote letters outlining the campaigns "concerns" (some of which I actually agree with) . The DNC had stated, "Our review of this legislation indicates that it would, in fact, fit within the framework of the Rules.". A major Obama supporter in Michagan, State Senator Tupac Hunter, fought hard to keep the revote from even coming to a vote in the state.

[g++]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22054151/

"Nevertheless, Saturday's vote further diminishes the significance of Michigan's Democratic primary. All the major Democratic candidates have already agreed not to campaign in either Michigan or Florida because the states violated party rules. And in Michigan, most of the major candidates won't even be on the ballot.

Democratic candidates John Edwards, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden have withdrawn their names from the ballot to satisfy Iowa and New Hampshire, which were unhappy Michigan was challenging their leadoff status on the primary calendar."


Michigan Democratic Primary Results
Candidate Votes %
Hillary Clinton 328,151 55%
Uncommitted 237,762 40%
Dennis Kucinich 21,708 4%
Chris Dodd 3,853 1%
Mike Gravel 2,363 0%
Key: Winner
Precincts: 100% | Updated: 7:41 PM ET | Source: AP

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/primaries/states/mi/d/

[Mabus]

For the sake of argument, let's award all those uncommitted votes to Obama.
Yes, because he deserves the delegates for a ballot he voluntarily removed his name from...

And people talk about "new math"!

[Clove]

Yes, because he deserves the delegates for a ballot he voluntarily removed his name from...

And people talk about "new math"!Don't be retarded.

[g++]

The fact is Michigan and Florida are not being counted at all so any math that includes them is fuzzy. Clinton raises a good point, the republican primaries are better than the dem primaries when it comes to choosing viable candidates. The democratic primary is so convoluted and weird its like having a sack race to determine who we are sending to the olympics for the 100M dash. A little late to raise that point now though.

[Mabus]

Don't be retarded.
Nice.

See how far we got in a discussion until you make such a statement? Name calling because you see the truthfulness of a sarcastic statement.

Explain to me then, oh wise Clove, how giving Obama the votes and delegates from a state in which he removed his name from the ballot is a valid method of choosing a presidential candidate.

[Clove]

Nice.

See how far we got in a discussion until you make such a statement? Name calling because you see the truthfulness of a sarcastic statement.

Explain to me then, oh wise Clove, how giving Obama the votes and delegates from a state in which he removed his name from the ballot is a valid method of choosing a presidential candidate.How is it more fair to give them to Hillary when she didn't win them by BEING on the ballot. Who would you give them to, genius. Edwards?

For that matter how is counting votes in a state the voluntarily broke the party primary rules a valid method of choosing a candidate?

[Mabus]

The fact is Michigan and Florida are not being counted at all so any math that includes them is fuzzy.
The DNC will include them. How is a matter of conjecture. They could allow 1/2 delegates, all the delegates or some strange formula of the delegates, but they will allow those two states access to vote at the convention.

I do agree that whatever settlement is reached would be "fuzzy", but they likey will not risk disenfranchising the voters of the two states and any effects that decision could have during the general election.

[landy]

So much effort for a moot point. Clinton cannot win, the fact that the democrats haven't been more forceful with her removal from the race after that became apparent shows the weakness of the party. The same weakness that allowed a man like GWB to become President and keep the office for 8 years.

[Mabus]

Way to duck the question.

How is it more fair to give them to Hillary when she didn't win them by BEING on the ballot.
She has a case for getting the delegates and voters (or a settled proportion of the delegates and voters) that she did win.

Obama has no case for receiving delegates and voters he did not win.

That part is simple.

Whether the case is listened to, and the decision is in either of their favor, is another matter and not simple at all.

Who would you give them to, genius. Edwards?
I would give them to no one.

It is possible that the DNC could "free" them, making them uncommitted superdelegates. We will have to wait for their decision.


For that matter how is counting votes in a state the voluntarily broke the party primary rules a valid method of choosing a candidate?
As I have stated, I find the whole thing "fuzzy". The DNC will give them some representation, as I previously stated I believe, but until they have released their decision we will not know the final outcome.

[g++]

The DNC will include them. How is a matter of conjecture. They could allow 1/2 delegates, all the delegates or some strange formula of the delegates, but they will allow those two states access to vote at the convention.

I do agree that whatever settlement is reached would be "fuzzy", but they likey will not risk disenfranchising the voters of the two states and any effects that decision could have during the general election.

"Democratic leaders voted Saturday to strip Michigan of all its delegates to the national convention next year as punishment for scheduling an early presidential primary in violation of party rules."

From the same link I posted above. I don't see why you are so sure the DNC would directly contradict itself and break its own rules. Its an organization with bylaws and strict rules its not going to have a "lets reverse ourselves on the whole michigan thing because we were a little harsh" meeting. The only way they will be seated the way I see it is if there is a sole candidate left who requests they be seated for solidarity. If Obama and Hilarly are still in the race and the DNC includes either the DNC will be defending itself in court till the 2012 race.

[Mabus]

the fact that the democrats haven't been more forceful with her removal from the race after that became apparent shows the weakness of the party.
Which candidate has the full 2,026 delegates required (to use Obama's figure) to win the nomination?

Neither.


The same weakness that allowed a man like GWB to become President and keep the office for 8 years.
Two weak candidates, bad campaign decisions, an uneducated electorate and some possible tinkering with voter suppression have more to do with those losses then simple party weakness (in my opinion). Gore did not win his own state. Kerry ceded the votes of the south.

[landy]

Which candidate has the full 2,026 delegates required (to use Obama's figure) to win the nomination?

Neither.


Two weak candidates, bad campaign decisions, an uneducated electorate and some possible tinkering with voter suppression have more to do with those losses then simple party weakness (in my opinion). Gore did not win his own state. Kerry ceded the votes of the south.

So then the fact that one candidate leads in pledged and super delegates, popular vote, and number of states won... that is irrelevant? The fact that one candidate can not mathematically overcome that same lead... that is irrelevant?

[CrystalTears]

Which candidate has the full 2,026 delegates required (to use Obama's figure) to win the nomination?

Heh, "Obama's figure". You really have issues against this guy that I genuinely don't understand.

[Clove]

As I have stated, I find the whole thing "fuzzy". The DNC will give them some representation, as I previously stated I believe, but until they have released their decision we will not know the final outcome.Actually g++ stated that, you agreed with him.
The fact is Michigan and Florida are not being counted at all so any math that includes them is fuzzy.See?

And this was after you said it made no sense to give the uncommited votes to Obama. Counting votes for Clinton and dropping the uncommited would be fairer.... how?

[Crazy Bard]

All the democrat presidential nominee's at the time agreed to those rules. Hillary's campaign predicted that this whole race would end on Super Tuesday, but now since those same votes might actually give the bump that Hillary needs to win she wants them to count. Hillary Clinton only favors a voice that benefits her, and this is why Obama will win the nomination because people have realized that. Also how are you going to fault Obama for removing his name off a ballot that he was told wouldn't count.

[Sean]

If I was supposed to vote today and I was told ahead of time that my vote wouldn't count because my state had no delegates because of a rules breech I wouldn't leave my couch to goto the polls.

[Mabus]

From the same link I posted above. I don't see why you are so sure the DNC would directly contradict itself and break its own rules. Its an organization with bylaws and strict rules its not going to have a "lets reverse ourselves on the whole michigan thing because we were a little harsh" meeting.
From the DNC:
"The Rules and Bylaws Committee has jurisdiction on this issue until June 29. If it goes to the convention, it will then be handled by the credentials committee."

The rules committee members have also been asked to fly in a day early, and schedule their flight out a day later. They know they will have to decide whether these two states' delegates are seated. To not seat them at all could cause a fight on the floor of the convention, or at least some major squabbles around the convention the media would be happy to braodcast.

My guess? They will seat 1/2 the Florida delegates. Michigan is anyone's guess.

[Mabus]

Also how are you going to fault Obama for removing his name off a ballot that he was told wouldn't count.
I don't fault him for that. He made his voluntary decision to remove his name, and he (and others) did so to slow Clinton.

I do fault his supporters for the belief that Obama should get all the uncommitted delegates and voters from Michigan. That makes no sense at all, even less then Clinton stating they should all count.

Both are "new math", as the OP used in the title of the thread. That it would only be applied to one side shows the bias.

[g++]

Squabbles on the floor? Imagine if they get seated and shift the election to Hilary? Full scale pandemonium. I never claimed the DNC could not seat the delegates I said the only likely way they will is to show solidarity in the event that there is only one candidate. If Obama and Hilarly are still in the race and they do they will look like liars in front of the whole country and will get sued by everyone in sight.

[radamanthys]

How is a fair vote "new math"?

[Mabus]

Heh, "Obama's figure". You really have issues against this guy that I genuinely don't understand.
I did not use "Clinton's figure". I believe both will change once the DNC Rules and Bylaws committee decides on Florida and Michigan. If they seat any delegates, even 1 from each state, the figure ("Obama's figure", in this case) would also be incorrect.

[Clove]

I believe the point was they're the figures not counting Michigan and Florida (as all the media outlets have been reporting it) not "Obama's figure"

[CrystalTears]

I did not use "Clinton's figure". I believe both will change once the DNC Rules and Bylaws committee decides on Florida and Michigan. If they seat any delegates, even 1 from each state, the figure ("Obama's figure", in this case) would also be incorrect.
No, it was your bias that caused me to ask.


I believe the point was they're the figures not counting Michigan and Florida (as all the media outlets have been reporting it) not "Obama's figure"
Thank you.

[Mabus]

No, it was your bias that caused me to ask.
I am so happy you have shown no bias over several threads!

I like none of the candidates. As such I am free to look at reality, and free from the fanaticism of having a chosen candidate.

Politics be funs!

[Clove]

I am so happy you have shown no bias over several threads!

I like none of the candidates. As such I am free to look at reality, and free from the fanaticism of having a chosen candidate.

Politics be funs!Okayy.

[g++]

I am so happy you have shown no bias over several threads!

I like none of the candidates. As such I am free to look at reality, and free from the fanaticism of having a chosen candidate.

Politics be funs!


I think you should look into backing Hilary since you agree with her on every point no matter how irrational it may be. In fact I think the only way you could not be a Hilary supporter is if your are in fact Hilary Clinton herself.

[Crazy Bard]

These past months Hillary's been all about counting "every vote". She's said this countless times, but guess what? 40% were uncommitted in MI only giving her one fair option. Splitting all the votes between the two of them.(If the votes have to be distributed at all)

Also, I find it hard to believe Hillary has a better chance winning the general election. I believe Obama will gain a surplus amount of Hillary supporters giving him a edge in states that hes predicted to lose. I don't believe the same for Hillary since Obama attracts a much younger base that won't turn around, and vote Hillary.

[CrystalTears]

I am so happy you have shown no bias over several threads!
I haven't. Shows how well you read, since I have stated several times now that I don't fully support anyone yet. The only person I've ever known that I wasn't voting for is Hillary.


I like none of the candidates and irrationally hate Obama.
Fixed.

[g++]

Also, I find it hard to believe Hillary has a better chance winning the general election.


Actually most of the claims she makes about having a better shot electorally than Obama are dead on. She has collected most of the indicator states that have predicted past democratic presidents and alot of the states Obama has picked up are democratic bastions that would roll into Clintons camp if he left the race. The problem is that none of this has anything to do with the primary which Hilary has already essentially already lost.

[Clove]

Party at Ilvanes!

[BigWorm]

I still can't believe that the argument that Clinton would do better in the general election is still being taken seriously. There are far too many people that would never vote for her that could possibly vote for Obama.

[Mabus]

I haven't.
Of course not! You? never!

Shows how well you read, since I have stated several times now that I would suck Obama off if he would give me the time of day. The only person I've ever fantasized about in this campaign is Obama.


Fixed.

[BigWorm]

Would you wanna suck McCain off?

Actually, don't answer that question.

[oldanforgotten]

Actually most of the claims she makes about having a better shot electorally than Obama are dead on. She has collected most of the indicator states that have predicted past democratic presidents and alot of the states Obama has picked up are democratic bastions that would roll into Clintons camp if he left the race. The problem is that none of this has anything to do with the primary which Hilary has already essentially already lost.

And most of the indicators she points to have some holes as well. She has very high unfavorable ratings, meaning most people already have an opinion about her. He has a higher percentage of people who like him, and a higher percentage of people who don?t know him. That gives him time to grow, whereas she has some limits in that regard.

As for some of the indicators, they?ve held true in the last 2 elections, in that she is stronger in Ohio and Florida. Point given. He?s stronger most everywhere else at this point. Her points also make the assumption that several historical battleground states would break her way that currently do not. Oregon, Washington, Minnesota to name a couple, and it completely discredits legitimate chances in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Colorado, and Nevada where he has a very strong edge at the moment.

If she?s going to plan on the ?I want to re-create the 2004 electoral map and use the same strategy that Kerry and Gore used and throw away those other states but take Ohio and Florida? strategy, I think that whole plan is flawed, but she?s doing well at that game at the moment. Obama is using a more national approach, and its paying dividends so far.
________
Roor Bong Pictures (http://roorbongs.org)

[TheEschaton]

I will put money on the fact that, barring a Southern running mate, Obama will lost VA, NC, SC, GA, just like Clinton would.

Colorado and Nevada? You think he has a better shot than her there? Are you serious?

[BigWorm]

Yes. People hate Hillary a lot more than they hate Obama.

[Parkbandit]

I haven't. Shows how well you read, since I have stated several times now that I don't fully support anyone yet. The only person I've ever known that I wasn't voting for is Hillary.


I love you toots, but this is a load of shit. It's been clear for a long time now you are voting for Obama, unless he picks Hillary as his VP.

Your posts clearly show an Obama bias.

[Parkbandit]

Yes. People hate Hillary a lot more than they hate Obama.


Only because they know Hillary. We're just starting to know Obama.. and his negative polls are growing.

[BigWorm]

Only because they know Hillary. We're just starting to know Obama.. and his negative polls are growing.

Okayyyyy, Mabus.

[Parkbandit]

Okayyyyy, Mabus.


You trying to roleplay the offspring of Daniel and Ismurii? Retarded retorts, plus the extra Y's?

Your only redeaming quality and contribution is your avatar. Never change it.. it's the only thing that people respect you for.

[g++]

Only because they know Hillary. We're just starting to know Obama.. and his negative polls are growing.


Yay I dont have to say it.

Most of you guys are saying "People that would never vote for Hillary might vote for Obama"


Keep in mind the election has not even started yet. The mudslinging is yet to commence and at the end of the day people who say that now are going to remember I dont like G.W. and am fed up with the war in Iraq != I <3 liberal policy and Obama is not much less polarizing then Hilary in that regard. Not to mention McCain will be able to say I have been in government for decades where have you been again son? At like every debate.

[Parkbandit]

It should be an interesting contest to say the least.

[CrystalTears]

I love you toots, but this is a load of shit. It's been clear for a long time now you are voting for Obama, unless he picks Hillary as his VP.

Your posts clearly show an Obama bias.
No, that's all you want to see, when I've said that I'm considering McCain as well. The problem is that they're not covering McCain half as much as they are the democrats right now, so the only things I'm able to truly comment on is Obama.

I know you're still bitter that I'm a former semi-conservative. It's okay.

[BigWorm]

If you don't agree lockstep with PB, you are obviously a liberal.

[Miss Ismurii]

You trying to roleplay the offspring of Daniel and Ismurii? Retarded retorts, plus the extra Y's?

Your only redeaming quality and contribution is your avatar. Never change it.. it's the only thing that people respect you for.

Heyy heyy come on now.

[Parkbandit]

Heyy heyy come on now.

I apologize for insulting you Ismurii. That was uncalled for and a very low blow.

:(

[Parkbandit]

No, that's all you want to see, when I've said that I'm considering McCain as well. The problem is that they're not covering McCain half as much as they are the democrats right now, so the only things I'm able to truly comment on is Obama.

I know you're still bitter that I'm a former semi-conservative. It's okay.

:rofl: I'm not bitter about anything. I still love you.

[Ilvane]

Yes, because he deserves the delegates for a ballot he voluntarily removed his name from...

And people talk about "new math"!

Hey, I'm a Hillary supporter, and I'm glad she's around, however--she doesn't appear to be winning this contest to the rockstar politician.:shrug:

We'll see what happens. I prefer Hillary.

Angela

[Tsa`ah]

I think the point is lost.

First and foremost, one can't champion the cause of counting every vote ... and then selectively dismiss caucus votes in favor of stripped primary votes.

Second, one can't agree to the rules when they rule in one's favor, and challenge the rules when they don't. The point of going with republican rules is asinine.

A pitcher and catcher are conferring on the mound in the fourth after the clean up hit a grand slam ... changing the score from 3-0 to 3-4 in one shot. The pitcher says "If we were playing by hockey rules ... we'd have won already".

The democratic process is one in which every citizen (within eligibility) has the right to vote and the right for their vote to be counted. That is (almost) happening in the democratic race. It will be a race until the very last contest so long as Clinton sticks with it.

The primary process is undemocratic in and of itself. Most of the time the race is done by Super Tuesday, leaving the rest of the nation to sit and spin because they lived in a state given a later date to vote.

If the primaries were held in a manner similar to the general election, or perhaps 10 states (arranged in an order where each grouping netted the same delegate count) voting on the same day of the week for 10 weeks ... the outcome of these farces would be completely different.

At the end of the day I believe Clinton is hurting her party much more than she is herself. I think at the end of it all she'll have burned too many bridges to be a very effective Senator, let alone a potential candidate for elections of any office.

[longshot]

Heyy heyy come on now.

I hope you die from syphilis.





Back on topic, I like the continued fighting... it's kind of funny.

[Mabus]

Second, one can't agree to the rules when they rule in one's favor, and challenge the rules when they don't.
I agree.

That is why the superdelegates should be able to vote for Clinton. That is what they were created for in the first place; to thwart the will of the voters in the interest of the party. Them are the rules. If they did it would the Obamaniacs shout about "fairness"? Of course they would. They only want rules that benefit Obama.
;)

This has been, and is still going to be, one interesting election.

[g++]

That is what they were created for in the first place; to thwart the will of the voters in the interest of the party.

At least for 6 months until they realize they have once again produced a non-viable candidate. Then complain loudly in bars that everyone in the middle of the country is "Stupid" for not voting for the candidate a bunch of radical liberals thought was great.

[Mabus]

From the DNC:
"The Rules and Bylaws Committee has jurisdiction on this issue until June 29. If it goes to the convention, it will then be handled by the credentials committee."

The rules committee members have also been asked to fly in a day early, and schedule their flight out a day later. They know they will have to decide whether these two states' delegates are seated. To not seat them at all could cause a fight on the floor of the convention, or at least some major squabbles around the convention the media would be happy to braodcast.

My guess? They will seat 1/2 the Florida delegates. Michigan is anyone's guess.
I was correct.

And now we have Michigan with a wierd outcome. 4 delegates taken from Clinton, and 59 given to Obama (who voluntarily removed his name from the ballot and received 0% of the vote).

"Clinton has asked me to reserve her right to take this to the credentials committee," -Ickes

Gonna be a fun summer.