Pennsylvania Election Returns – Democratic
[Guest post by DRJ]
95% Reporting:
Clinton – 1,181,047 (55%)
Obama – 972,236 (45%)
90% Reporting:
Clinton – 1,108,477 (55%)
Obama – 902,937 (45%)
Note the election returns Map. Right now, it shows 7 counties for Obama and 60 for Clinton. Pittsburgh is going for Clinton 55-45.
85% Reporting:
Clinton – 1,041,442 (55%)
Obama – 850,195 (45%)
83% Reporting:
Clinton – 1,014,769 (55%)
Obama – 825,562 (45%)
Hillary passes the 1M voter mark, she’s almost 200K votes ahead of Obama, and yet the current PA delegate count is Clinton-40 delegates; Obama-37.
82% Reporting:
Clinton – 996,869 (55%)
Obama – 811,900 (45%)
78% Reporting:
Clinton – 920,002 (55%)
Obama – 766,492 (45%)
A double digit lead. Good times for Hillary.
76% Reporting:
Clinton – 891,548 (54%)
Obama – 746,731 (46%)
60% Reporting:
Clinton – 687,220 (54%)
Obama – 582,042 (46%)
55% Reporting:
Clinton – 618,590 (54%)
Obama – 529,485 (46%)
50% Reporting:
Clinton – 558,308 (54%)
Obama – 467,817 (46%)
CNN projects Hillary Clinton the winner with 48% of the vote in:
Clinton – 528,080 (54%)
Obama – 444,428 (46%)
NOTE: Prior numbers were from the Pennsylvania Elections Division. From now on, the number are from CNN. Scott Jacobs is updating the Fox News numbers in the comments.
34.37% Reporting:
Clinton – 463,114 (54.5%)
Obama – 385,877 (45.5%)
28.59% Reporting:
Clinton – 407,431 (53.5%)
Obama – 354,100 (46.5%)
24.22% Reporting:
Clinton – 395,346 (53.2%)
Obama – 347,194 (46.8%)
20.12% Reporting:
Clinton – 296,575 (53.2%)
Obama – 260,865 (46.8%)
19.34% Reporting:
Clinton – 261,173 (51.4%)
Obama – 247,230 (48.6%)
18% Reporting:
Clinton – 248,052 (50.6%)
Obama – 241,732 (49.4%)
Early returns (1%):
Clinton – 20,571 (70.2%)
Obama – 8,716 (29.8%)
Returns will be updated with the most recent results on top.
— DRJ
16% percent reporting
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 4/22/2008 @ 6:27 pmClinton – 185,375 (53%)
Obama – 164,783 (47%)
Good job, Scott. I took a dinner break … but I saved room for popcorn.
DRJ (a431ca) — 4/22/2008 @ 6:32 pmDRJ, where are you getting your numbers? They are WAY different than what I see on Fox News…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 4/22/2008 @ 6:32 pmPennsylvania Department of State Election Division Unofficial returns.
DRJ (a431ca) — 4/22/2008 @ 6:34 pm21% percent reporting
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 4/22/2008 @ 6:35 pmClinton – 237,031 (53%)
Obama – 206,391 (47%)
How are they different? I’m not watching Fox or looking at the Fox website.
EDIT: Fox probably has someone at the Elections Division and is getting it up faster. I may change or go to CNN.
DRJ (a431ca) — 4/22/2008 @ 6:35 pmDon’t Vote For Obama, Prolong The Drama!!!111!!Eleventy!1
Kyoto
Halliburton
Guantanamo
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/22/2008 @ 6:37 pmAhhh… CNN, MSNBC and Fox all have the larger margin…
And I just saw some AMAZING numbers…
26% of Clinton voters would vote for McCain over Obama and 19% would just stay home. That’s 45% total.
For Obama, 17% claiming that they would vote for McCain over Clinton and 12% would just stay home. 29% total…
So let me just say, Go Senator Obama Go!!!
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 4/22/2008 @ 6:37 pmThe true contest is not the margin of votes but the contest of spinning the results.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/22/2008 @ 6:37 pm24% percent reporting
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 4/22/2008 @ 6:39 pmClinton – 276,883 (54%)
Obama – 232,904 (46%)
I’m 29, fairly attractive, only slightly outta shape…
And I’m home, alone, watching primary results…
Lordy I’m a politics geek…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 4/22/2008 @ 6:40 pmDude, that is soooo depressing.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/22/2008 @ 6:44 pmYou have no idea…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 4/22/2008 @ 6:45 pmWell, it is for a good cause, Scott. You keep posting the Fox/CNN numbers and I’ll stay with the PA Election Division.
And you’re right about the raw numbers being very different. I don’t understand why, but I guess that’s why the website says it’s “unofficial.”
DRJ (a431ca) — 4/22/2008 @ 6:45 pmWell, no, I don’t.
Let’s keep it that way, dude.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/22/2008 @ 6:45 pm35% percent reporting
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 4/22/2008 @ 6:45 pmClinton – 385,633 (54%)
Obama – 326401 (46%)
Vote for the lying socialist hack you know rather than the lying socialist hack you don’t!!!!
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/22/2008 @ 6:46 pmI have no clue why I typed “35% percent”
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 4/22/2008 @ 6:46 pmI will use Fox, if only because they update regularly, and include the % reporting, and count/percentage for each, even through commercials…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 4/22/2008 @ 6:47 pmDaley… DOn’t you understand… voting for Obama cuts 45% of HILLARY’s voters out of the final count…
Oh, and the % reporting is not state-wide total, it’s precints. Just making sure that’s clear…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 4/22/2008 @ 6:48 pmFox is great. I meant that as an either/or. Plus, you don’t have to do it at all, if you don’t want to, but I appreciate it.
DRJ (a431ca) — 4/22/2008 @ 6:48 pmI was just saying who I was gonna use as full Disclosure…
42% Precints reporting
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 4/22/2008 @ 6:51 pmClinton – 470,162(55%)
Obama – 387,299 (45%)
The Elections Division is dramatically changing the raw numbers but leaving the percentage reporting the same. Something is weird there.
DRJ (a431ca) — 4/22/2008 @ 6:52 pmI post, and they update… *mutters*
45% Precints reporting
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 4/22/2008 @ 6:53 pmClinton – 492,362 (54%)
Obama – 413,210 (46%)
Funny stuff in a dem election?
The hell you say!
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 4/22/2008 @ 6:54 pmIt looks like the exit polls that said late-breaking voters went for Obama were right.
DRJ (a431ca) — 4/22/2008 @ 6:58 pmEhhhh I dunno if I buy that… We have no idea what precincts we’re seeing…
It could be that the last 20% of the ones reporting end up 90% hillary… I wish we could see a map fill in as they come in.
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 4/22/2008 @ 7:00 pmScott – I understand, but I don’t trust those numbers. I’d rather run against Hildebeast.
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/22/2008 @ 7:02 pm49% Precincts reporting:
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 4/22/2008 @ 7:02 pmClinton – 545,815 (54%)
Obama – 460,837 (46%)
That’s true, but the exit polls also suggested that only a small percentage of the voters were late-breaking.
DRJ (a431ca) — 4/22/2008 @ 7:03 pmHillary’s campaign manager was on Fox a short time ago telling Fox they were the first to call it for Hillary, and calling Fox fair and balanced…
If Hillary ends up the one the Dems run, how much you wanna bet that warm fuzzy feeling doesn’t carry over… 🙂
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 4/22/2008 @ 7:03 pm52% Precincts reporting:
Clinton – 587,373 (55%)
Obama – 488,242 (45%)
Apparently we’re so far seeing lots of the big-city votes…
Once we go to other parts of the state, they are talking about Hillary carrying at like 75%…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 4/22/2008 @ 7:07 pm55% Precincts reporting:
Clinton – 618,590 (54%)
Obama – 529,485 (46%)
Mayor of Phily is spoeaking, Hillary should be speaking soon…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 4/22/2008 @ 7:08 pmOur numbers match since I switched to CNN, which suggests they are getting their number from the same place.
DRJ (a431ca) — 4/22/2008 @ 7:10 pm*nods*
Heck, probably the same guy for all of them, e-mailing a block of numbers every possible chance…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 4/22/2008 @ 7:11 pmIf there were an electoral college style vote, where the winner takes the entire state’s delegates, Obama would have a a tiny fraction of Hillary’s votes. Though they both campaign based on the rules in place.
I think Hillary would be a much better Prez than Obama, so even though Obama is looking like an easier guy to beat, I hope Hillary wins the nomination. Though I would be shocked if she did.
Jem (4cdfb7) — 4/22/2008 @ 7:12 pmI don’t have the quote in front of me, but it’s something like “I like Germany so much, I’m glad there are two of them,” said by a French governmental minister.
I think it’s the same here. “I like the Democrat Presidential candidates so much, I’m glad there are still two of them.”
steve miller (86a8e6) — 4/22/2008 @ 7:15 pmSteve Miller, I think it is a DeGaulle quote.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/22/2008 @ 7:17 pm67% Precincts reporting:
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 4/22/2008 @ 7:23 pmClinton – 774,267 (54%)
Obama – 654,139 (46%)
omfg… Did you just hear the BS story about the WWII vet who sent her a picture with something scrawlled on the top?
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 4/22/2008 @ 7:27 pmI think I hear Bosnian sniper-fire…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 4/22/2008 @ 7:28 pm75% Precincts reporting:
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 4/22/2008 @ 7:35 pmClinton – 882,247 (54%)
Obama – 742,208 (46%)
DRJ must be busy making popcorn… 🙂
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 4/22/2008 @ 7:37 pmAbsolutely, plus I was browsing the internet. The PA Elections Division website seems to have crashed.
DRJ (a431ca) — 4/22/2008 @ 7:44 pmYou mean like we did to the LA site during the Jindal election?
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 4/22/2008 @ 7:46 pmApparently.
You know, I think this would have been a different race had Hillary campaigned from the start instead of acting like an incumbent.
DRJ (a431ca) — 4/22/2008 @ 7:47 pmHere in Indiana, the next couple weeks should be fun. I am going to try to take my girls to see one or both of the candidates, or even Slick Willie, though I would keep my girls close 😉
Is that Larry David standing right behind him?
JD (5f0e11) — 4/22/2008 @ 7:51 pmSeriously, are these people listening to Obama even aware of reality? It’s stunning, really…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 4/22/2008 @ 7:55 pmThey will all want to have their pictures taken with your girls, JD.
DRJ (a431ca) — 4/22/2008 @ 7:55 pmClinton 966,757 55% 80% reporting
Obama 791,190 45%
Good times indeed.
Roy Mustang (7a82d5) — 4/22/2008 @ 7:56 pmIt’s not Larry David. It’s a typical white person.
DRJ (a431ca) — 4/22/2008 @ 7:56 pmThanks, Roy.
DRJ (a431ca) — 4/22/2008 @ 7:57 pmI do not think that hopiness and changiness is going to be a winning message here in Indiana. Even the Dems are generally conservative here Indiana. Lower taxes. Protect our borders. Protect our country. Our demographics seem to favor Hillary, based on the groups she has been consistently winning.
JD (5f0e11) — 4/22/2008 @ 7:59 pmCol. Mustang!!!!
Full Metal (d3a6ec) — 4/22/2008 @ 8:00 pmDRJ – That would be awesome. I will hold up bunny ears in the background.
That guy on the right behind Baracky looks just like Larry David.
JD (5f0e11) — 4/22/2008 @ 8:02 pmPlus, although the Dems like to claim we are in a recession, Governor Daniels has built a huge budget surplus, and we are gaining new economy jobs.
JD (5f0e11) — 4/22/2008 @ 8:05 pmNo kidding. Clinton won by 4 points in TX but lost the delegate count by 5.
If a 10 point blowout only gives her a net of 3 delegates, she’ll have another great argument against the Democrat’s broken delegate system.
Roy Mustang (7a82d5) — 4/22/2008 @ 8:09 pmIf not for Operation Chaos, HRC loses her magic “double-digit” win. Take away the estimated 25 – 50K of the GOP voters who crossed over to vote for her and she has an eight or nine point win.
IIRC, if not for the same in Texas, BHO beats her in the vote, as well as in delegates.
When the history of this race is written, Rush and Operation Chaos simply must be given its due.
Oh….tonight was caramel corn night. 😀
Ed (f28e9a) — 4/22/2008 @ 11:28 pmHillary has been finished for months. All her gains from tonight are inconsequential, a few sacrifice flies in the late innings of a blowout, it’s too little too late. She’s out of money. She’s out of chances. Barack has tens of millions of dollars and an insurmountable lead in delegates. I wish this bitch would just fucking quit so I could go back to liking her husband.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/22/2008 @ 11:35 pmNothing like playing fair, eh? You can’t beat a candidate on his merits, so you try to prevent the possibility that you have to run against him. Way to play the game in the most cowardly way imaginable!
Also, you guys are way overdoing the popcorn jokes.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/22/2008 @ 11:38 pmEd @58 – The exit polling I saw showed more of the crossover vote going to Obama than Clinton – 55/45, so I think that blows your theory. Sorry.
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/22/2008 @ 11:47 pmLevi @ 59 — you might be right on every point, but the cold FACT is that Obama has not been able to beat her head-to-head in a primary state where the lacked a clear demographic advantage in the democrat primary electorate.
He may ease on into Denver with the nomination secured, but it will be one of the weakest finishes by a winning candidate who had a huge money advantage and every PR advantage the press could create for him.
He’s DMW come November.
wls (b46c60) — 4/23/2008 @ 2:36 amLevi #60: Nothing like playing fair, eh? You can’t beat a candidate on his merits, so you try to prevent the possibility that you have to run against him. Way to play the game in the most cowardly way imaginable!
Hey Levi:
What were the circumstances of Obama’s nomination when he first ran for Illinois State Legislature?
Nothing like playing fair, eh? You can’t beat a candidate on his merits, so you try to prevent the possibility that you have to run against him. Way to play the game in the most cowardly way imaginable!
What were the circumstances of his run for US Senate?
The article negects to mention that the judge on the case released the records despite Jeri Ryan’s repeated requests not to do so. Why do you think that was so?
Nothing like playing fair, eh? You can’t beat a candidate on his merits, so you try to prevent the possibility that you have to run against him. Way to play the game in the most cowardly way imaginable!
Paul (4ca58a) — 4/23/2008 @ 3:39 amOops, I forgot:
Retard.
Paul (4ca58a) — 4/23/2008 @ 3:46 amBarack can’t get to 2025 without the superdelgates checking in. Neither can Hillary. Unless Dean-O can get them to declare early, this nomination will be decided by them (and not by the popular vote) at the convention.
Your nominee will be selected, not elected. The people of Florida and Michigan will be disenfranchised, which is a great strategy for the general. Your party is a joke, the same joke of a party who had the presidency to lose in ’04 and did just that.
You can call Operation Chaos cowardly, Levi. I’ll continue to call it hilarious.
Pablo (99243e) — 4/23/2008 @ 4:15 amI am puking a little in my mouth thinking of all of the Dem ads we are going to have to endure in the next 2 weeks, and a bit amused that I will be forced to cast a vote before Hillary.
Levi – CA, TX, FL, MI, OH, PA, NJ, NY are all traditionally included in any calculus of states needed for a Dem candidate to win in the general. Hill beat Baracky in all of them. The simple unassailable fact is that neither candidate will have the necessary nuber of delegates prior to being selected by the superdelegates. Now maybe you think disenfranchising the voters of FL and MI is a good thing going into the general. Good allah, this is fun.
JD (5f0e11) — 4/23/2008 @ 4:31 amAnd as of yesterday, Hillary now leads Baracky in the popular vote. Good thing they’ve got some super-Democrats to decide their nominee. You sure want the stupid hoi polloi doing it.
Pablo (99243e) — 4/23/2008 @ 4:38 amSelected, not elected will be something that can be hung around the neck of either Dem candidate. The irony, it is rich.
JD (75f5c3) — 4/23/2008 @ 5:37 amPenn results by county show that obama won the heavily black city of philadelphia, and the government industrial complex city of harrisburg. The results are similar to the results of the general election divide with rep v dem. With hillary winning the repulican counties.
My take is that it protents a much closer general election race, and that hillary on the ticket only slightly improves the likely margin of a dem victory in penn in the general election.
Joe - Dallas (d29492) — 4/23/2008 @ 5:39 amAren’t you the same guy who complained that McCain shouldn’t be President because of his alleged infidelity?
Oh, I forgot: you’re just a partisan hack.
Steverino (6772c8) — 4/23/2008 @ 6:20 amSteverino – His standards, they are ever-changing. Or, they do not exist. I am going with the latter, due to the sheer volume of lies and distortions. If it had standards, surely he would be troubled by his having to lie to make his points.
JD (75f5c3) — 4/23/2008 @ 6:24 amJD, I am well past the point of taking Levi seriously. It’s more fun to point out the fluidity of his positions.
Anyone who is compelled to strew profanities in his written word is an uneducated, ignorant twit.
Steverino (6772c8) — 4/23/2008 @ 6:45 amPrinciples of convenience, I think they are called Steverino…a Republican TALKS about groping a woman…it’s a capital offense. Sexual harassment and the debasing of women in in the news for 18 months straight.
A democrat kills a naked woman by driving off a bridge with her naked in his car, he gets a lifetime Senate seat. A serial groper gets two terms as President.
cfbleachers (4040c7) — 4/23/2008 @ 8:24 amHowever, much like a broken clock…I really don’t see how this win is anything but a morale booster for the Clinton campaign.
If she wins everything but North Carolina, Oregon and South Dakota that’s left on the trail of tears Democratic primary…she still won’t convince the party to take this election from him.
They are terrified of being called racist and that will override any other argument…sound or unsound…that she presses to the superdelegates.
They will indeed lose some Reagan Democrats and moderates if Sen. Obama is the candidate. But they will absolutely lose the African-American vote in droves if it is taken from him.
She gets a large percentage of moderates, blue collar, white men and women…and they will go to the polls and vote for McCain. African-Americans will stay home, they won’t cross party lines.
He gets 90% of African-Americans. They need both constituencies to win the general election. Which one will they give up?
Not even a close call.
cfbleachers (4040c7) — 4/23/2008 @ 8:32 amSo the fuck what? You think Obama would lose New York to McCain? Is that what you’re telling me? You morons don’t seem to understand this is a Democratic primary, and not a general election. The calculus isn’t the same.
Which is total bullshit, I whole-heartedly agree. This primary season exposes how fucking broken their nomination system is, and hopefully it’s in for a total revamp. If Howard Dean is as concerned with Democrats not having a candidate soon enough, the first thing he ought to do after the general election is fix his broken system, and get rid of the superdelegates.
Nobody got disenfranchised. People aren’t guaranteed the right to vote in primaries. They knew what would happen if they broke the rules, they broke the rules anyway, so fuck ’em.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 8:50 amLevi,
It seems to me that “fuck” is the adjective and verb you like best. It could be that it’s the most you have or the most you lack.
Either way, go get fucked. It will do you a lot of good.
nk (35ac33) — 4/23/2008 @ 9:00 amAnd it seems to me that you guys harp on my swearing as an excuse to not engage or debate me.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 9:06 amYour limited vocabulary is a sign of your limited intellectual abilities.
DRJ (8b9d41) — 4/23/2008 @ 9:10 amLevi, you’ve proven time and again that you aren’t interested in honest debate.
If you used profanity only in speaking, we could attribute it to Tourette’s. But to constantly lace your posts with profanity takes a conscious effort, and it shows you are incapable of expressing yourself using standard written English. It’s a sign of ignorance.
Steverino (6772c8) — 4/23/2008 @ 9:12 amMy limited vocabulary? I’ll say this again, I am putting out paragraphs per post, you guys seem taxed to string more than a sentence or two together. If my vocabulary is limited, most of the people that post here just don’t even have one.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 9:14 amBut they did vote. It just isn’t being counted. Not very Democratic, that.
In Florida, “they” who ‘broke the rules” is the Republican legislature and the Republican governor. “’em” as in “fuck ’em” is the Democrat voters.
Nice party you’ve got there. Send President Kerry my regards.
Pablo (99243e) — 4/23/2008 @ 9:19 amWhy don’t you ever try to, you know, actually point out the fluidity of my positions, instead of just saying it like that means anything? Are you ready for honest debate? Are you interested in it, or do you just think you can make fun of me until I go away?
That’s stupidest shit I’ve ever heard. I express myself better than you do, anyway. Compare the average length of my posts with the average length of yours. I’m degrees more expressive than you are.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 9:20 amLevi – Obama has done very poorly since Super Tuesday. The Super Delegates would be crazy not to take his recent performance into account, but crazy is something, as evidenced by you and Obama’s media army, have in abundance. Pennsylvania was a big win for Hillary no matter what way you try to spin it and should sow additional doubt about the electability of Obama, especially after he tried to buy the primary by outspending Clinton 3:1. If his money advantage can’t overcome his fundamental weaknesses as a candidate, what good is it?
I’m liking the irony of the dem candidate losing the popular vote and running on a selected, not elected platform.
Suck on that Levi.
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/23/2008 @ 9:22 amYup, and there’s nothing in the Constitution that says those votes have to be counted. I isn’t Democratic, almost no part of this primary process is, but it isn’t disenfranchisement.
It is more the fault of the governments than the voters, but again, these are the rules. It’s fucked up, but what can be done? Michigan and Florida can’t be effectively allowed to choose the Democratic nominee even after having broken those rules, that’s not fair to the rest of the 48 states, which followed them.
It is fucked up, and the party does suck. We can only hope they straighten this shit out for the next one.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 9:26 amLevi,
Intelligent people try to express important ideas in a simple and straightforward manner. Excess verbiage doesn’t prove you are smart. Instead, it indicates an inability to identify the important points and communicate them well. It’s also a sign of poor editing.
I’ve been guilty of this, too. Here’s an example of a post I wrote that has lots of words but doesn’t say much because I didn’t think about the point and edit my thoughts. I’ll make more mistakes in the future but I’m trying to learn from my mistakes. I’m sharing this with you in the hope that you will also try to think about what your real point is and edit your writing.
DRJ (8b9d41) — 4/23/2008 @ 9:28 amYup. It could happen. McCain by 2 as of 4/4/08, and that’s a week before Crackerquiddick broke. Are you saying he can’t lose NY? Carter did. Mondale did.
Pablo (99243e) — 4/23/2008 @ 9:31 amFuck you, you fucking fucks! I’m fucking smarter than you fucking morons. You don’t fucking think so? That’s fucking bullshit!
Levi's Alter Ego (cf3660) — 4/23/2008 @ 9:31 amLevi, We aren’t baffled by your Bravo Sierra.
PCD (5c49b0) — 4/23/2008 @ 9:33 amThat’s funny, I remember him winning 10 contests in a row immediately after Super Tuesday, which is what built him this insurmountable delegate lead.
‘Very poorly?’ How is he ahead?
They’d be crazier to vote against the pledged delegates.
It’s not a big win, by any metric. She picks up what, 10 delegates? Obama is still ahead by 150. There’s barely any more delegates for her to win. She’s not expected to do very well in the rest of the contests. She’s out of money, Obama has $40 million.
This doesn’t say anything about his electability in a general election, do you understand that the dynamic is a little bit different in a primary?
It is ironic, isn’t it?
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 9:37 amLevi – Think of the fun we’re going to have. Visualize the headlines:
Democrat Party Leaders Select Inexperienced Senator To Run Against McCain Over Leading Vote Getter. Party Elite Snubs Popular Vote Winner And Veteran Politician Clinton.
Yeah Baybeeee!!! That’s what I’m talkin’ about.
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/23/2008 @ 9:37 amLet’s see how the polls look after the Democratic nominee is set. It just makes sense that McCain’s numbers are going to inflate somewhat since he doesn’t have an opponent, wouldn’t you think?
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 9:39 amLet’s talk more about friends. How do you suppose Hatem El-Hady is going to go over in New York? I’m guessing not as well as he goes over with Michelle Obama. It’s as if Rashid Khalidi wasn’t good enough.
Pablo (99243e) — 4/23/2008 @ 9:42 amIf you can’t make it there, you can’t make it anywhere
It’s up to yooouuu….
I try to do it as simply as I can, but certainly you could understand that I probably need to be a little more thorough given the make-up of the posters here? I’m from a totally different perspective, a perspective no one seems to understand or care about understanding, and that necessitates longer posts from me.
What am I not communicating well enough for you? You’re not understanding my points? I was just being scolded for having a bad vocabulary, but now I’m just a poor communicator? Specifics?
I know what my points are, don’t worry.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 9:44 amUh, no. That’s assuming Obama is his opponent. Clinton is two ahead of McCain.
Pablo (99243e) — 4/23/2008 @ 9:45 amI know what my points are, don’t worry.
It’s too bad you have trouble communicating them.
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/23/2008 @ 9:48 amThe popular vote is wholly meaningless in a primary, it’s all about delegates. Some states that caucus, like Iowa, for example, don’t even vote. Some states only allow Democrats, some allow independents, some allow Republicans, so it isn’t an accurate reflection whatsoever of, well, anything. If we were going for the popular vote, Obama and Hillary would have spent 100% of their time campaigning in populated places like New York and California. And Obama will be ahead in the end tally anyway.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 9:49 amSay hello to President Gore for me if you see him.
Pablo (99243e) — 4/23/2008 @ 9:52 amYou don’t think McCain has an advantage in the head-to-head polling right now? You don’t think uncertainty about who the Democratic nominee is going to be affecting those match-ups?
Let’s give Democrats the benefit of rallying around their nominee, like the Republicans have had (you guys had a good little primary battle going, too, if you recall), and see what the climate is like then, okay?
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 9:53 amGonna get specific yet? Or are you just following DRJ around like a puppy?
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 9:54 amNow this, this is some poor communication. What is the point of this post? I say the popular vote doesn’t matter in primaries, and somebody brings up Al Gore? What?
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 9:56 amNo, why would it? The polling question is hypothetical. The only plausible GOP candidate I’ve never been willing to vote for was Huckabee. Anyone else, McCain included, would get my vote in a hypothetical matchup against Clinton or Obama. Having the GOP nomination settled doesn’t change that a bit, though primary shennanigans might make me consider staying home.
Pablo (99243e) — 4/23/2008 @ 10:00 amWell, you’re talking about the GOP and their candidates, we’re talking about the Democratic party and theirs. They’re different parties with different candidates. Lots of Republicans feel they’re stuck with John McCain, lots of Democrats feel they have two really good choices. That’s an important difference. Let Obama or Hillary consolidate Democratic support before you start reading things into these polls.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 10:04 amThe point is that the popular vote doesn’t count in the general, either, which makes your comment amusing. It doesn’t count at all, at any time. But then, NOTHING counts in terms of what the superdelegates do, so pointing out one factor that doesn’t matter is a bit like pointing out the irrelevant drop in the ocean. They can vote however they like for whatever reason they like and current delegate totals carry no more weight than the popular vote. Now, let’s say that each SD votes in terms of how their state voted…
I think Hillary wins that one walking away, as she’s winning the really blue states that elect superdelegates to office.
But really, her best argument is electability and her best hope is that they can vote any way they like.
Pablo (99243e) — 4/23/2008 @ 10:07 amYou don’t say?
So, what you’re telling me is that people who now say they’ll vote for McCain over Obama are going to change their minds if they get the chance to do just that?
Pablo (99243e) — 4/23/2008 @ 10:09 amLevi wrote: If we were going for the popular vote, Obama and Hillary would have spent 100% of their time campaigning in populated places like New York and California.
Exactly, Leev. Getting rid of the electoral college would be stupid. Who would dream of doing such a thing?
Oh, yeah. Hillary.
L.N. Smithee (d1de1b) — 4/23/2008 @ 10:12 amOkay, great…..
I think the superdelegates understand what it would mean for them to go against the pledged delegate count; a guaranteed victory for McCain in November and disastrous electoral consequences for years to come. If Democrats have proven anything over the last few years though, it’s that they’re incredibly naive, so I wouldn’t put it past them to not understand what it would mean to do such a thing, but I doubt it will happen that way.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 10:17 amCome on man, don’t you remember a few months ago when all the conservatives and all the Republicans were saying that they’d stay home or vote for Hillary over McCain? That’s almost entirely out the window at this point. You gotta give your nominee a little bit of time to consolidate, to show the people he beat why he’s the best. Hillary will be telling all of her people to vote for Obama if she loses, and vice versa, that should erase all these people that say they’d vote for McCain in an instant. The Democratic factions will merge way more easily than the varying Republican factions merged to support John McCain, mark my words. The country is in an anti-Republican mood, after all.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 10:23 amalgore won the popular vote. Bush stole the election. Selected, not elected !!!!
Levi – After getting his ass handed to him in yet another big state, another battleground state, what have you learned and what do you think Barcky’s campaign has learned that will help them succeed in the general, where they failed miserably in the primaries?
JD (5f0e11) — 4/23/2008 @ 10:27 amAnd what do you think going against the popular vote count does? What do you think disenfranchising Florida and Michigan does? Here’s the thing: all of their options are bad, because there will be no clear winner. Some group of Dems is going to feel screwed over, and the party is going to be running against the most liberal, unitey Republican we’ve seen in decades. This is what they have sewn and this is what they will reap. On the bright side, they’re going to have either the first woman or the first black guy to lose the general election.
Pablo (99243e) — 4/23/2008 @ 10:29 amSo, the pledged delegates are now the metric of the day for the Obamatrons. Pledged delegates are always more important to the Dems than the will of the people and/or the popular vote.
JD (5f0e11) — 4/23/2008 @ 10:31 amThis is a primary, this is not the general election. You’re not running against an opponent in a primary, you’re interviewing for the chance to. Everyone always expected Obama to lose PA, Obama expected to lose PA, but he did a pretty good job of muting the impact, which is a good lesson to learn, and one that Obama has demonstrated he’s learned over the course of the campaign. You have to identify the states you’re sure to win, the states you’re sure to lose, and the states where you have a chance. Obama’s camp always looked at PA as one they were sure to lose.
It’s not a miserable failure to lose all these big states if you’re still ahead by more than 100 hundred delegates with only 500 delegates remaining that you’re expected to get the bulk of.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 10:40 amAgain, the popular vote in these primaries is meaningless, and in a totally different way than how it is meaningless in the general. AGAIN, some states don’t hold votes. Some states only allow registered Democrats to vote, some allow independents, some allow whomever they want. That’s doesn’t produce a consistent, meaningful indication of the will of the people, do you think it does? I’m repeating myself at this point, do you still not understand how these things are different?
It’s not disenfranchisement. Where in the Constitution does it say we have the right to vote in primaries?
The clear winner will be the one with the most pledged delegates. Obama will be ahead by at least 100.
That’s your opinion, we’ll see. That’s why we have elections. I’m just saying, these polls that put McCain ahead don’t really reflect anything meaningful, as long as he’s matched up against uncertainty.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 10:49 amNo, that’s the metric of the Democratic primary process. The popular vote is still Obama’s anyway, even though it is an inconsistent and therefore meaningless tally, hardly a true reflection of the will of the people. Hillary would have won if we were going by popular vote from the beginning, but we’ve been going by pledged delegates from the beginning, that’s why they start in Iowa. You can’t just change the definition of winning in the waning days of a competition.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 10:54 amThe fact that I can make my point in fewer words than you, without resorting to frequent profanity, only proves that I’m by far the better thinker and writer.
Less is more, chump.
Steverino (6772c8) — 4/23/2008 @ 11:17 amLevi, you do know that the measure of vocabulary isn’t typing the same words again and again, right? Quality over quantity, pea brain.
Steverino (6772c8) — 4/23/2008 @ 11:21 amYou don’t make points. You wait for me to say something, then insult me with a sentence or two. You’re one of many people that do this. I’m waiting for most of you to make a compelling counter-argument to anything I say without spinning your wheels about swearing or my vocabulary.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 11:27 amPersonally, I’d prefer you just go back to spray painting graffiti on freeway signs, without having to make fun of you. But since you insist on spewing your ill-considered words here, I’ll continue to make fun of you as I see fit.
The fact is, I did in fact point out the fluidity of your position. Perhaps I didn’t put a fine enough point on it for you, but everyone else seems to have understood my point. So, I’ll break out the crayons and draw pictograms for you:
The other day, on another thread, you alleged that John McCain had cheated on his first wife, and that you didn’t think a President (or someone who aspires to be President) should do such a thing. Today, you expressed your liking for Bill Clinton, who as everyone knows, has cheated on Hillary with a veritable battalion of bimbos. It’s at best hypocritical of you to express such admiration for a philandering Democrat while decrying the unproven claims of infidelity against a Republican.
Do you grasp this point now? If not, I’ll have my friend’s 4 year old daughter try to explain it to you.
Steverino (6772c8) — 4/23/2008 @ 11:29 amWhat don’t you understand about “I don’t take Levi seriously”? It’s not worth my effort to debate with you, when I’ve seen you lie, cavil, and weasel on so many other threads. Why would I waste my time trying to debate someone who refuses to debate on honest terms? Why on earth do you expect me to show you any respect when you are incapable of respecting anyone else on the planet?
Steverino (6772c8) — 4/23/2008 @ 11:32 amTalk about repeating yourself, the only time you’ve posted in this thread is to insult me. I count 3 posts of yours beyond these most recent two, #70, #72, and #79, and in each you’re insulting and dismissing me. These are the ‘points’ you’re so proud of? I’m trying to debate a handful of people at a time, and you’re lobbing insults at me from afar, but never get your hands dirty. You’re a flak cannon.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 11:33 amWhere did I say that I think John McCain shouldn’t be the President because he cheated on his wife? I believe I was talking about why the media never asks him personal questions, but if you’ve got something that proves otherwise, I’d like to see it.
Because I don’t think adultery should automatically disqualify someone from being the President, any more than who someone’s pastor is should disqualify them from being the President. I was probably being really sarcastic, and I don’t expect you to understand the nuances of my argument, but here you go, unequivocally: I don’t care that McCain cheated on his wife, I don’t think that by itself should disqualify his candidacy.
Also, way to toss in ‘unproven.’ Like John and Cindy met, he got a divorce, and they were married within a few months. I’m sure they were just friends until the wedding night, is that what you believe?
Do you grasp that point now?
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 11:41 amPlease explain the different meaninglessnesses. And when you’re done, it still won’t matter. Selected, not elected. Google it.
Neither do delegates. See the vote vs delegate total in Texas.
The Constitution doesn’t say anything about disenfranchising voters either. And yet, we hear about it all the time. Why will this be any different?
No, a clear winner is the one who gets to 2025 first. Neither of them will until the SD’s select one of them. What rule book are you reading?
If those polls were McCain vs the unnamed Dem nominee, you’d have a point. They’re not and you don’t.
No, it’s Hillary’s as of PA.
Right. The definition of winning is 2025 pledged delegates.
Pablo (99243e) — 4/23/2008 @ 11:44 amYup, more of the same. I’m unworthy of redress because I’m an ignoramus. I’m debating you on honest terms about this McCain thing, right now, and it seems to me that I just handed you your ass. If anyone’s having a problem with honest debate, it’s you. Or your reading comprehension is shit, either way, you can’t keep up with me, that’s why you don’t even bother to try. You stand in the back of the crowd taking potshots, because you’re too afraid or stupid to go toe to toe with me.
‘Ugh, you swear, I can’t talk to you! Ugh, you make fun of Republicans, I can’t talk to you!’ Those are called excuses. The real reason you can’t talk to me is because you’re either to afraid to get beat or you’re too stupid to understand what’s going on.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 11:48 amLevi,
You hypocritical whiner! This is your “money quote” from #112: “You can’t just change the definition of winning in the waning days of a competition.” That is what you and every other “Sore Loserman” have been trying to do in FL 2000 to now. You move the goalposts and change the rules after the fact to steal victory.
PCD (5c49b0) — 4/23/2008 @ 11:50 amThe “Pissing Contest” nature of these threads becomes more apparent as they become more abundant.
Leviticus (b987b0) — 4/23/2008 @ 12:07 pmI’ve explained it three fucking times.
Did I say they did?
Google the 15th and 19th amendments, you fucking idiot. That’s some of the dumbest shit I’ve heard in my life.
The whole point is that no one is getting to 2025. It’s impossible. In the absence of someone attaining the goal, however, isn’t the clear winner the person that gets closest?
I see you’ve dutifully failed to respond to my in-depth explanation, about how McCain has had the advantage of rallying conservatives behind his banner, while neither of the Democrats have. Having fun debating yourself?
No news organizations have her ahead in the popular vote. Obama’s still up by about 300,000. You can count Florida and Michigan and she gets ahead, but nobody does that, because they were meaningless states that no one campaigned. Obama wasn’t even on the ballot in Michigan. You think we should count the 300,000 votes Hillary got in Michigan and the 0 that Obama got in the overall vote tally? Is that what you’re saying?
And someone is going to get that amount.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 12:09 pmPCD: That is what you and every other “Sore Loserman” have been trying to do in FL 2000 to now. You move the goalposts and change the rules after the fact to steal victory.
L.N. Smithee (b048eb) — 4/23/2008 @ 12:11 pm“Sore Loserman.” Ah, my meager contribution to American election history. 🙂
On the internet, anything is possible. Think that maybe Leev gets…(ahem)gratification…out of drawing so much negative attention to himself?
Perhaps he would enjoy Tom Lehrer’s “Masochism Tango,” which Pat posted a few weeks ago.
L.N. Smithee (b048eb) — 4/23/2008 @ 12:17 pmI do think the electoral college system is an out-of-date dinosaur, and this season we’ve seen the same kind of weakness in the Democratic primary process. They both need to be overhauled.
Regardless, people are upset about Florida because that idiot Secretary of State ‘accidentally’ purged thousands of people from the voter rolls because they thought they were convicts. 90% of them were not. More than half of them were minorities, the Democrats’ best constituency. In a race decided by 500 votes, where the co-chair of Bush’s Florida campaign who administers the elections in the state ‘accidentally’ denies the voting rights of thousands of people, people that are statistically more likely to vote Democrat, yeah, I think we have some legitimate complaints.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 12:22 pmJust theoretically, you wouldn’t complain about a Democrat winning by 500 votes in a state where the Secretary of State was an adamant supporter of the Democratic candidate and was making all kinds of ‘mistakes’ that just happen to specifically benefit the Democrat?
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 12:25 pmLevi:
I don’t understand why you said this. Someone will get to 2025, even if it takes a brokered convention, or the Democratic Party won’t have a nominee.
DRJ (a431ca) — 4/23/2008 @ 12:30 pmApparently not. You’ve only asserted it three fucking times.
Yes. You stated that the clear winner is the one with the most pledged delegates, despite the fact that the rules don’t say that at all. If they don’t reflect the will of the voters, why would they indicate a clear winner without the rules applying?
Read them yourself, you fucking idiot. “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” But there is no right that’s being denied or abridged here, is there, you blithering fool? Need I quote you saying that something like three fucking times?
Try reading your posts out loud.
Is that what the rules say? No. There’s your answer.
Your explanation is that Clinton and Obama haven’t had the advantage of rallying conservatives behind their banners? That is some of the dumbest shit I’ve ever heard. What about the Obamacons?!?eleventy!!
The SD’s will annoint someone with that amount…maybe. And when it plays out that way, the nominee will have been selected, not elected, by party elites. That is the reality whether you accept it or not.
Pablo (99243e) — 4/23/2008 @ 12:32 pmI’m not explaining it to you again. Go read back a ways and figure it the fuck out for yourself.
I never said anything like ‘pledged delegates reflect the true will of the people’ which is what you said I said.
Uh, what? I can’t even decipher what you’re trying to say… Those amendments protect the rights of everyone to vote, but not necessarily vote in a primary. The Democratic party’s nomination process isn’t beholden to the rules of the Constitution, neither is the Republican party’s, they could have a cage-fighting tournament to determine their candidate if they wanted.
I know you need 2025 to win. And someone will get that. Usually they do it by wrapping up all of the pledged delegates, but that’s not going to happen in this case. But whoever ends up with the most, that’s the person that the Democratic base and most Americans will consider the unofficial winner, and the superdelegates will have to give it to him. This is sort of an unprecedented thing we’re working through here, and I’m just going by what would be most fair within the confines of the rules of this ridiculous process.
And here you are dutifully misconstruing what I said. You’re 2 for 2.
Only if the superdelegates go against the pledged delegates. I don’t disagree with you that the entire concept of superdelegates is un-democratic, but if they end up agreeing with who the people chose, it’s not like they’re ‘selecting’ that person.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 12:50 pm128, Oh, Levi, you mean Washington State where the King County Democrats kept going back to a warehouse to print ballots to elect Gov. Gregoire?
Keep whining, Sore Loserman.
PCD (5c49b0) — 4/23/2008 @ 12:58 pmI’m talking about in terms of pledged delegates. In this unprecedentedly close primary race, no one is going to hit 2025 on pledged delegates alone, but whoever comes closest after all the primaries and caucuses are over, I will consider that person to be the clear winner, at least in terms of who the Democratic base wants as their nominee, won’t you? The superdelegates will have their say, but unless they want to alienate their entire base, they will fall in line with whoever has the most pledged delegates. This is just what I expect.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 1:01 pmOh, Levi, in #128, you perpetuate another lie. There were no “mistakes” in the count. Bush won and you lost, Sore Loserman. You tried to steal the election, got caught, and are suffering all sorts of mental illnesses because of it.
Too bad you are such a honorless, lying person. Someone may like you, but I doubt it.
In fact, you just bolster the preception that Democrats are ballot box stuffing louses who don’t know what a fair, honest vote is.
PCD (5c49b0) — 4/23/2008 @ 1:10 pmTwo wrongs don’t make a right. But whatever, what’s past is past. Though Katherine Harris is slated for a Benedict Arnold recollection in the history books for ‘accidentally’ enabling the shittiest President of all time, Gregoire is at least somewhat popular.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 1:14 pmOh, I’ve figured it out. You want it to be true, therefore it is, and anyone who doesn’t see it that way is a stupid fucking something or other. What you lack is a trail of reason to support your position, and that this doesn’t bother you at all says a lot about you. Several people have been telling you just this all along this thread and several others.
Answer my question: If they don’t reflect the will of the voters, why would they indicate a clear winner without the rules saying so?
Nor in the general POTUS election. All that says is that where you have a right to vote, it cannot be abridged for reasons X, Y or Z. What it does not say is that voters cannot be disenfranchised, like FL and MI voters are here, by the Democrat party.
Says who? The same people who consider Al Gore the rightful winner of the ’04 election? AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA! Memo to Levi: the SD’s don’t have to do a damned thing but vote.
The rules of this process allow the SD’s to do whatever they please, for whatever reason they please. They will select the nominee (assuming that they do it by the first ballot) and if I’m a Dem SD, my driving motivation would be beating McCain. Your thoughts on what I ought to do and why would be less than irrelevant to my decision making process.
And you can tell who the people chose by counting the votes, not the delegates. As of right now, that’s Hillary.
Pablo (99243e) — 4/23/2008 @ 1:17 pmBTW, you’ve denied saying that the delegate count doesn’t produce a consistent, meaningful indication of the will of the people. And then you just said this:
Because you can’t figure that out by counting the votes. Dummy.
Also, this is not unprecedented. FDR and Adlai Stevenson were nominated at brokered conventions.
Pablo (99243e) — 4/23/2008 @ 1:25 pmDid I say there were mistakes in the count?
Harris purged thousands of people from the voter rolls because she thought they were convicts. Except that most of the people weren’t convicts. And more than half of them were minorities. The government of Florida acknowledges this, and even if it was an honest mistake, it was a mistake that cost Gore the win.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 1:26 pmAll right, you stupid mother fucker, here’s every where that I’ve explained it:
#95
#111
Get it? People are complaining of my so-called limited vocabulary, maybe it’s because I have to explain everything twice?
Great, now I have to answer questions about something I never said. While I don’t think a delegate system is a truly accurate reflection of the will of the people, it is at least a semi-consistent system from state-to-state, and thusly more accurate a reflection than the popular vote, which AGAIN, arbitrarily prohibits and allows different people to vote in each states’ respective election, if they even hold an election at all.
FL and MI voters still had the chance to vote, there weren’t Democrats telling them that they couldn’t vote, they told them that because their government broke the rules of the party, their votes won’t matter, which they have a right to say. The Constitution protects people from being denied the opportunity to vote, but the rules of the Democratic party dictate which of those votes they feel like counting.
??? You don’t think that if Obama is still beating Hillary in pledged delegates and the meaningless popular vote after 50+ primaries, that means he beat her? I know the SD’s (ugh, way better than typing out the whole word) don’t have to vote any specific way, but it’s political suicide for the party to go against the unofficial winner. I know how this system the Democrats have in place is supposed to work, I’m talking about how it will work, at least how I expect it to work, in this uniquely close primary season.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 1:45 pmMan, Levi with his fallacious hyperbolic drivel is driving away regular moonbat visitors with whom it is actually worthwhile to have a dialogue.
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/23/2008 @ 1:53 pmLevi wrote: Just theoretically, you wouldn’t complain about a Democrat winning by 500 votes in a state where the Secretary of State was an adamant supporter of the Democratic candidate and was making all kinds of ‘mistakes’ that just happen to specifically benefit the Democrat?
“Complain?” It would depend on whether or not the “mistakes” were indicative of a conspiracy, or if it could be chalked up to the normal complicated process of trying to manage a general election in a large state. The only conspiracy that I saw in Florida was the state’s Supreme Court justices – all appointed by a Democrat governor – trying to force the Secretary of State to violate the law they were all sworn to uphold.
I’ll never forget that night when, in front of a worldwide audience, Katherine Harris — expected to cave under political pressure, personal attacks, and slander — instead strode confidently before the blinding lights of the cameras and said the following:
I’m sure most conservatives expected the newly in-charge GOP to have the intestinal fortitude of Katherine Harris that night. If only.
L.N. Smithee (b048eb) — 4/23/2008 @ 1:54 pmOh, goody. Asserting again. And now it’s “motherfucker”. Nice work, dickface.
Right. The Democrat party to those voters: “Your votes will not be counted.” That is textbook disenfranchisement.
Right, so falling on the Constitution to validate disenfranchisement is a foolhardy argument. It isn’t illegal, but it’s politically nasty. It’s ethically skeevy and it’s no way to garner support for your candidates. It’s a flaming bag of poo that the Democrat party lit afire and placed on it’s own doorstep. And now they’ve got to stomp it out.
Political suicide will be losing to John McCain.
Pablo (99243e) — 4/23/2008 @ 1:56 pmOkay dude, first of all, I’ve walked you through it now at least like 10 times, the popular vote is wholly meaningless. That isn’t what we’re playing the game for. Do you realize this? Why isn’t there a popular vote threshold if the popular vote is what matters? Why isn’t there a normalized, consistent system in place if the popular vote is what matters? Why do we start the campaign season in Iowa, where nobody receives any votes, if the popular vote is what matters? Why does the media spend all its time talking about delegates if the popular vote is what matters?
Second of all, Obama is still leading this meaningless popular vote, unless you count Michigan, where he wasn’t on the ballot, and therefore never had an opportunity to deflect even one of the 300,000 votes that Hillary picked up in the state to add to her meaningless popular vote total. Even if you count Florida, which we shouldn’t because Clinton could have coasted on name recognition in a state where nobody campaigned, Obama is still ahead by more than 100,000 votes in this meaningless tally. So the only way that Hillary is truly ahead is if you count the the 300,000 unanswered votes Hillary picked up in Michigan. You think that’s a fair standard?
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 1:57 pmWell, the bitch was made the chair of Bush’s campaign in the Florida election and she was responsible for administering the election. You think it’s sheer coincidence that this happened? Even if I grant you the benefit of the doubt, and say that it wasn’t a conspiracy, I still have every right to complain about someone fucking up so badly that the results of an election are swayed, don’t I?
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 2:02 pmI’ll take that as a, ‘Oh, yeah, you’re right.’
They’re under no obligation to count those votes, and it’s therefore not disenfranchisement.
I don’t disagree that this whole thing is a clusterfuck. I have sympathy for the people of Florida and Michigan, but what’s to be done? No other states broke the rules, we’ve already decided we can’t have a do-over, the best we can hope for is that they revamp the system. People might be getting screwed, but they’re not getting disenfranchised.
Yeah okay.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 2:09 pmNo state has any obligation to play by any political party’s rules. Both Michigan and Florida can pass a law that says “if our delegates are not seated at the respective conventions, the candidates on our ballots in November will be the winners of our primaries”.
nk (35ac33) — 4/23/2008 @ 2:13 pmah, if only Levi was grounded in reality.
G (722480) — 4/23/2008 @ 2:15 pmYou mean that non-person from a mythical universe?
Another Drew (f9dd2c) — 4/23/2008 @ 2:17 pmAs is the delegate count short of 2025.
Are you trying to say that caucus goers aren’t counted, Levi?
That’s because you’re not very bright.
Disenfranchisement is not necessarily illegal. Once again, you are mistaken.
At this point? Nothing. The party is fucked and the SD’s probably wish they weren’t SD’s. There is no good outcome for them here, only a less worse one.
Oh, yes they are.
Pablo (99243e) — 4/23/2008 @ 2:18 pmLevi wrote: I still have every right to complain about someone fucking up so badly that the results of an election are swayed, don’t I?
This is America, Leev. You have the right to whine and moan and spit and curse as much as you want about it.
And, as we Patterico fans know, you do.
But in the words of the Democratic Senator of the great state of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan: “You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.”
L.N. Smithee (b048eb) — 4/23/2008 @ 2:18 pmThat wouldn’t even make any sense. Michigan didn’t even have a real primary. But hey, they could do it, especially if everyone in the government wanted to be voted out of office. Let’s see the governor of Michigan tell all the Democrats in the state that they can’t vote for Barack Obama in a general election, let’s just see that happen.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 2:19 pmWe all know this. They need 2025. But no one is going to get that in pledged delegates. They will need the SD’s. The SD’s are going to have to go with whomever is closest to 2025 in pledged delegates if they expect to not anger tens of millions of Democrats. There is no way that I will vote for Hillary Clinton if she earns fewer delegates but the SD’s give her the nomination. Nor will lots of people.
Pledged delegates is all that matters. I’ve read the fucking rulebook, but you have to consider the real world and the political climate. Can you say record-settingly low black voter turnout?
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 2:28 pmNo, one time I posted to point out your hypocrisy. And I didn’t repeat myself, you just confused DRJ’s posts and mine.
I’ve made other points in other threads against your blather, and your response was to (a) deny that you had said what you clearly did say or (b) dismiss proof of your error because it didn’t count for some reason or other. After that, I concluded that you are not interested in honest, rational debate; you are here only to call other people names. If that’s dismissive, well, buckaroo, you’ve earned the dismissal.
No, that’s not what I said. (See, this is an example of you distorting facts.) You’re not worthy of my time because your behavior across so many threads has shown you won’t argue honestly. And you used “redress” incorrectly, oh you with the mighty vocabulary.
See, there’s another of your troubles: self delusion. You think you’ve handed me my ass, but you haven’t come close.
What I believe is immaterial if there are facts in evidence. Since you offered no proof of your claim that McCain cheated on his wife, it’s “unproven”. That’s what the word means, but you’d know that if your vocabulary were as powerful as you claim.
Yet another example of your constant use of ad hominem. I’ve engaged other posters on this site in honest debate before, because they show respect for those with whom they disagree. Further, when shown to be wrong, they admit it and move on. You do nothing of the sort, and when someone doesn’t want to play your game, you call them stupid. In a battle of intellect, I would beat you like a rented mule. But I’ll save my energies for someone worthy of my respect.
You are incapable of expressing the simplest idea without calling your adversaries names. I could get the same level of debate from a pack of kindergarten students.
Steverino (6772c8) — 4/23/2008 @ 2:29 pmHonest debate, you ready? All that other shit is getting tossed aside, and we’re going to have an honest debate about this, a fresh start. We can’t go back and forth about what I said and what you said in other threads, that’s not going to get us anywhere. I’d love to be the person you’re interested in talking to, that’s why I come here, to talk to you people, and I wouldn’t mind giving you a little respect if you can earn it. So let’s see how this goes.
John McCain probably cheated on his wife. Can you grant me that? He meets Cindy in 1979, divorces his wife in Feb. of 1980, and he gets married May of 1980. However you want to define adultery, he probably committed it. Probably. I certainly don’t have any proof, but let’s get real. Those two boned and you know it.
The point is, since it’s exceedingly likely that John McCain cheated on his wife, and since he’s courting a conservative electorate that purports to greatly value the sanctity of marriage, and since character is some big issue this year as evidenced by the media doggedly asking Obama questions about Rev. Wright, shouldn’t we be asking John McCain things like, ‘Did you cheat on your wife, and if so, why?’
Now I don’t really think we need to be asking McCain things like that, I’m playing devil’s advocate to illustrate the glaring double standard that is being applied disproportionately to Obama’s character and no one else’s. You asserted my position to be:
The other day, on another thread, you alleged that John McCain had cheated on his first wife, and that you didn’t think a President (or someone who aspires to be President) should do such a thing.
which isn’t right at all. Now if I admit that I probably used the word ‘redress’ incorrectly, would you admit that you’re wrong about that? Then we can have an honest debate about hypocrisy and why McCain gets a pass on the ‘character’ issue while Obama gets hammered on it.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 3:12 pmDid you completely miss the NYT piece on McCain and Vicki Iseman?
Pablo (99243e) — 4/23/2008 @ 3:18 pmYou are the king of self-contradiction. You admit don’t have any proof, but you say “those two boned and you know it”.
I’m done here. You’re not worth the keystrokes.
Steverino (6772c8) — 4/23/2008 @ 3:27 pmThat proves my point. That was off the radar by the weekend. Do you know what ‘disproportionately’ means?
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 3:29 pmHah! So much for all that ‘honest debate’ stuff. I knew you were full of shit. Go stand in the back, where the cowards belong, lobbing your rocks. I won’t miss you, and your rocks don’t hurt.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 3:31 pmLevi:
I don’t see a material difference between that and what will happen if the superdelegates pick Hillary.
DRJ (a431ca) — 4/23/2008 @ 3:34 pmThere wouldn’t be.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 3:38 pmWe won’t miss your filthy mouth, Levi.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/23/2008 @ 3:41 pmNo, it wasn’t. Except that the story morphed into what an idiotic blunder it was by the NYT to put such a piece of crap story on the front page. See the NYT Public Editor. The only reason it’s off the radar now is because there was nothing to it, not for a lack of trying.
Pablo (99243e) — 4/23/2008 @ 3:45 pmSee, that’s an entirely valid point and yet you refuse to recognize it. Very telling.
Pablo (99243e) — 4/23/2008 @ 3:51 pmWhich further proves my point. Republicans can completely sidestep all of these petty, meaningless character attacks because there’s not a liberal media element that refreshes the stories on an hourly basis. Republicans have that echo chamber in talk radio and Fox News, and that’s why Obama is bogged down in pointless Rev. Wright and flap pin questions.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 4:10 pmWhat’s a valid point? I can not have proof of something but know that it happened. I know you’ve shit your pants in your lifetime, I don’t have the poopy diapers to prove it, but I know you did it.
Anyone that thinks John McCain didn’t cheat on his wife with Cindy, whom he married a scant 3 months after getting a divorce, is just being obtuse. What do you think happened?
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 4:16 pmPeople are interested in Wright and not in Iseman. McCain didn’t sidestep it, he called a press conference to address it. He took questions and he answered them. He put it to bed, because there was nothing there. Whereas Obama tried to sidestep Wright with “crazy old uncle” and “I already answered like 8 questions!” It just didn’t work. And it wasn’t talk radio and Fox News that broke that, it was ABC.
Pablo (99243e) — 4/23/2008 @ 4:17 pmIt’s called “serial monogamy”; see: Liz Taylor.
Another Drew (f9dd2c) — 4/23/2008 @ 4:17 pmNo, you can’t. You can assume all you like, but you cannot know.
Pablo (99243e) — 4/23/2008 @ 4:19 pmIt could be that McCain divorced his first wife mainly because Cindy wouldn’t sleep with him otherwise. (See Satellites, Georgia)
I don’t know, and neither do you.
Pablo (99243e) — 4/23/2008 @ 4:22 pmAnd this proves my point further still. I have to sift through all these sentences suggesting that Obama is a racist, America-hating terrorist-coddler, based on nothing at all, and I can’t even assume McCain cheated on his wife. You’re allowed to assume you know everything about the inner-workings of Obama’s psyche, I’m not even allowed to read the writing on the wall.
Double standards……
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 4:25 pmLevi claims that the clear winner is the one with the most pledged delegates. The DNC disagrees with you, as it takes 2025 to be the winner. 2017 does not cut it. This is not the Price is Right. Closest without going over does not win.
Guys, Levi is nuanced, nuanced I tell you. Fuck Chimpy Bush war for oil and blood and recession and Bitch and fucker are all just nuancy ways of saying things.
BTW, Levi, Iowa and New Hampshire broke the same rules as Michigan and Florida. When are you going to call for them to be disenfranchised too?
JD (5f0e11) — 4/23/2008 @ 4:25 pmI didn’t mean McCain dodged it, I just meant that this sort of thing doesn’t stick to Republicans. Obama addressed the Rev. Wright questions. He called a press conference, too, he wrote a speech, and yeah, I’m gonna go ahead and repeat that, because it’s one of the most unique things in Presidential politics, he wrote a speech, and delivered it. He’s answered question after question about it, for months. There’s nothing left to explore about it, just look how Stephanopolous was phrasing those questions: “Do you think Rev. Wright loves the country as much as you do?” If that’s not an indicator that this hasn’t been hammered to death, and we’re now at the point where we’re just asking Obama questions about Rev. Wright in the hope that he trips up, then I don’t know what is.
And it doesn’t matter who breaks stories anymore. It matters who’s got the echo chamber. The Republicans have the echo chamber.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 4:32 pmYou’re kidding, right? You must be kidding. There are too many examples to list, but people are still bringing up Pat Robertson’s 9/11 comments, and trying to link them to McCain.
Speech, yes. Press conference, no. When he did find himself being asked by the press it was “I already answered like 8 questions!” And the speech only came when he saw his numbers tanking.
Really? Because I’d like to hear his views on Black Liberation theology, seeing that he’s a 20 year member of a church that preaches it. He’s never so much as mentioned it.
Define echo chamber. How does that work and how do we know the Republicans have it? If it’s Fox and talk radio, how is anyone but Republicans affected by it? Where do Olbermann and HuffPo and Air America fit in?
Pablo (99243e) — 4/23/2008 @ 4:41 pmThat wouldn’t make them the clear winner of the nomination, no. But in terms of the competition between Hillary and Obama, before you factor in the SD’s, yes, whoever is ahead in pledged delegates is obviously the clear winner of that competition.
I can’t believe how many times I’ve had to repeat this same thing at this point. I know what the fucking rules are, okay? I know the Democratic nomination requires 2025 votes. I am talking about how they are going to get there in the real fucking world. Do you still not understand this?
I think the whole process needs to be totally fucking scrapped and replaced, is that a good enough ‘call’ for you?
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 4:47 pmLet me get this straight … Levi is worked up because a complete fabrication about McCain did not get as much play as the truth about Baracky? And somehow that proves the media is right wing?
JD (5f0e11) — 4/23/2008 @ 4:51 pmThat was no answer. Why selective application of the rules? Why penalize MI and FL but not IA and NH ?
Close but not quite is not enough to win, unless you can show us where that is accounted for in the rule book.
If the SD’s are just supposed to act as a function of pledged delegates, what is their purpose? Go do a little studying about your own party, and get back to us. Now, run along …
JD (5f0e11) — 4/23/2008 @ 5:01 pm‘Too many examples to list,’ well, ain’t that convenient for you. Why don’t you try?
What the fuck are you talking about? What questions about Rev. Wright has Obama not answered if we’re now down to the ‘Do you think Rev. Wright loves the country as much as you do?’ level?
Well great, and I want to know whether or not John McCain fucked Cindy from behind when he was cheating on his wife or if he’s just too old to do anything but missionary. Both of those things have equally little to do with being President.
Olbermann is always beaten by Fox News, Air America is always crushed by Limbaugh & The Gang. Fox and Limbaugh command huge audiences, and the mainstream media tries to leech off those audiences by covering whatever they’re prattering endlessly about. Then the echo chamber can point to the media’s coverage as justification and legitimization of the story.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/23/2008 @ 5:02 pmAnd as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, they are going to get there by being annointed by the SD’s. They’re going to get there by selection, not election. Do you still not understand this?
BTW,
I said quite specifically that “you can assume all you like…” Did you not read what I wrote or are you just pretending that I said something else for effect? You quoted me saying it, so what’s the deal here?
Pablo (99243e) — 4/23/2008 @ 5:07 pmLet me get this straight … Levi is worked up because a complete fabrication about McCain did not get as much play as the truth about Baracky? And somehow that proves the media is right wing?
No, JD. If only it were that simple. In LeviWorld, a lifetime spent in devotion to marxist inspired black liberation theo-politics, the lionizing of Farrakhan, sitting at the knee of “Frank” the CPUSA member, seeking out the most radical leftist professors, embracing Hamas and Pro-Palestinian propagandists, …are “distractions” along the same lines as a totally fabricated story by the leftist NYTimes, (a deadwood media shill for the Demorcratic party’s far left reaches) about Sen. McCain’s non-affair with a lobbyist.
In the former, we see a lifelong attraction to angry and hostile, anti-American, anti-white people, anti-Israel worldviews…based upon the very words of the candidate himself, his deeds, his actions, his beliefs.
In the latter, we see an attempted smear job
of a candidate based upon triple level hearsay and innuendo.
This are of equal weight and value in Levi’s value system…because in LeviWorld, all “you” conservative Republicans are (fill in the blank with cursing, puerile ranting, ad hominem attacks and non sequitors)
cfbleachers (4040c7) — 4/23/2008 @ 5:09 pm“this are” should read “these are”, of course.
cfbleachers (4040c7) — 4/23/2008 @ 5:11 pmLevi’s filthy mouth is only getting more filthy. While I greatly enjoy ridiculing his purile “arguments”, having him pollute each thread with his profane and obscene commentary is getting more than I’m interested in.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/23/2008 @ 5:12 pmLarry Craig, David Vitter, Mark Foley, Bob Barr, Jeff Gannon, Rudy Giuliani, Matt Sanchez, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Jack Ryan, Ahnold…
And that’s just a handful of the sex scandals. You’re kidding, right?
Well, there’s the one you quote right after you wrote this line.
You think so? I don’t. I think one’s theology and value system have far more to do with how they’ll act as a leader than where they’ve put their dick. Bill Clinton, remember?
Ah, so it’s a matter of who succeeds in the marketplace then? But Fox is only one channel.
Pablo (99243e) — 4/23/2008 @ 5:17 pmLevi wrote:
You’re unbelievable, but that’s belaboring the obvious.
You are engaging in what is known as “grasping at straws.” I’d like you to try to make a case in which it is any business of the electorate if McCain cheated on his 2nd wife with his third. IMHO, there is only one instance in which such a question should be asked during a Presidential campaign: If there is an actual accuser with credibility, as there was of Bill Clinton in 1992, long having rumored to have been a philanderer. (You ARE old enough to remember Gennifer Flowers, aren’t you, Leev?)
The MSM scrambled to find a way to accuse George H.W. Bush of adultery. In 1992, Hillary, doing damage control after Slick admitted to messing around on 60 Minutes, agreed to a interview with feminist writer Gail Sheehy in Vanity Fair. She made a flip reference to “Bush’s Jennifer,” whom she said was well-known in D.C. circles.
There was just one problem: There were no witnesses to any H.W. affair with “Jennifer.” The closest anyone ever came to an eyewitness was someone who said she was told by a third party. What about the third party? Could they have gotten his confirmation?
No. He was kinda…dead.
Earlier this year, The New York Times attempted to do to McCain what you are doing: Report hard facts, but then nudge readers to fill in the unknown with their worst speculative suspicions.
To my knowledge, nobody has inquired as to the mating dance of Barack and Michelle. A felon’s completely baseless accusations of a sleazy drug-fueled encounter with Obama is rightly being ignored by the media and even, for the most part, the right-wing alternative media.
Throughout his emergence into national and international prominence, Obama has credited his “spiritual mentor” with much of his success. But all of a sudden, the man that helped make Barack the man so many think can change the world is staying out of sight and keeping his mouth shut, and Obama’s shutting his mouth about him too. It appears there are things about Wright’s character — and his own — that he doesn’t want revealed.
The job’s too important for people to say, “I don’t want to go there.”
L.N. Smithee (b048eb) — 4/23/2008 @ 5:24 pmThis is a normal brain.
Pablo:
This is a brain on Obama:
Levi:
Any questions?
L.N. Smithee (b048eb) — 4/23/2008 @ 5:38 pm“The same people who consider Al Gore the rightful winner of the ‘04 election?”
– Pablo
Do you mean the ’00 election, or am I missing something? I don’t think anyone considers Gore the rightful winner of the ’04 elections…
Leviticus (84c147) — 4/23/2008 @ 6:25 pmAh, yes. I do mean ’00. You are correct.
Pablo (99243e) — 4/23/2008 @ 6:37 pmThought I’d run this again since Flaming Retard Boy ignored it before:
Levi #60: Nothing like playing fair, eh? You can’t beat a candidate on his merits, so you try to prevent the possibility that you have to run against him. Way to play the game in the most cowardly way imaginable!
Hey Levi:
What were the circumstances of Obama’s nomination when he first ran for Illinois State Legislature?
Nothing like playing fair, eh? You can’t beat a candidate on his merits, so you try to prevent the possibility that you have to run against him. Way to play the game in the most cowardly way imaginable!
What were the circumstances of Obama’s run for US Senate?
The article negects to mention that the judge on the case released the records despite Jeri Ryan’s repeated requests not to do so. Why do you think that was so?
Nothing like playing fair, eh? You can’t beat a candidate on his merits, so you try to prevent the possibility that you have to run against him. Way to play the game in the most cowardly way imaginable!
You gonna respond to this, buddy boy?
Or are you afraid I’m gonna carve your ass like a Memorial Day pig roast yet again?
Paul (4ca58a) — 4/23/2008 @ 8:37 pmSore Loserman Levi,
Why did Gore send so many lawyers to FL in 2000 before the vote results were even announced? Because he planned to steal the election from the get-go. You don’t have hundreds of lawyers armed with multipage documents on challenging military votes if you don’t intend on not only disenfranchising military voters, but anyone else you perceive as voting against you.
You are a pathetic partisan with a weak mind.
PCD (5c49b0) — 4/24/2008 @ 5:22 amHere’s an interesting set of graphs and data from a generally left leaning site, using Monte Carlo simulations, that illustrate Obama’s fading performance this year relative to McCain once people started asking questions about his background:
http://hominidviews.com/?p=1477
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/24/2008 @ 8:34 am