The late and unlamented

Submitted by Simon on Thu, 04/24/2008 - 8:17pm

Slate submits that "It is time for Barack Obama to drop out. ... [I]f he’s really serious about representing a new kind of politics, now is the time for him to prove it in the only meaningful way left." I only differ in that Slate thinks that this guarantees him the Presidency in 2012, which is kind of like all those columns you saw back in 2004 saying how Edwards was a shoo-in for the Democratic nomination in 2008.

Added: "Of all the things Hillary has done, Obama supporters find her tendency to win large elections in swing states as by far the most irritating. If she beats him in Indiana, they’ll be surrounding her house with torches."

Attachment	Size
hrc.jpg	61.98 KB

Simon's blog

Add new comment

865 reads

2008 Election

Not going to happen

Submitted by Maxtrue on Thu, 04/24/2008 - 9:01pm.

I agree. Obama should drop out. It would give him time to build a record that puts some distance between him and the history he has created. He would have to earn his run in 2012 and work hard with Hillary to formulate a centrist thrust.

Certainly, his NeoLiberal thrust is far from the leaders he talked about after his loss in Pennsylvania. It is one thing to offer avenues to regimes we don't like, to talk to us. But this is just the kind of activity that needs sharp lines. Talking did little to blunt Syria's plans.

Justin talked earlier about Reagan making the case for Republican principles (I assume he meant conservative principles). In fact, Reagan success was due to his plotting a centrist line once in power. Conservative principles did not make the world safer, centrist ones did. The idea that Obama can pull a Reagan in reverse is unsupported. Sure, more foreign aid, healthcare reform, curbing capitalistic abuses can help our efforts, but the defense of Liberal Democracy is not advanced by Vietnam Syndromes, gross redistributing of wealth, bloated government or giving a stage to those who see America as the world's biggest problem. Jefferson thought we should agressively promote our ideals and Lincoln was in the front lines on civil rights. Speeches don't make an administration, policies do.

My objections to McPeak, Zbig, Rice, Power and Malley do not come from conservative inclinations. Wrong ideas at the wrong time. My objections to Wright, Davis, Lee, Khadili, Ayers, Rezko, Auchi, Meeks do not come from conservative ideals. These friendships simply plot an affinity to the Far Left at the moment America should move center. When Obama says he has uniquely brought Republicans, Democrats and Independents together, he is being quite disingenuous. He has in fact, united white wealthy Liberals with some of the mainstream Liberals while silencing the votes of Michigan and Florida. McCain knows this, which is why he says Hillary would be a tougher opponent. He's right and he's being far more honest than Obama.

We are at a critical time and our weakness is a preception we must fix as we repair the internal problems. Reagan's thrust was confidence. Obama is not confident in much other than his personal charm. Many say he gives a good speech, but not at the level of MLK or even JFK. Reagan was more sincere and Bill Clinton more assuring. Obama's foreign policy take does not inspire confidence. He has tried to make NeoLiberalism sound acceptable and reasonable. He has trashed New Democrats and tries to paint McCain as McBush. Not what I would call high-minded tact including the race card and personal attacks coming from his Obamniacs. His best bet is to return to his original claim and take the road less traveled. He can humbly step down and build a new credential of centrism showing people in fact, he is a uniter. He will have years to untarnish his image. He can promote negotiations while Hillary touts a big stick and brings in Republican help. Alone, with Pelosi and company providing cover as the character attacks continue, Obama in Chief will likely produce a terrible Carter-like era. That's my take for what it is worth.

P.S. Don't count on Obama to think outside the box. I don't believe he has it in his nature to pull out so close to a dubious victory and his wife would kick his ass. That puts off her aspirations until 2020.

Speaking as someone who wouldn't vote for him

Submitted by c3 on Thu, 04/24/2008 - 10:37pm.

My opinion of him would significantly drop if he dropped out. If you believe firmly that you can make a difference then press on! Or put in the male vernacular "show some cajones"!

the demonstration of a new kind of politics will be as much if not more in what you do IN OFFICE. You can't do that if you drop out. Gosh, its strange for me to say it because I won't vote for him but "Barry stay in the fight"

Chris

Speaking as one who might vote for him, I have to agree.

Submitted by Rafique on Thu, 04/24/2008 - 11:03pm.

Dropping out would be the ultimate act of political cowardice. I fail to see how dropping out helps Obama prove he's serious about changing politics. Like I said before, calls for withdrawal by either candidate at this point are premature.

UPDATE: I read the article. It's so cynical, I'm wondering if it's satire:

Losing the presidency again after eight years of Bush will ruin the Democratic Party. It will become obvious that Clinton?s decision to stay in the race was the turning point in the election. The base will turn its wrath on party leaders like Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi, who failed to push Clinton out. Obama, as the de facto head of the party, will broker negotiations to install new leaders loyal to him.

Yeah, so Obama drops out early in order to maximize his political chances, allows what he, along with his supporters believe to be a bad result to take place just so he has a better shot at McCain in 2012. Ridiculous. That's not new politics, that's old style, all the way.

"In the world you will find tribulation, but be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world."

John 16:33

utterly moronic trolling

Submitted by bucyrus on Fri, 04/25/2008 - 7:05am.

ROTFLM effing AO.

Yes, and George Bush should grow a beard and go vegetarian. And Al Gore should admit he's exagerrated the threat of global warming and come out in favor of increased oil drilling in wildlife preserves. And Ralph Nader should start saying what fine products american car makers are producing, and point out how corporations worldwide stir the economic drink and generate most of the increases in our standards of living.

Who's holding their breath? Anyone...Bueller...?

Slate is playing an idiot game by shopping such outrageous things to attract buggy eyeballs.

Let's face it. The support shown Obama so far is the crashingly obvious reason why he should and will stay in..because the majority so far PREFERS him.

Slate's blathering is no more or less than a blatant attempt to provoke, known in the blogosphere as trolling. The frontrunner, ahead by a formidable margin given the time and delegates remaining, isn't going to drop out.

So for those who choose to take that bait anyway, as though Slate matters or this opinion matters, have a ball, folks. I'm out.
__________
I have often said, and oftener think, that this world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel. -Horace Walpole

because the majority so far

Submitted by Simon on Fri, 04/25/2008 - 7:46am.

because the majority so far PREFERS him.

Not so: after PA, Clinton has collected more votes than Obama. True, not all of them count towards pledged delegates, but if the standard is what the majority prefers, Obama is losing, albeit narrowly. Lucky for him, what the majority prefers isn't what will net him the nomination vel non!

That depends, Simon... only if you count Michigan

Submitted by Pat on Fri, 04/25/2008 - 9:01am.

Simon, Clinton only has more popular votes than Obama if you count Michigan, according to Real Clear Politics. And you simply can't count Michigan for purpose of claiming who has the most popular votes. If you were to add in the "uncommitted" votes to Obama's total for Michigan, then you might approach some rough estimate for popular vote breakdown there, but that wouldn't give Hillary the popular vote lead.

Fair point - I'm counting

Submitted by Simon on Fri, 04/25/2008 - 9:18am.

Fair point - I'm counting Florida, but I agree you can't count Michigan because Obama wasn't on the ballot. Factoring in just Florida, Obama's popular vote lead shrinks from 1.7% - hardly brobdignagian itself - to only 0.7%. Although Obama's leading, he's hardly the runaway winner posessed of a commanding lead that one would infer from the way his supporters speak of Clinton.

I don't agree at all

Submitted by Tully on Fri, 04/25/2008 - 9:57am.

I agree you can't count Michigan because Obama wasn't on the ballot.

I don't agree at all. If you take your name off of the ballot--as Obama did in MI--you forfeit the right to bitch that you got no votes there. It's like complaining you never got a paycheck from a job you never showed up for, and therefore the workers that did show up for that job shouldn't get paid!

Of course, even if FL & MI were counted at full, it would just mean that the current delegate-count and popular-vote positions would be reversed. It'd still be neck and neck, and the nomination would still be in the hands of the superdelegates. The real damage from FL & MI is not just the increase in party infighting, but the reduced enthusiasm for the losing Dem candidate in those states in the general--you know, the guy who obstructed ALL efforts to let those voters have a say in the nomination?

Between them FL & MI are 44 EC votes. Michigan in particular has been increasingly competitive. It was solidly red for years, but was split by the Perot effect in '92 and stayed with B. Clinton in '96 at a slightly lower blue margin. But it was back within a 5 pt spread in 2000, and within 4 in 2004.

Bitter gun-clingy religion-blinded Pennsylvania shows the same pattern but even tighter margins, with 4 pts spread in 2000 and 2 pts in 2004. Starting with the 2004 map, McCain could afford to swap Ohio for either Pennsylvania or Michigan and still win. A win in Ohio plus either one of those states, and he could give away Florida and still win.

And they wonder why Republicans are cheering on Obama.

maybe for purposes of official tallies

Submitted by bucyrus on Fri, 04/25/2008 - 10:44am.

Maybe for purposes of official tallies, Tully. But if you're trying to decant out what folks prefer, which is what I said that started this, then you have to concede that the official results in Michigan simply don't speak to who they prefer, or by what actual extent.

Further, Obama has maintained a pretty steady lead in national polls for some time now. On balance, reading all the tea leaves, Obama is slightly preferred over Clinton. I think that's pretty close to objectively true.

I still think that the current delegate count, composed of the votes that have been declared to count plus the known count of pledged superdelegates is the best available official proxy for who is currently preferred. By various measures, it is obviously close, but nothing puts Hillary ahead without engaging in special pleading. And I know that some of the folks here are interested in fanning the flames with special pleading,.

Which would include denying that's what they are doing. :-)

It's close, and Obama is ahead by the vast majority of measures. Period.Butbutbutbutbut all you want.

__________
I have often said, and oftener think, that this world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel. -Horace Walpole

I'm with Brian...

Submitted by Pat on Fri, 04/25/2008 - 11:22am.

It's not about fault or blame or anything like that. If it were, than Tully's point would be apropos.

But the fundamental argument being made by Hillary to count Michigan is to show that she has "more votes" than Obama. That's an argument to moral authority, a claim that regardless of the rules, more voters picked her than picked him. But being based on equity, as it were, rather than on law, the argument has moral weight only to the extent that those votes actually reflect public opinion. It is simply 100% false, in that context, to say that Michigan voters prefer Hillary to Obama 328,309 votes to 0. That carries no moral credibility.

Has anyone been able to

Submitted by C Stanley on Fri, 04/25/2008 - 11:24am.

Has anyone been able to calculate where the national standings are in head to head electoral college counts? Because as bucyrus notes, I think it's correct to say that Obama has the lead in popular vote and in a number of other metrics, but unfortunately none of that will matter if he can't lead in the one metric that actually counts.

I played around a bit with the map on this site:
www.270towin.com

But haven't had time to really dig into each of the states that's really in play to see whether Hillary or Obama fares better against McCain- and even if I did attempt it, I don't think I have adequate political insight to know which of those states are most seriously in play. Obviously FL and OH are biggies, but what other '04 red states could flip to blue? VA maybe? And are there any that Obama might flip which Hillary doesn't? And even if they both have a shot at flipping certain states, do they both do equally well in holding the blue states, or does McCain have a chance to recolor the map as well if he's opposed by one of them but not by the other?

I'd have to assume that if Obama was doing as well or better than Hillary in the national electoral matchups (not national popular vote in general, which doesn't mean squat unless the Dems want to repeat '00), then this would all be over by now. It seems to me that this must be what the superdelegates are still watching, to see if Hillary really does have a case for electability over him.

Those are the right questions...

Submitted by Tully on Fri, 04/25/2008 - 12:09pm.

REALITY: The relevant metrics are reaching the delegate gate before Denver--which can't be done without the superdelegates--and the electoral college count in the general. The smoke-filled back room comes into its own this year for the first one. The arguments to the supers for their votes will include the EC angle. There, it's not just which red states could flip to blue, but which blue states could flip to red.

Obama got creamed by Clinton in California, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Florida is very much in play if Clinton is the nominee, but not at all if Obama is. Michigan is in play for McCain if Obama is the nominee, but probably not if Clinton is. Likewise Pennsylvania now. And even California and New Jersey are possibles for McCain IF Obama is the opponent--but not really if Clinton is. While it's only 4 EC votes, New Hampshire is definitely in play if it's Clinton/McCain, but it's all GOP if the race is Obama/McCain.

In popular vote measures, Obama's primary numbers are shored up by huge turnouts in states that ARE going to stay red in the general, that the Dem candidate will not win regardless of who the candidate is. EX: It's great for Obama's delegate race that he whacked Clinton in Kansas, but neither one can win Kansas in the general against McCain, so...likewise for a whole lot of other red states.

I'm playing Devil's Advocate somewhat here, of course. I do think it's pretty disingenuous for either Clinton or Obama to make popular vote arguments when the popular vote does not apply in the least, either in the primaries or the general. The Democratic Party simply isn't really very democratic, and the popular vote is a red herring used by both sides. What counts is delegates and EC votes, and it's just not possible for either candidate to get the nomination at this point on the simple delegate count. They have to sway the supers. Since that most assuredly is so, the arguments to uncommitted supers (and even possible switchers) are going to rely heavily on the EC/electability theme. The popular vote argument goes to how they deal with their party base, not how they deal with actually winning the general.

At this point, I'm not even

Submitted by Jim M on Fri, 04/25/2008 - 1:20pm.

At this point, I'm not even sure delegate count is relevant. The difference in the counts is not very large. It is all about the EC. It looks like 2000 all over again with Obama, win the popular and lose the EC. His voting base is so tightly clustered that he will win by margins so large in blue states and McCain will 'just win' in many of his red states. As much as the Democrats want to try to come up with an electoral map to win without Ohio and Florida, it is going to be a lot more difficult and unlikely road. With Clinton, I think Ohio and Florida will likely end up in her basket. She may win by a smaller popular vote margin than Obama would; but her vote distribution has a much better chance (likely in my book) of winning the EC. Obama can win the EC by flipping a lot of smaller states; but I don't think he will.

I am actually hoping for Obama. I feel like McCain has solid possibility of winning against him. I think the chances for him to beat Clinton in November are much more difficult.

That relies only on polls, not election results...

Submitted by Pat on Fri, 04/25/2008 - 12:40pm.

Christine, that requires looking at polls, not actual primary results thus far. The ability to carry the Democratic primary in a particular state says little about a candidate's ability to carry that state in the general election. Among other factors, primaries (and much moreso caucuses) tend to attract the party base, which for the Democrats is going to be a much more liberal set of voters. Winning the base may simply mean you are more liberal than your primary opponent, which might well make you less electable in that state for the general election.

It is certainly the explicit purpose of the SuperDelegates to consider such issues, but the very existence of the SDs is at odds with the "count every vote" mantra of today's Democratic party.

Uh huh. See the analogy you

Submitted by Tully on Fri, 04/25/2008 - 11:37am.

Uh huh. See the analogy you avoided.

Obama has maintained a pretty steady lead in national polls for some time now. On balance, reading all the tea leaves, Obama is slightly preferred over Clinton.

For the moment. But if you checked the pre-primary polling for both Michigan and Florida you'll see exactly why the Obamessiah doesn't want Michigan and/or Florida counted, no way, no how, not even on a hypothetical clean re-vote. Because he was getting his butt kicked up, down, and sideways in both states, especially in Michigan. He was falling away to nothing in MI, below even John Edward's pathetic presence, well before he took his name off of that ballot to pander up an Iowa surge. I broke out the likely delegate splits for Michigan based on the pre-primary polls--Hillary would have picked up at least 90 of the 146 available had all names been on the ballot. Obama would have been lucky to get 25.

nothing puts Hillary ahead without engaging in special pleading

LMAO. The "special pleading" of actually counting all the votes cast? Well, we always knew that line from the Dems was self-serving BS, but it's awfully amusing to watch them confirming it now. The other "special pleading" involved is electability, which strangely enough actually seems to be a somewhat relevant argument when choosing a candidate to run in an election. BOTH candidates are running the "special pleading" game, BTW. They have to, as neither candidate is very likely to produce a clean delegate win by the rules pre-convention. They're arguing different special pleadings, but both are assuredly doing it. You just want to disqualify one side's pleadings in favor of the other side's.

We don't elect presidents by popular vote. Clinton will argue that Obama has gotten his ass waxed in the bigger states that might actually swing one way or another while his wins are confined to states where the Dem candidte either can't win or can't lose. TRUE. Obama will argue that he's got the lead, however slim, after all the rule adjustments and diddling, and has taken more states than Clinton. TRUE. But the only reason either of those arguments even need to be used is that NEiTHER of them will have the straight-up delegate count going into the convention without moving superedelegates to their side, which is a decidedly UNdemocratic process.

What was the name of that party again? We're supposed to count all the votes, aren't we? :-D

Well yes, but...

Submitted by Pat on Fri, 04/25/2008 - 12:34pm.

Tully, OF COURSE it's meaningless to look at the "popular vote" at all in this context, particularly given the complex mix of caucus and primaries that went into picking the delegates.

But to at least SOME portion of the relevant decision makers (i.e., the SuperDelegates) are looking for some sort of "cover" to defend whichever vote they make. The cover they are looking for is political, not "legal," and so the rules or lack of rules don't matter. Thus, it is appropriate and necessary to examine the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of those "covers."

One "cover" for SDs wanting to vote for Hillary is to show that Hillary got more popular votes than Obama, and thus (like Al Gore) is the "real" winner of the primary process. The SDs who want to vote for Hillary particularly need this cover to avoid charges of racism and alienating the black base of their party. My point is that this "cover," moreso even than most of the other "covers" available to them, is utter BS to the extent it relies on counting Michigan popular votes at 328,309 to zero, because that simply does not accurately reflect the Michigan popular vote split. Now, if you want to count the Michigan vote at 328,309 for Hillary to 238,168 for Obama (that being the number of votes for "uncommited" delegates there), then THAT might be somewhat legitimate, in the warped calculus that considers the popular vote here at all. But a 90,000 vote lead in Michigan does not give Hillary the lead nationwide.

Hey, I said it was

Submitted by Tully on Fri, 04/25/2008 - 12:52pm.

Hey, I said it was causidicus diabolus. All sorts of arguments will be used, few will be directly relevant. If the intent is to cover one's butt, the popular vote argument has some traction. If the intent is to actually win the Presidency, the only truly relevant argument is electability. As I've said repeatedly, it's a Cannibal Feast, and the DNC set the table. I'm rather enjoying watching the arguments over the menu. You know, who's supposed to be serving whom?

BTW, if one were going to split up Michigan's "uncommitteds" vote with any attempt to be remotely fair about it, you'd have to assign out the "uncommitteds" to more than just Obama. He was running a distant third in the MI polling, behind Edwards. Clinton ended up with about the percentage she was polling at before the ballot re-writing. Assigning ALL the MI uncommitteds to Obama would be a cheat. He doesn't even really deserve half of them. The greater effect would be to expand the number of Edwards delegates--who are now semi-officially uncommitted, and free to make their own choices. IOW, it would expand the delegate-persuasion problem.

And as should always be pointed out, the primaries are not yet over, the final counts not yet in, the fat lady hasn't sung, and other Yogi Berraisms. Puerto Rico, for example, is expected to be solidly Clinton's by a few hundred thousand votes. Arguments NOW about the popular vote are decidedly premature save as butt-covering weasel rhetoric, and to me one butt-covering is as relevant as another. (However much fun I have deconstructing them.)

Tully is right on the reality unfolding

Submitted by Maxtrue on Sat, 04/26/2008 - 10:44am.

I haven't commented here for some time regarding this issue. Florida would render Obama an even worse blast if they re-voted tomorrow. Michigan would vote Clinton. The constant projection of Obama's popular vote lead is another PR victory by MSM for Obama. And let's not get into the unfair distribution of delegates which kept Obama close in counts as he lost States. This is one reason Hispanics favor Clinton.

Obama's last comment regarding those racist Republicans shows exactly where an Obama nomination is heading. Why my hostility? Because of the disingenuousness of Obama from the start. Simon called it on day one. I sensed it against the backdrop of Lincoln. When Barry's record started getting vetted after NH, he turned sour and started leveling personal attacks against the Clintons. The media covered for his very liberal crowd and his questionable advisors. Can anyone imagine what would have happened if media displayed a shred of journalistic integrity months ago instead of burying Wright, Meeks, Ayers and others? Certainly Obama's pretense at centrism would have faded quickly. Is it any wonder that the Obama camp generalized about racist Republicans the very day McCain was visiting poor black areas in the the South? God forbid any Blacks voting for Hillary or McCain. What a completely double standard.

I suspect the popular vote would be far less for Obama had the media done their job and Dean had done his. The Democrats don't look very Democratic and if Obama wins the nomination, McCain is likely to take Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and be very close in Michigan and possibly New Jersy and even New York. Anyone want to bet on the Red States flipping Blue? My objections to Obama in the past have been about the associations and the policies. Wright however, said it best, by saying recently Obama is just a politician who has to say what he must to get elected. He suggested that is why Obama denounced some of his video clips. At this point, beyond being totally bored by his redundant rhetoric to nowhere, I deplore Obama's tactics, pandering, deflections and outright lies. He knows he received money from oil CEOs, but blames Hillary for rising gas pricies as he stands in a gas station wearing his typical expensive threads. He suggested that racists would vote for Hillary in Penn and now he says racists will vote for McCain. Perhaps they're just bitter.....

About the only thing that will save the Democrats from snatching defeat from victory is for Obama to step down and Dean to welcome the votes in Florida and Michigan. Then Obama could be offered the VP. Anything short of this will likely hand McCain the WH.

Tully has called this progression to doom from the start. Simon has called this deception from the start. I have merely pointed out the associations, mentors, advisors, record and policy flubs that would rise as flash points. Together I think the picture is quite accurate.

By the fall the cops in Chicago will be verifying the cell phone calls Young made to Sinclair before the former was brutally murdered and Rev Wright generously offered a $1000 reward. Maybe now with that million dollar mansion and a several million dollar line of credit to go along with it, Wright can offer a bigger reward to find who murdered his gay choir master. The point? The Obama story has quite a ways to go to unfold. There is still much to top the news besides Obama shooting himself in the feet or claiming a popular mandate for his nomination.

I swear I hadn't read the

Submitted by Tully on Sat, 04/26/2008 - 11:08am.

I swear I hadn't read the Michael Barone article before I wrote the above. Political-analyst God that he is, I obviously disagree with his contention that most of the "uncommitted" votes in MI would have gone to Obama. At the last MI poll before the ballot change, Clinton was at 54%, Edwards at 20% and Obama at 16%, and the trend lines showed Obama had been steadily bleeding MI share to Edwards for a month or more while Clinton held steady or gained a touch. So I think Clinton at MI 54-58% is right in there for appropriate, but crediting Obama with MI 32-36% is not. Half that or less, IMHO. Otherwise Barone and I are on the same page with analyzing the upcoming primaries, and it shows nicely why Clinton has not dropped out.

The toughest of the bunch to call is Puerto Rico, on June 1st. Barring an unexpected catastrophic hit on Clinton before then, that's the race that will likely determine the summer infighting--or lack of it. She needs to blow it out there. If I had to make guesses on where she will concentrate her resources, I'd be looking at Indiana, Oregon, and PR. She needs a win or very tight split in IN, to be within 10% in OR, and to kick ass in PR. WV and KY are already hers, and she'll do solid booster and turnout work in them to keep them at blowout-level returns, but the "hard push" will come in IN, OR, and PR.

For what should be obvious reasons, counting the imputed vot totals from the four-state cuacuses is less legitimate than counting Florida when assessing the popular vote.

Love her or loathe her, my friends, but do not EVER underestimate her.

Navigation

User login

Subscribe via RSS

Resources

The latest from our partner, the PoliGazette

Blog Roll

Search