14 Comments Add your own

• 1. Mike Carroll  |  April 24th, 2008 at 12:35 pm

  Aint gonna happen.
  http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080424/OPINION01/804240315/1007/OPINION

• 2. Pat Cunningham  |  April 24th, 2008 at 1:29 pm

  Oh, it WILL happen. Mark my words. The nomination would be worthless if it goes to the second-place finisher in delegates won, states won and popular votes won. She can’t include the votes from Florida and Michigan, because Obama’s name wasn’t on the ballot in either state (per his agreement to follow party rules). There’s simply no fair way for her to win the nomination, unless she beats Obama by enormous margins in N.C. and Indiana, which isn’t going to happen. She and her hubby have done grievous harm to the Democratic Party and to the Clinton brand, which previously was esteemed by most Americans, according to every poll on the matter conducted before the start of this primary season.

• 3. Kaus  |  April 24th, 2008 at 1:41 pm

  She is going to be Obama’s VP…..you can bet the back room of the Convention is cooking up a deal right now….super delegates indeed.

• 4. Mike Carroll  |  April 24th, 2008 at 2:03 pm

  Pat-feel free to correct me if I’m wrong (as though you needed my permission) but I think Obama’s name was on the Florida ballot, he just didn’t campaign there.Michigan is correct.
  You are right when you say that the Clintons have done grievous harm to your party but, as some of us have been telling/warning you since the 90’s, the Clintons have always been about the Clintons. Country, Party whatever all come 2nd to their needs.No epiphanies with those two.

• 5. Pat Cunningham  |  April 24th, 2008 at 2:15 pm

  You’re right, Mike. I stand corrected. Obama was on the Florida ballot, as were Hillary, Edwards, Biden at al. But nobody campained there and no delegates were awarded to any candidate.

• 6. Mike Carroll  |  April 24th, 2008 at 2:40 pm

  I think the Clinton’s will push to recognize the results in both states and seat the delegates. After all, the Clinton camps latest line is that she is actually ahead in the popular vote.I think it’s going to get real ugly.
  Hell Pat, you guys are where I thought my side would be at this point in the campaign.

• 7. Millard Fillmore  |  April 24th, 2008 at 3:38 pm

  Hey Pat, I tried asking Chuck this, but he doesn’t seem to have the wherewithal for answer. So let me try it on you.

  It takes 2,025 delegates to win the nomination, right?

  Certainly it is true that Clinton isn’t going to get to that number without an extraordinary set of circumstances.

  But isn’t it also true that Obama’s chances of getting to 2025 are also next to impossible?

  And, if so, when the race is a virtual dead heat…why should Clinton quit? Isn’t that sort of like giving up half way through the 4th quarter in a tie game?

• 8. Pat Cunningham  |  April 24th, 2008 at 5:41 pm

  Lemme explain, Millie: It’s unlikely that either candidate will clinch the nomination with just the pledged delegates they’ve garnered during the primary season. The balance will be tipped, one way or the other, by the so-called Super Delegates (party officials, etc.). But you’re wrong to say the race is a dead heat or the game is tied. It’s not. Obama leads Hillary in the number of pledged delegates and the number of states won. He also leads in the popular vote (unless you count the votes in Michigan and Florida, where he did not campaign because of party rules). It’s virtually impossible for Hillary to catch Obama in any of these categories. So the Supers have to decide whether they’ll tip the balance in favor of the leader coming out of the primary season or in favor of the second-place finisher. It is EXTREMELY unlikely that they would do the latter. That would be unfair on its face. So, Hillary should quit for the good of the party rather than continue to wage attacks on Obama. Trust me, Republicans would much prefer to run against Hillary in the fall. She would energize the GOP base, which hates her with a purple passion. Most polls show that Obama would do better against McCain than Hillary would.

• 9. Millard Fillmore  |  April 25th, 2008 at 6:21 am

  Patty: OK. I get that. And that is certainly one way to look at it.

  Here’s another:

  The superdelegate process is the next phase of the campaign. Just as the candidates competed for support in the caucuses and in the primaries, now they’ll have to campaign for the SDs. Whoever makes the most compelling argument wins the day. This is the way the party set up the process.

  Party loyalty is certainly a fair point. But, since Obama can’t win without Hillary either, why doesn’t he bear some responsibility for reconciliation?

  You’re right that in the strictest sense, they are not “tied. But after 30 million votes they are separated by less than 2%, with neither candidate likely to get the magic number. I call that a standoff.

• 10. Millard Fillmore  |  April 28th, 2008 at 8:38 am

  So, Pat, what say you? If Sen. Obama is the hotshot unifier everyone says he is…couldn’t this stalemate be considered the first test of his presidency? Let’s see some skills!

• 11. Pat Cunningham  |  April 28th, 2008 at 9:31 am

  What stalemate? There is no stalemate. Obama is ahead in every metric, and Hillary can’t catch him without the superdelegates rejecting the first-place finisher in the primaries and caucuses. That isn’t going to happen. End of story.

• 12. Millard Fillmore  |  April 28th, 2008 at 11:13 am

  First, there IS a stalemate because neither of them can get to 2,025, which is the winning number, is it not?

  Secondly, did you catch Howard Dean yesterday on the Sunday talk shows? He described the superdelegate process as a “representative democracy” — voters are choosing the supers to make their best decisions at the convention.

  To my knowledge, and I could be wrong, the votes in the primaries and caucuses do not carry any more weight than those of the SDs. So if Hillary outcampaigns Obama, and the SDs flock to her, the SDs would not be “rejecting” anything - they would be doing their jobs under the rules as written.

  Under your argument, the Giants “rejected” the obvious first-place winner of the Super Bowl because they scored in the 4th quarter.

• 13. Pat Cunningham  |  April 28th, 2008 at 11:37 am

  Once again, Millie, the superdelegates are not going to pick the person who finished second in the number of states, popular votes and pledged delegates. It’s just not going to happen. Mark my words. The Clinton people want us to believe that Hillary has been racking up big victories of late. Here’s the truth: In the wake of Super Tuesday on Feb. 4, Obama won 11 straight primaries and caucuses. Then, on March 4, Hillary’s big comeback began. She won two states that day, and Obama won two states. After that, Obama won two more states, and Hillary won one state. The tally of delegates won since Hillary’s so-called turnaround began on March 4 is as follows: HIllary, 288; Obama, 283. She’s had a net gain of only five delegates during her vaunted resurgence. Do the math, Millie. She’s not going to win.

• 14. Millard Fillmore  |  April 28th, 2008 at 1:39 pm

  Pat, we started this with a question…why SHOULD she quit when the game’s not over. You said, because she can’t win, she should do it for party loyalty. That’s fine. My point is, he can’t win either, and if it’s about party loyalty, well…let’s see what he’s got. Let’s see if he is the statesman, the unifier, everyone seems to think.

  My other point is, it is wrong to suggest the SDs would be “overturning” the will of the voters by choosing her (even though, I agree, it is not likely to happen.) They are a part of the process just as the primaries and caucuses were. Positioning it as a “coup” is simply political spin. Legit spin, but that doesn’t make it accurate.

Leave a Comment

Name Required

Email Required, hidden

Url

Comment

Security Code:

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed