Comments | gibbo67: Bull****

gibbo67

Bull****

May 27, 2008 13:29

So Hillary has the popular vote lead ONLY if you include Michigan (where Obama wasn't even on the ballot as the Democratic party sanctioned Michigan for moving up its primary--in other words--for violating something called THE RULES)

( Read more... )

Comments 13

Well, the real question will be... anonymous May 27 2008, 20:42:58 UTC

...what happens after Puerto Rico, when that popular vote tally can even exclude Michigan and then she's ahead without question? Should the popular vote matter?

Re: Well, the real question will be... gibbo67 May 28 2008, 07:23:43 UTC

Then she has the right to use the fact that she's ahead of the popular vote (which she had to acknowledge includes Puerto Rico which currently has no electoral contribution in the general election) to sway superdelegates to vote for her.

When her surrogates argue that "she's ahead in the popular vote" it is misleading.

And the unfortunate thing is that she's destroying her political future in this. I bet she wouldn't even get Senate Majority Leader now as she's pissed off so many of her colleagues that in a secret ballot among her Democratic colleagues (which is how the Senate elects Majority Leader) she would lose.

Re: Well, the real question will be... doox98 May 28 2008, 19:46:03 UTC

Oh, I don't know that she's destroying her future.

I mean, think about it: everything she's doing right now is in keeping with her character as a fighter and not giving up. I think if she just quit, it would actually be MORE damaging to her, because people would say "uh, wait a sec - she's supposed to be a fighter, isn't she?" There's enough of a lifetime ahead of her to still make a difference in her perception -- she's smart enough to know that at some point, she'll become Obama's biggest cheerleader if he's the nominee. That'll help mend fences. But if she's perceived as being even an eensie weensie bit against Obama and he loses (or worse for her, he WINS and is in a position of power to make her miserable), then I think that's some serious political damage to her reputation.

And I agree about the popular vote issue. It's something for the SD's to consider -- it's why they were created, and they should vote as they see fit, using whatever criteria they think is appropriate, including PV if they want.

Re: Well, the real question will be... gibbo67 May 29 2008, 13:06:01 UTC

I agree with you on, she may not be damaging her future in the long run. Ted Kennedy stayed in the 1980 primary until the convention and he's probably considered one of the greatest U.S. legislators. But Ted and Hillary are quite different so it'll be interesting to see what she does post-2008.

I also agree that are your analysis of what happens after Obama becomes the presumptive nominee--does Hillary become the biggest cheerleader or something else.

And she is a fighter--I think the issue is why didn't she "fight" harder to win the caucuses--she knew the rules yet she got taken.

Thread 6

Food for thought.... pauliebearsf May 27 2008, 21:11:10 UTC

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/012589.php

Re: Food for thought.... gibbo67 May 28 2008, 07:46:35 UTC

Excerpt 1: "But to pretend that it is anything other than smoke-filled room residents deciding the nomination is wrong. Just plain wrong ( ... )

(The comment has been removed)

Re: Food for thought.... gibbo67 May 29 2008, 13:10:12 UTC

June 3rd can't come soon enough.

And I totally agree the selection process should be more democratic and uniform. Caucuses are not ideal--Iowa being first is ridiculous, etc.

But I do hope that the process we emerge with still allows insurgent candidates to emerge (no states with big media markets should go first). I've seen a few good proposals--I might post a summary of them in the future.

Thread 6

fogbear June 2 2008, 00:42:52 UTC

Holy crap, why haven't I known about you until now?

gibbo67 June 3 2008, 07:33:57 UTC

I've been hiding. ;-)