Mon
Mar 24 2008
12:39 pm

The Clinton Camp is trying to change the Goal Posts again:

(link...)

Change the rules, change the metrics, change whatever is needed to win. It's time to give it up. This is getting dumb, if it hasn't gotten that way already.

Take Care, Be Good and don't play in the street!

SteveMule

Justin's picture

You have to love the last

You have to love the last few lines...

Many Democrats, including Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Bayh, have opposed the Electoral College in the past, particularly after 2000, when Florida’s 25 electoral votes were awarded to George W. Bush, who became president, even though Al Gore, the Democratic nominee, had won the popular vote nationwide.

At the time, Mrs. Clinton, who had just been elected to the Senate, said, “I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it’s time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president.”

emphasis mine.

Brian A.'s picture

My, this is getting

My, this is getting stupid.

Someone please make it stop.

Brian A.
I'd rather be cycling.

rocketsquirrel's picture

call Senator Bayh's office

call Senator Bayh's office and let them know how you feel. (202) 224-5623. I did.

I told them that electoral votes are not even counted in the primary, and to move the goal posts like this was disgusting and reprehensible.

Andy Axel's picture

My, this is getting

My, this is getting stupid.

Yes, it is. Only not how you mean.

Maybe it would be if someone was talking about a rule change. Only no one's suggesting a rule change.

This is an argument that the Clinton camp has long put forth - it goes to electability. Clinton carried California and New York, e.g. Those two states alone equal over seventy EV's.

The words of Bayh: "...who carried the states with the most Electoral College votes is an important factor to consider..."

Not "...we should change the rules so that you choose a candidate based on who got the most states in the primary which would constitute more electoral votes..."

And I'm sure Senator Clinton still supports the reform of the Electoral College, but that's not going to happen by November.

So if there's some other means by which we elect presidents, would somebody let me know? Because this looks really friggin' straightforward to me.

____________________________

With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.

Hayduke's picture

Not the same contest

I don't think it's a given that who performed best against another Democrat in a state is an indication of who will do best against McCain. Most Dems are going to vote for whoever gets the nomination (though I'm not sure Hillary would carry as many). The more important issues would be who is bringing in independents and who is going to excite people enough to go to the polls in November.

Rachel's picture

I don't think it's a given

I don't think it's a given that who performed best against another Democrat in a state is an indication of who will do best against McCain. Most Dems are going to vote for whoever gets the nomination (though I'm not sure Hillary would carry as many). The more important issues would be who is bringing in independents and who is going to excite people enough to go to the polls in November.

I agree with this. But... there's nothing wrong with Hillary making her case to the superdelegates, using the arguments she wants to make. It's up to them to accept or reject them.

Andy Axel's picture

>I don't think it's a given

I don't think it's a given that who performed best against another Democrat in a state is an indication of who will do best against McCain.

It's not a given. But you might want to rate performance in "safe" Democratic states along with rating performance in battleground states. That's the argument that Bayh is putting forward.

That said: this isn't evidence of CHEATER CHEATER EVIL EVIL TWISTED RULE-BENDING CLINTON!!11!one!!! Sorry, I simply don't see it.

____________________________

With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.

Elrod's picture

Battleground states

OK, of all available polling, the battleground states look like this:

Pro-Clinton:
PA, FL and recently OH

Pro-Obama:
WI, WA, IA, OR, NH, CO, VA, NV, NM, MN

Both are equal in MI, MO

Both are paths to the nomination. But Clinton's requires beating McCain in Florida where he is quite popular with veterans and supporters of Gov. Crist. And I bet after this primary, Obama will be safely ahead against McCain in PA. So that leaves OH, where the two were tied against McCain after the primary (where Clinton won) and only dropped in the midst of the peak of the Wright controversy. I bet polling now would show him back up again.

Elrod's picture

This is silly

Polls from CA show Obama doing better against McCain than Clinton against him. Same with NV, and I believe NY too. There are a small handful of states where Clinton would do better against McCain than Obama, and sadly they tend to be near us: TN, WV, KY and AR.

Andy Axel's picture

There are a small handful of

There are a small handful of states where Clinton would do better against McCain than Obama, and sadly they tend to be near us: TN, WV, KY and AR.

A Democrat beating a Republican is sad, um, why?

____________________________

With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.

Bbeanster's picture

There are a small handful

There are a small handful of states where Clinton would do better against McCain than Obama, and sadly they tend to be near us: TN, WV, KY and AR.
A Democrat beating a Republican is sad, um, why?

A Democrat beating a Republican in Tennessee (or any neighboring state) would be peachy, but that's not what's being posited here -- just that Clinton would lose by a narrower margin than Obama. Anyone who thinks that either Clinton or Obama is going to beat McCain in Tennessee is delusional. I suppose she might might carry Arkansas, although I'm not convinced of that, and she (or Obama) might have a chance in WVa, where there's a strong Democratic tradition are relatively strong. But the GOP's Southern Strategy won't be threatened by either of the Dem frontrunners.

Andy Axel's picture

Anyone who thinks that

Anyone who thinks that either Clinton or Obama is going to beat McCain in Tennessee is delusional.

Yeah, especially since Bill Clinton lost here twice!

Oh, wait...

It logically follows that if Obama were to get the nomination then McCain would be the better choice, correct?

Oddly enough? That may be the calculation that some swing voters are going to be making.

Not that I'm saying that it's right. It just is what it is.

____________________________

With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.

Bbeanster's picture

Anyone who thinks that

Anyone who thinks that either Clinton or Obama is going to beat McCain in Tennessee is delusional.
Yeah, especially since Bill Clinton lost here twice!

Clinton supporters holler like hit dogs when people use terms like "Billary," but want to interchange them like leggo parts when it suits their argument.

Bill's popularity never rubbed off on the First Lady, much as y'all would like to pretend it did, and Bill's having won Tennessee twice is utterly meaningless in the 2008 race. Hillary won't win Tennessee against McCain, just like Obama won't win Wyoming against McCain, and to pretend otherwise is just an exercise in sophistry.

gonzone's picture

Ask Hillary - Updated

You'll have to ask Hillary why that would be sad. After all, she's the one who implied that only she and McCain were qualified to be President and answer that 3AM phone call. It logically follows that if Obama were to get the nomination then McCain would be the better choice, correct?

Update
More on "only Hillary and McCain are presidential timber" (they're beginning to piss me off!) from Bill yesterday-

"I think it would be a great thing if we had an election between two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interests of the country and people could actually ask themselves who is right on the issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics."

Pump up McSame some more there Clintons! Listen to Penn and try to destroy the Dem party why don't you?!

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson

Terry Troll's picture

If Obama takes another hit

If Obama takes another hit like Wright, closer to the convention, the Superdelegates will have to look at who has the best chance of winning. That is what they are designed to do. A Survey USA poll from,I think, last Week shows Clinton over Sydney by 5 points nation wide. This is with little or no campaigning against him.
My worry is, if Obama does take another bad hit and Clinton gets the nomination due to electability, will Obama supporters want a Democrat in the White House or will they sit out? As for me and my house, we will support the ticket.

Rachel's picture

As for me and my house, we

As for me and my house, we will support the ticket.

That's the best advice I've read on here in weeks.

Somebody's picture

2000 re-make?

Does it not occur to the Clinton supporters as they keep trying to imagine these wacky scenarios, that they are proposing, within the Democratic Party, the kind of nonsense that happened in the general election in 2000?

If Obama enters the Democratic Convention as he is likely to do, with more delegates, more states, and more votes in the aggregate voter tally, why on God's earth would anyone sugest the nomination should go to Clinton? The scenarios being proffered by the Clinton camp are as imaginary as her description of her visit to Bosnia. We don't need another case of someone cheating their way to a "win."

Terry Troll's picture

Wacky?

I am not sure that a drop in the polls like Obama had last week is wacky. We have heard just about all the negative there is about Clinton. Obama is still being mined. Right now, yes, Obama should be the nominee but if a lot more dirt makes him unelectable do we commit suicide as a party or do the Superdelegates do their job? Again, I will support the ticket in November.

Bbeanster's picture

We have heard just about

We have heard just about all the negative there is about Clinton.

So you weren't surprised by her Bosnia "misspeak"? Or the NAFTA misrememberance? And you think that's the only whopper she's going to get caught having told about the "35 years of experience" she's campaigning on? There's not much basis in fact for this notion that she's been "fully vetted" because (presumably) of Bill's many investigations, considering that they ended in 1999, just as she was launching her own political career. her tax returns will be a goldmine for her opponents.

It's not just happenstance that Al Gore's keeping his distance from the Clinton campaign.

But I do think the preacher stuff has wounded Obama. Personally, I think attacks based on this are BS, but then I never would have thought a draft dodger would have been able to swiftboat a decorated veteran into looking like a traitor. Initially, I decided to support BHO because I thought he was more electable than HRC (whom I still think is unelectable), but even though I've come to like and admire the guy, I'm now thinking more and more that neither of them can win -- and the more the Clinton slime patrol keeps throwing the kitchen sink at him, the slimmer his chances become.

bobaubin's picture

Obama's poll numbers have

Obama's poll numbers have started to come back up since his "A More Perfect Union" speech and the Richardson endorsement.

~ Bob Aubin
------------------
"When we've been told we're not ready or that we shouldn't try or that we can't, generations of Americans have responded with a simple creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can." ~ Barack Obama

bill young's picture

8 weeks/one primary

March 4 Miss primary
April 22 Pa primary
May 6 Indiana/NC

Round & round the spin goes..
where it stops nobody knows.

It's this

The Pennsyslvania primary is the new Iowa.

Maybe this

The North Carolina primary is the new Pennsyslvania.

Or how about this.

The Indiana primary is the new North Carolina.

No it's this

A meeting of super delegates..
is the new convention.

We can spin ourselves dizzy & get snarky to boot.

Folks,it is what it is..& its damn close.

Trying to figure out who is/should win
or how it will/should happen.

We are sounding like the kids in the car shouting

Are we there yet..ARE WE there yet..ARE WE THERE YET???

No...& we may not get there till the convention.

We dont have to have a nominee so soon.

It's 2008

Labor Day is the new July 4th.

CBT's picture

Clinton supporters holler

Clinton supporters holler like hit dogs when people use terms like "Billary,"

I prefer "HillBilly".

The HRC - BHO fight is really getting fun to watch. You have to ask yourself each night, what's next tomorrow and from whom.

rocketsquirrel's picture

yeah Chad, but at least Dems

yeah Chad, but at least Dems don't do coronations like Bush 2000, Dole 1996, and McCain 2008. Dole would have been a good president...when he ran in 1980. Not in 1996. McCain might have been good...but not this time, when he is 72 and crazier than bedbug.

GOP powers that be: "Well it's ______ turn. Let's all get behind him and run him." Good for you. We prefer to let the people decide.

The Dem nominee will hammer McCain...who not once but multiple times claimed how the Shiites in Iran were supposedly training terrorists for al-Qaeda (a Sunni group), how he doesn't know that much about the economy, etc. This guy is clueless. And please, please let him pick Charlie Crist.

You may think the current Dem primary season is fun to watch, well it is. Because it's a contest, not a coronation.

bill young's picture

2 things i found interesting today

Chuck Todd reported that there are 76 super delegates that have not been selected.

These delegates will be elected by the state's selection rules in the primaries that have not yet been held.

By late afternoon yesterday a record 4,044,952 have registered to vote in the Pa. Democratic primary.

The Pa. state elections commissioner has told election officials to prepare for a record turn out.

CBT's picture

We prefer to let the people

We prefer to let the people decide.

I'm guessing you mean Super Delegate people, cause it looks like they hold the keys. And, if you follow Governor Phil's lead it will be decided in a two day meeting of these several hundred "people".

You all keep fightin'. I've said before that this was a year for the Democrats to lose and by dang it looks like they just might pull it off. I'll save debating the general election until the Dems figure out their nominee.

Andy Axel's picture

I'll save debating the

I'll save debating the general election until the Dems figure out their nominee.

"Debating?" Is that what they call "polishing John McCain's knob" these days?

____________________________

With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.

gonzone's picture

Naa

Rove cut that knob thing off back in 2000. The totally emasculated man.

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson

CBT's picture

Is that what they call

Is that what they call "polishing John McCain's knob" these days?

I sure hope you find a prominent place in the Democratic nominee's campaign in Tennessee. With these sorts of foul retorts, McCain would be sure to win by double digits.

Andy Axel's picture

I sure hope you find a

I sure hope you find a prominent place in the Democratic nominee's campaign in Tennessee.

Wouldn't want one, don't aspire to have one. But I'm deeply touched by your concern.

With these sorts of foul retorts, McCain would be sure to win by double digits.

Eh, I know you're a lost cause already, Chad.

____________________________

With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

State News

Local .GOV

Wire Reports

Lost Medicaid Funding

To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

Search and Archives