Giving Hillary a Little Sugar
Jeff Alworth
A lot can be said about the margins of victory and the manner in which she may have secured the victory, but one thing is clear: last night Hillary Clinton found some redemption by winning three out of four primaries. 
The results are still outstanding in the Texas caucuses, but in the primaries where the votes are mostly counted she won by a total of more than 328,000. Those are real voters, real Democrats, and people whose voices deserves our respect.
BlueOregon's writers are almost uniformly Obama backers, and so we provide Clinton progressives too few opportunities to promote and cheer their candidate. In comment threads, Obamania can come off as oppressive, and Obama backers, in their enthusiasm, can stifle discussion. So let's stand back for a moment and let Clinton stand in the light.
Hats off to Team Clinton and her supporters--
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Mar 5, '08
Some interesting historical perspective at the site linked here:
"A lead in pledged delegates is not enough. You still have to convince your party that you are the best nominee. That is what the next stage of this election is all about."
No advocacy intended. I will vote for either Obama or Clinton in November, although I favor the former for the nomination.
Mar 5, '08
Hats off to Team Clinton and her supporters--
Why, when they played dirty? It's a good bet that there was collusion with Canadian officials because it is undiplomatic for government officials of one country to inject themselves in the elections in another country - like leaking a memo that may or may not have been accurate. And how about Hillary saying John McCain would be better on security than Obama?
For the record, I'm an independent and Obama was not my first choice, but Hillary is my last.
10:26 a.m.
Mar 5, '08
When is the last time we had a national primary arguing over "who is better", rather than "who sucks least"?
Sure, I have a favorite. I was virtually the only person wearing an Obama'08 pin at the 2006 DPO Platform Convention (and getting "you've got to be kidding" looks for it ... LOL). I will also very gladly vote for either Clinton or Obama in the general election. I will be proud to elect Hillary Clinton as my President, if that is our party's choice. This election is about much bigger and more important concerns than either of the personalities behind two very similar sets of policy proposals.
I hope we all remember that. Because forgetting it is what will lose this election for all of us.
Mar 5, '08
if you want a racist, negative, angry priviledged white woman who's experience in handling crisis is her husbands infidelity, vote Hillary. I'm sticking with Obama. I will sit out the election if she steals the nomination
10:38 a.m.
Mar 5, '08
No doubt about it. As you can see already from the commentary above, Anti-Hillary is the choice of the angry, out of touch, counterproductive, left. Some people don't have it within them to be gracious for even one thread.
Thank goodness most of Barak Obama's supporters are not like that. So hat's off to Hillary, and here's hoping for a united ticket in the fall.
(Although I'd much prefer Senator Obama at the top, with Senator Clinton doing her best in the nuts and bolts job in the VP position.)
10:38 a.m.
Mar 5, '08
mroc, take it elsewhere. If for no other reason than out of respect for the voters who support Hillary and who will--if Obama-backers don't screw it up--vote for Obama if/when he wins the nomination.
10:42 a.m.
Mar 5, '08
Hey, at least Oregon matters now!
Congrats to team Clinton. Although I still feel really queasy over the partisan mud-slinging. Really queasy. Especially around places like mydd.com. Yikes.
An extended nomination process is fine, but please- no scorched earth! Perhaps it's too late to say that, however, as the gloves come off.
Mar 5, '08
Geez Louise. In this thread of all places....
if you want a racist, negative, angry priviledged white woman who's experience in handling crisis is her husbands infidelity, vote Hillary
If you want to keep flinging stuff like this around cyberspace, please go someplace like this, where you can share it with other alleged progressives.
10:51 a.m.
Mar 5, '08
Ben wrote: "An extended nomination process is fine, but please- no scorched earth! Perhaps it's too late to say that, however, as the gloves come off."
No, it's not too late. It needs to be said by every sensible Democrat, loudly and often from now to November.
The Republicans are doing everything they can to fuel a fight inside our party. I'll be remembering that, every time I hear some supposed Democrat say "if it ain't my candidate, I'm not voting". My Dad taught me long ago not to cut off my nose to spite my face.
Mar 5, '08
Thanks, Steve M.
I also want to associate myself with Leo's remarks.
This election is about much bigger and more important concerns than either of the personalities behind two very similar sets of policy proposals.
I hope we all remember that. Because forgetting it is what will lose this election for all of us.
Mar 5, '08
Jeff, how can you say "hats off" to dirty politics, deception, and a negative attack strategy?
10:59 a.m.
Mar 5, '08
Guys, thanks for the perspective.
As an Edwards-to-Obama convert, I still strongly support my (new) guy. But I will never, NEVER cut off the nose to spite my own face.
Winning in November is everything. It's the paramount moment. Although I have my beliefs about who can do that better and easier, the point remains.
11:01 a.m.
Mar 5, '08
An extended nomination process is fine, but please- no scorched earth! Perhaps it's too late to say that, however, as the gloves come off.
In any conflict, the longer it goes on the nastier it gets. It's doubtful either candidate will throw in the towel now before the convention so it's bound to get uglier as it goes along. It's a shame but the fate of the party in November is now equally in the hands of Clinton and Obama and how they behave between now and August. So if you see them, please urge them both to act presidential.
Mar 5, '08
Come on, Jeff. Paddy McGuire's post yesterday was a thinly veiled attack on Obama supporters, saying we had no 'dignity.' Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign has been throwing mud (Kenya photo, equivocating on whether or not Obama is a Muslim.)
To be fair, the Obama campaign hasn't been exactly above the clouds. But, this doesn't open us up to an attack on our 'dignity' when the Clinton camp is doing much of the same -- even worse.
This post only exacerbates that fallacy. You call Obama supporters 'oppressive,' but we were called out by Paddy to begin with. I'm starting to see somewhat of a double standard emerge here on BO -- it's OK for official posts to slight Obama supporters, but when Obama supporters stand up we're labeled as 'oppressive.'
Mar 5, '08
Well, thanks for trying Jeff?
11:13 a.m.
Mar 5, '08
It's anathema to me to congratulate smear politics and the desperate whiff of character negativity. For someone without any executive experience to attack another person without executive experience is a disingenuous cheap shot--and that's one of the less puerile moves she's made IMO.
I'm glad the party gets to have the circus come to town in more states, which will greatly help organization for the general--but she can't win, and she's simply running a vanity campaign now.
Mar 5, '08
Yes, Oregon will matter now! I think it will be so exciting when both Obama and Hillary come to Oregon in the end of April. Obama will fill up the Rose Garden and Hillary will fill up Waterfront Park.
I'm an Obama supporter for two main reasons: 1. Hillary made a calculated "yes" vote for the war. She probably thought if she voted "no" it would have ruined her chance for the presidency. In the meantime, Obama had started his run for the Senate and opposed the war despite it being unpopular to do so. 2. Obama is running a bottom up 50 state strategy which engages the people and will help him if he becomes president to get legislation passed. Clinton is a top down/closed door politician, which is so 20th century.
11:17 a.m.
Mar 5, '08
Actually, BCM, if you follow my link, you'll see that I didn't say it--a commenter did. On that VOTR post, a lot of previously un-commenting commenters came out of the woodwork. That's good for the site and good for our discussion. I see posts like some of the ones here, and I don't see a lot of space for actual dialogue. Once someone's called your candidate a racist or dirty, it tends to shut down discussion.
I've been for Obama since last May. That doesn't mean I don't respect those who are for Hillary. On these threads, we're all supporters and should all be friends. Extending the respect of not denigrating each other's candidates doesn't seem like such a high bar to manage.
Dubious campaigning need not be ignored. But we can always be respectful.
11:20 a.m.
Mar 5, '08
Clinton won yesterday by obfuscating the Clinton administration's role in devastating Ohio's economy through trade agreements, and by pursuing racist lines of attack against Obama.
Clinton supporters, or those whose party loyalty outweighs any revulsion they may feel about the use of such tactics, undoubtedly would prefer it if we would not discuss these inconvenient truths, but I see no upside to being silent about Hillary's Bush-like campaign against Obama.
The real winner when Clinton succeeds in using those tactics is John McCain.
11:31 a.m.
Mar 5, '08
Echo BCM but with a hat tip to Bill Bodden for correctly pointing out that both sides bear some of the blame.
TJ's "I hate it when you do it but don't you dare hold me accountable for doing the same" comment above requires no further commentary.
Out of the entire thread so far I most agree with Ben's comments. While not a party loyalist and not likely ever to become one, the reality is that Hillary would be vastly preferable to McCain.
Mar 5, '08
I definitely think Hillary deserves a congrats on her efforts leading up to yesterday. I am still out on exactly which candidate I am going to support in the primary. I am so far "leaning" Obama but my mind is definitely not made up yet.
Hillary and Barack have both been getting more and more negative as this thing has played out. Just because one candidate could be seen as being "more" negative, doesn't mean they are being "too" negative. (Kind of like defining a slut as anyone who sleeps around more that you). I think having this primary go out to June is great for our Party. We will come out of it with a stronger nominee and a stronger, well oiled machine. We need that in November to help us win from the oval office down to the mayor's office.
I really think Hillary proved this week that she is not afraid to go all out now and that she can handle going all out in the general. After we have a nominee we are going to see attack campaigns from the right coming in at every angle. The 527's will just be all a twitter with activity. The republicans are scared right now and I think that fear is going to make them turn out things that make swift boat look like child's play. I believe that the message content helped her with voters, but the style and strategy is what the Super's payed attention to and from everything I read, statistically this race is probably going to come down to their votes.
11:39 a.m.
Mar 5, '08
Kev, I think most of us would agree that Clinton would be vasty preferable to McCain in some policy areas. But she's not going to get us out of Iraq, and we will not see any real movement toward trade policies that will improve the lives of American workers.
At the end of the day, she remains the leader among all US Senators in terms of taking money from special interests, with Joe Lieberman a distant second.
Mar 5, '08
I hate seeing the fear factor get so much traction. The red phone is baaack. Using fear is pure Bush league from my perspective. How about some positives for re-routing hundreds of billions in corporate largess, by ending the Iraq occupation. I will vote Democrat and trust that either Dem would stem the hemorrhaging of blood and money there. My hope lies with Obama.
Mar 5, '08
but she can't win, and she's simply running a vanity campaign now.
Not true, she can win, she just needs the superdelegates to do it. And guess what. . . so does Obama.
Look, I've been against the superdelegates from the beginning. I don't like the fact that my party puts the ultimate decision in the hands of party leaders rather than trusting members (and independents and Republicans when the state party allows it) to make the decision. And yeah, I think the superdelegates should support the candidate who leads in pledged delegates at the end of the day. But to say that Clinton can't win is to bury your head in the sand.
I also think those of us who support Obama need to ask the hard questions: Why is Obama the 2nd choice among Democrats in big states? What does that tell us about him, about those Democrats, and about what we need to do to win in November?
Clinton won yesterday by obfuscating the Clinton administration's role in devastating Ohio's economy through trade agreements, and by pursuing racist lines of attack against Obama.
This is oversimplified, Sal, and somewhat insulting to Ohio Democrats since you are characterizing them as easily fooled racists. The better question to ask is why an Ohio Democrat making $50,000 a year isn't willing to support Obama as his first choice. And look deeper into the voting to ensure that Ohio Democrats vote for Obama in November instead of McCain.
Mar 5, '08
Sal, how are their Iraq plans different?
12:00 p.m.
Mar 5, '08
What they are saying publicly right now about Iraq is not all that different. What they are saying about military spending more broadly is dramatically different. Do a google video search on obama and military spending.
Hillary remained hawkish on keeping the military in Iraq right up until the day she started running for the Democratic nomination. I have no reason to believe that she will not tack back to that position once the Democratic Primary is over.
12:07 p.m.
Mar 5, '08
This is oversimplified, Sal, and somewhat insulting to Ohio Democrats since you are characterizing them as easily fooled racists.
I'm not the one running ads appeal that appeal to fear, nor the one whose campaign has said that Obama attended a Madrassa nor the one whose campaign released photos of Obama in traditional Islamic costume.
If Clinton's campaign did not believe that their candidate would benefit from these tactics, then why have they engaged in them?
12:23 p.m.
Mar 5, '08
I agree, Sal. But this thread isn't the time or place to get into why, IMHO. It seems pretty obvious that Jeff would agree as well. However, he has explicitly asked us to leave that stuff out of this thread. Seems like a reasonable request to me.
Mar 5, '08
You can't say "she's not going to get us out of Iraq" and then turn around and admit that their plans for Iraq are the same.
Mar 5, '08
I think Clinton won in Ohio because of the Canadian government leak of a document suggesting that Obama's criticism of NAFTA is campaign rhetoric, not intended policy [see: Canada's Obama NAFTA Memo ].
If the document reflects reality, then Obama has a serious credibility problem. Still, I am not comfortable supporting Senator Clinton who displeases me just a bit less than does John McCain.
Mar 5, '08
Of course the NAFTA issue was just rhetoric. Clinton is smart enough to understand the issue, we're not sure about Obama. Since he only seems to have the vocabulary of a 5 year old (change, hope, yes we can, etc) nobody really knows what he belives in. Once Obama starts to put together coherent policy positions the race might change.
Mar 5, '08
So the "leaked" document was a second hand description/characterization of a conversation between an Obama operative concerning whether criticism of NAFTA should be seen as protectionist policy. Big Woop. Both candidates agreed on needed changes which they felt could be negotiated with the participant Countries. The media reports make this seem like a repudiation of NAFTA criticism in secret to the Canadian Govt by Obama. What a distortion of the truth. This Joseph DeMora character who wrote the "enthusiastic summary" is the author of the "leaked" document. He is a Canadian consular staff member whose memo reflects his interpretation of the Obama operative's spin on protectionism. To suggest this "enthusiastic summary" reflects Obama's position, tacit or otherwise, would be laughable, except that naive voters believe it.
Mar 5, '08
Posted by: Katy | Mar 5, 2008 12:24:30 PM
You can't say "she's not going to get us out of Iraq" and then turn around and admit that their plans for Iraq are the same.
Let me be of assistance. Obama's plan states specifically that within 16 months of taking office, US troops will withdraw from Iraq sans Air Force, advisers, and protective personnel for our diplomats. It will be a tiered withdrawal, consisting of several parts.
Clinton promises immediate 're-deployment' (as opposed to withdrawal) of troops from Iraq. Military experts have harpooned this as being logistically impossible and dangerous.
Posted by: andy | Mar 5, 2008 12:46:33 PM
Of course the NAFTA issue was just rhetoric. Clinton is smart enough to understand the issue, we're not sure about Obama. Since he only seems to have the vocabulary of a 5 year old (change, hope, yes we can, etc) nobody really knows what he belives [believes] in. Once Obama starts to put together coherent policy positions the race might change.
So when Clinton was running her campaign on 'experience' and then all of sudden took on the 'change' motto, was she intellectually regressing?
1:18 p.m.
Mar 5, '08
Just wanted to say thanks for the gracious post, Jeff.
It was a great night for Hillary supporters, and you're right: this campaign is about the people who love and respect Hillary, and there are millions of them, solid Democrats and hopeful Americans who aren't letting the media choose their candidate for them.
Thanks, Blue Oregon. Go Hillary!
Mar 5, '08
From Clinton: "The most important part of Hillary's plan is the first: to end our military engagement in Iraq's civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home." ...and maybe you missed what I asked of you in another thread? Please stop with the nastiness, it's not helping your candidate at all & it's not helping Democrats.
Mar 5, '08
Posted by: Katy | Mar 5, 2008 1:22:50 PM
From Clinton: "The most important part of Hillary's plan is the first: to end our military engagement in Iraq's civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home." ...and maybe you missed what I asked of you in another thread? Please stop with the nastiness, it's not helping your candidate at all & it's not helping Democrats.
I don't get it, I said that it was Clinton's position to bring the troops home immediately. Moreover, that military experts thought this to be a dangerous and logistically impossible plan.
Please don't victimize yourself. I am not taking part in any nastiness, all my posts have been issues based. I'm drawing distinctions between Obama and Clinton, and you seem to interpret this intent as nastiness. I encourage you to rebuff my arguments.
Mar 5, '08
Hat's off to Hillary for her creative portrayal of a black man in her advertisement. Made him look ever more "ethnic"by making him blacker and his nose flatter. Wasn't that sweet? She's got such great values.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/5/131156/5021/187/469677
Mar 5, '08
I'm beginning to wonder about the generic helping Democrats piece. We've already seen what the Senate figures to do about wiretapping, the question now is whether the House can keep its nerve. An odd reversal of the historical roles of House and Senate for the Senate to go all whacked and the House demonstrating restraint... I have some rather negative thoughts about people who vote to stamp on my rights and reward corporations for helping do it. (and BushCo keep its secrets)
Mar 5, '08
"Sure, I'd be glad to fire the first salvo tonight: Didn't Hillary look wretched last night on the Daily Show?"
You didn't post that? Maybe you should watch out for the BCM imposter.
Mar 5, '08
genop,
Criminal trials require evidence to prove guilt beyond a shadow of doubt. Political campaigns do not. Barack's got some 'splainin' to do.
Mar 5, '08
end italic
Mar 5, '08
Katy, let's stick to the issues. Feel free to respond to my arguments but please stop tossing verbal grenades.
I've questioned Hillary's experience and Iraq stance.
Rebut:
Mar 5, '08
BCM, this is the last time I'll post directly to you because I don't think it's doing anyone any good. You said you've been sticking to the issues but I gave you an example of how that's simply not true, I'm not tossing any "verbal grenades," I'm simply giving one illustration of the trash.
I've repeatedly said I don't see much difference between the two candidates plans for Iraq and have questioned how anyone can say how Obama would have voted on the resolution? I've also added that I like Clinton's stand on other issues that are important to me besides Iraq because I'm not a single issue voter. If you are that's fine but you must understand that there are other issues that are very important to many folks.
Mar 5, '08
"Yes, Oregon will matter now! I think it will be so exciting when both Obama and Hillary come to Oregon in the end of April. Obama will fill up the Rose Garden and Hillary will fill up Waterfront Park."
Actually I don't think Hillary will come. Small states don't matter! And, anticipating a big loss in Oregon, I think she won't show. She's counting on the supers at this point anyway. By the time Oregon comes around her threshold of needing delegates would require a 90 % victory.
Mar 5, '08
Steve M.- "(Although I'd much prefer Senator Obama at the top, with Senator Clinton doing her best in the nuts and bolts job in the VP position.)"
Do you think Hillary would accept second spot? It might be the way out of the crisis the party is in. Being in a solid first place in delegates and staying there, I don't see any way that Obama would accept VP. He and his supporters would walk first. If she is going to make her move, now would be the time to cut a deal. If she is out to destroy Obama, then the dogs of war will be loosed and there will be no peace in the valley. Scuse my metaphors!
Mar 5, '08
Jeff thanks for putting this on. What a breath of fresh air here. It was stiffling to feel like the minority - and I really know what that feels like. I don't want to predict a Hillary wave here, we don't want waves, we want action based on experience and that is what Hillary has. Its time for Hillary supporters to band together and work on building her support back in Oregon. And Bill R. lets not be presumptous and judgemental yet on whether she comes to Oregon to campaign or not. She has a fight on her hands and we Hillary supporters are there to help her. No rhetoric, no big words, hardcore action! We know how to get things done for a change.
I have a very strong opinion about this!
Mar 5, '08
Sal writes: If Clinton's campaign did not believe that their candidate would benefit from these tactics, then why have they engaged in them?
I think it's one thing to believe that she gained a point or two using negative tactics, it's another to believe it accounts for her 12-point win in Ohio. Obama did not lose Ohio because of Clinton's 3 a.m. ad or the Candian government document, he lost because his message of hope and opportunity didn't connect with tens of thousands of Ohio Democrats. Obama's camp needs to figure out why not.
Mar 5, '08
Miles,
Polls suggest that whatever lost Obama Ohio and Texas happened in the last three days. Obama's message has been consistent for several months, and so is not a satisfying explanation of his loss.
Mar 5, '08
Obama did not lose Ohio because of Clinton's 3 a.m. ad or the Canadian government document, he lost because his message of hope and opportunity didn't connect with tens of thousands of Ohio Democrats. Obama's camp needs to figure out why not.
And lose in a big way, in case anyone didn't notice.
Hat's off to Hillary for her creative portrayal of a black man in her advertisement. Made him look ever more "ethnic"by making him blacker and his nose flatter. Wasn't that sweet? She's got such great values.
That Photoshopping exercise was in the context of an ad criticizing Obama for not holding hearings of the subcommittee that he chairs in the Senate...a criticism that hardly seems beyond the pale. I could've done without the Photoshopping, however.
Mar 5, '08
Polls suggest that whatever lost Obama Ohio and Texas happened in the last three days. Obama's message has been consistent for several months, and so is not a satisfying explanation of his loss.
An opinion poll in inanimate. It cannot suggest anything. As for whether or not polls are useful predictive tools, hm, they've been so spectacularly off so many times in the last 6 weeks that a large amount of skepticism is warranted.
Moreover, why is "an explanation of [Obama's] loss" even a useful concept? It's not as though any candidate is owed anyone's vote. And people make choices for all sorts of reasons, so of which would seem nonsensical to you or me.
3:49 p.m.
Mar 5, '08
If someone wants to translate this babble for me, I'd be interested.
Miles:
Well, sure she "just needs the superdelegates," but I just need $999,990 to be a millionaire. When I say she can't win, I'm saying that no credible scenario comes to mind where Obama finishes 150-200 pledged delegates ahead and loses roughly 3/4 of the remaining superdelegates. There's neither a precedent nor a credible rationale for large numbers of uncommitted superdelegates to enter the convention with a clear leader on pledged delegates...and choose the one running behind.
There are about 600 pledged delegates left. Hillary is behind by about 150. Almost assuredly, any gains she records from last night will be gone by next Tuesday after WY and MS. Where are those delegates going to come from? The race is predicated on blowouts, and Obama is the only one doing the blowing out (measured by the vote threshholds for bonus delegates, usually in the 63% range). Even if she wins PA, she'd need to absolutely CRUSH him to make serious headway on delegates. Not going to happen.
I'm also not sure you serve Obama well by resorting to Clinton's framing of the race. IL is not a big state? VA is not a big state? GA is not a big state? MO is not a big state? Ohio looks to be a meaningless distinction courtesy of NAFTA; McCain has utterly fucked his prospects by being so strongly FOR it. Either Dem will carry it now, IMO.
Also, the distinction about earning Democrats ignores the fact that in a general election the more productive aim--certainly for the party--is the ability to draw indies and even Republicans. Hillary is at a distinct disadvantage there.
For Clinton to win, she needed to have a great night in TX and OH. Winning two states she was supposed to win from the beginning, by much smaller margins than either previously or that necessary to score big delegate gains, did not help. As with the last "superdooper Tuesday," breaking even is a victory for Obama.
3:50 p.m.
Mar 5, '08
"they've been so spectacularly off so many times in the last 6 weeks that a large amount of skepticism is warranted."
You'll note they were actually pretty right-on last night. Hillary was projected late with an upper-single digits lead in Ohio, and a couple points in TX. They nailed TX, and were pretty close in OH.
3:52 p.m.
Mar 5, '08
"I could've done without the Photoshopping, however."
Harriet Tubman probably could have done without slavery, too...
3:58 p.m.
Mar 5, '08
Hey all, looks like this remains a hotly-contested race, even among supporters in the blogosphere. I guess we can't be blamed for apathy.
Mar 5, '08
Joel wrote:
"An opinion poll in inanimate. It cannot suggest anything. As for whether or not polls are useful predictive tools, hm, they've been so spectacularly off so many times in the last 6 weeks that a large amount of skepticism is warranted.
Moreover, why is "an explanation of [Obama's] loss" even a useful concept? It's not as though any candidate is owed anyone's vote. And people make choices for all sorts of reasons, so of which would seem nonsensical to you or me."
Joel, is that part of your stand-up comedy routine? Political campaigns spend millions of dollars each election cycle on polling. They do not do so for entertainment value. As to inanimate object making suggestions; that is metaphor. Humans employ metaphor. Get used to it.
And suggesting that not "any candidate is owed anyone's vote" does not mean that voting patterns of large numbers of people cannot be explained through sampling and statistical analysis.
Mar 5, '08
And suggesting that not "any candidate is owed anyone's vote" does not mean that voting patterns of large numbers of people cannot be explained through sampling and statistical analysis.
Only if you mean "explain" in the sense that I would use in analyzing laboratory data. Which elections most definitely are not.
Flip a coin and the ratio of heads to tails, and how that ratio changes as you flip more and more times, is nicely explained by simple statistical concepts.
Ask voters who may lie, change their minds, have a car accident on the way to the polls, and just say "screw them all", and you are dealing with another matter entirely.
I suspect a lot of candidates and wonks would be thrilled in voters were like coins, but they're not. C'est la vie.
Mar 5, '08
joel,
Voters are more complex than coins, to be sure, but that does not negate the value of statictical analysis of voting patterns. Evolution is also complex. That is not a good reason to throw out Darwin's theory in favor of Intelligent Design, however.
Mar 5, '08
"Hat's off to Hillary for her creative portrayal of a black man in her advertisement. Made him look ever more "ethnic"by making him blacker and his nose flatter. Wasn't that sweet? She's got such great values."
Joel: "That Photoshopping exercise was in the context of an ad criticizing Obama for not holding hearings of the subcommittee that he chairs in the Senate...a criticism that hardly seems beyond the pale. I could've done without the Photoshopping, however."
Interesting... so using faking photos to emphasize racial characterisics to marginalize isn't beyond the pale. What kind of values do we have in the Dem. party??
Mar 5, '08
Well the media spin is on the big Victory for Clinton. Sen. Clinton, meet King Pyhrrus. However,the delegate reality marches on. We know today that Obama won phase two of the Texas two step big time. So he won a delegate victory of +5, keeping the losses from Ohio and RI to a mere four delegates. I don't think that kind of MO is going to win her anything.
<hr/>Obama Wins Delegate Fight in Texas By Sam Graham-Felsen - Mar 5th, 2008 at 4:29 pm EST Comments | Mail to a Friend | Report Objectionable Content
AUSTIN -- Obama Texas State Director Adrian Saenz issued a statement on the projected primary and caucus results that show Senator Obama won more Texas delegates than Senator Clinton. Because of the close finish, Senator Clinton will likely net only two delegates up-for-grabs in the Texas Primary. Based on a large sample of caucus results in all 31 state senate districts, Senator Obama is projected to post a substantial victory in the Texas caucus and, thereby, net at least seven delegates. This means that Senator Obama will win at least five more pledged delegates from Texas than Senator Clinton.
Mar 5, '08
Bill R--uh, go ahead and quote out of context, or distort, whatever. No, the Photoshop exercise was obviously not OK. Raising the issue of what either Obama or Clinton is doing with his/her day job most certainly is, however.
As for the business of racial characteristics, it's sad to think that whether Obama's skin tone is the color or milk chocolate as compared to some other grade of chocolate (say), or just how wide his nose is, might affect someone's vote. I have favored him for the nomination for awhile now, but as I favor radio to TV news sources, I frankly had no particular mental picture of him at all. I wouldn't have known about the distorted photo if it hadn't been brought to my attention on this website.
Mar 5, '08
Jeff- the problem with this thread is that it seems you are making an admirable attempt to reach out to the Hillary supporters. That said there is a tremendous distrust and anger at her behavior in the campaign. She has let loose the dogs of war to advance her dynastic claim to the presidency and so we have a state of war, which is now in a stage of escalation. It's too bad it happened, but the pandora's box now seems open, and as we well know it is so much easier to trash and destroy one's opponent than it is to make a positive case for oneself.
Obama is now being urged by his supporters to open up the closets where the Clinton skeletons are buried and let them see the light of day. And how well we know, we who have had to defend the Clintons these many years, how abundant those skeletons are. Obama is a good guy but he's not going to be Hillary's punching bag. The unity thing is not going to work while the scorched earth policy of Hillary's ambition is in play.
Mar 5, '08
Well said, Bill R.
Mar 6, '08
Well so much for Obama's rhetoric then, if his supporters are encouraging him to open up the closets on the Clinton skeletons. Did the ultra-right wing leave any closets closed from 1992 to 2000?
Very opionionated!
Mar 6, '08
I congratulate you for giving Hillary supporters an opportunity to make their case here. Everyone should have their say whether you agree with them or not. (Even the Merkley voters!)
Seriously, I would indeed consider voting for her -- if she wins the pledged delegate race -- especially if she wins the pledged delegate race with the help of dittoheads like the ones in Texas who crossed over and voted for her. Then, I'd want to stick it to the Republicans who tried to steal the election.
As it stands now, I'll vote for McCain if Obama wins the pledged delegate race and the Superdelegates decide to disenfranchise the good people of "small states" like mine. This is our one opportunity to have our votes count as much as anyone else's. This is our best opportunity to show that we Democrats believe in democracy, and the idea that elections have rules that can't be changed in midstream.
Mar 6, '08
I'm gonna take my toys and go home because you're a big bully who tells lies and drew a funny picture of me with sidewalk chalk!!!!!!!
No, I'm gonna take my toys and go home because you made a bunch of stupid promises that you broke, plus those were my ideas anyway and you stole them!!!!!!!!
And I'm gonna take all your toys and give them to that really stupid bully down the block so he can have all the fun and even smash them if he wants!! And after that I'm gonna go home and punch my little brother even if it means my mom takes away all my privileges for 8 years!!
10:17 a.m.
Mar 6, '08
Obama is now being urged by his supporters to open up the closets where the Clinton skeletons are buried and let them see the light of day. And how well we know, we who have had to defend the Clintons these many years, how abundant those skeletons are
Yeah, I get all that, and as an Obama guy, the past ten days have been painful. The thing is, OBAMA needs to decide what to do. What I worry about is that his avid supporters, in their anger to defend their man, will take it out on her supporters--which of course they should hope will be his supporters in a few months' time.
The campaign will be long and hard faught. There's something relieving to me to allow a post here or there to stand aside and let supporters of Hillary celebrate the accomplishments of their candidate. Costs us nothing, and those supporters are good, honest progressives. Fighting bitterly at every opportunity does no one any good.
We rest one day and pick up the hammer and tongs the next.
Mar 6, '08
I'd give Hillary a little sugar if she wasn't such a mean hearted bitch.
I'd give Obama a little sugar if he was anything more than an empty suit with a 5 word vocabulary. "Hope, change, yes we can" doesn't get you to far in the real world.
Mar 6, '08
There's something relieving to me to allow a post here or there to stand aside and let supporters of Hillary celebrate the accomplishments of their candidate. Costs us nothing, and those supporters are good, honest progressives.
<h2>I don't know so much about the "honest" when they are in denial of Hillary's deficits. I have challenged them on several threads to explain Hillary's betrayal of her oath to defend the Constitution and her disregard for the U.N. Charter and the Geneva Conventions made evident by her vote to authorize Bush to wage war on Iraq, and I have yet to receive a legitimate response. I'll give her supporters credit for meaning well, but the sad part is that it appears these people are not being honest with themselves.</h2>