Clinton Banks On Superdelegates

[SirNitram]

I'm calling bullshit on anyone saying they'd vote for McCain over Hillary. After eight years of a Republican presidency, I don't think anyone here would be stupid enough to vote for another four years of that shit.

McCain will take a large number of votes. Hopefully not a majority, probably not even a plurality, but he'll get several million. You severely underestimate the ability by idiots to worship the word 'Conservative'.

[Jadeite]

McCain will take a large number of votes. Hopefully not a majority, probably not even a plurality, but he'll get several million. You severely underestimate the ability by idiots to worship the word 'Conservative'.

I was referring to people here on SD, there's a couple posts in this thread about voting for McCain over Hillary.

[Big Phil]

McCain will take a large number of votes. Hopefully not a majority, probably not even a plurality, but he'll get several million. You severely underestimate the ability by idiots to worship the word 'Conservative'.

I was referring to people here on SD, there's a couple posts in this thread about voting for McCain over Hillary.

I wouldn't vote for Romney or Huckabee if Hillary stole the nomination, but McCain is a different story. He has a backbone and character, something Hillary would be proving she lacked if she were to steal the nomination. We already have a President who lacks a backbone, character, or intelligence - do we really need another President who wants power that badly and is completely amoral?

A McCain-style Republican is a completely different beast than a NeoCon, and the NeoCons and evangelicals hate McCain, mostly because he does what he wants instead of what they want (unlike our Commander-in-Chimp). Besides, in 2008 there will probably be a stronger Democratic majority in the House and Senate, so a Republican president would have to compromise and work with the Democrats, and McCain has already proven he can do that.

[Mr Bean]

That would blow up in his face, big time. What right does he have to criticize the internal mechanisms of another party as long as they are within the law? I didn't see anyone refusing to debate Bush after "stealing" the nomination from McCain in 2000 by spreading the lie that he had a black baby. I didnt see Kerry refusing to debate Bush because he stole the Presidency from Al Gore.

Short term attention span Flagg, it happened four years ago. The Republican convention comes second, so McCain is free(Assuming a Hillary election scandel) to call the high moral ground and not debate her. It's only two months from the convention to the election and he's can reliably get away with that in the media for two months. Not for six, not for ten, not for a year. But two month's is just long enough the media won't have totally cycled over, plus it gives them a good solid week of stories and a frame to put everything in.

If McCain tried it, the media would not only let him get away with it, but HELP HIM ALONG. All for the story.

[Flagg]

That would blow up in his face, big time. What right does he have to criticize the internal mechanisms of another party as long as they are within the law? I didn't see anyone refusing to debate Bush after "stealing" the nomination from McCain in 2000 by spreading the lie that he had a black baby. I didnt see Kerry refusing to debate Bush because he stole the Presidency from Al Gore.

Short term attention span Flagg, it happened four years ago. The Republican convention comes second, so McCain is free(Assuming a Hillary election scandel) to call the high moral ground and not debate her. It's only two months from the convention to the election and he's can reliably get away with that in the media for two months. Not for six, not for ten, not for a year. But two month's is just long enough the media won't have totally cycled over, plus it gives them a good solid week of stories and a frame to put everything in.

If McCain tried it, the media would not only let him get away with it, but HELP HIM ALONG. All for the story.

It happened 4 years ago?

This is what would happen if McCain refused to debate Clinton:

Clinton: "My opponent is so afraid of engaging in a debate with me because he knows he cannot win!"

Conservatives: "What a pussy, if he can't stand up to Hillary, how can he stand up to Al Quaeda?"

Obama: "It's a shame that McCain refuses to debate with the legitimate Democratic Nominee."

McCain: "Yeah, I'll debate her! I never said I wouldn't! Umm... 9/11?"

[Xisiqomelir]

Fuck supers. Who needs em when you can have phantom delegates?

Worried Clinton vows to claim 'phantom' delegates

Friday, 15 February 2008

The Hillary Clinton campaign has served notice that it expects to claim delegates theoretically garnered in primary votes in Michigan and Florida even though the contests in both states were declared void by the Democratic leadership long before they were held.

The highly controversial gambit reflects growing concern in the Clinton camp that her rival for the nomination, Barack Obama, may be pulling far enough ahead to be beyond her reach. Yesterday, David Plouffe, Mr Obama's campaign manager, said it had become "highly unlikely" that Mrs Clinton could now prevail.

But reclaiming the "phantom" delegates from Michigan and Florida could potentially tilt the race back in her favour. Last September, both candidates pledged not to campaign in either state after they defied party rules by leapfrogging their primary votes into January.

Democrat voters went to the polls in both states anyway, in very large numbers in Florida especially, where Mrs Clinton won by a 50 per cent to 33 per cent margin. In Michigan, she also came out on top, but was the only candidate with her name on the ballot. The other choice was "uncommitted".

Since the coast-to-coast contests of Super Tuesday on 5 February, Mr Obama has won eight states to Mrs Clinton's zero. According to latest estimates, he now has about 50 more delegates than her bound for the party's August convention in Denver, if you include so-called "super-delegates" – members of Congress, governors and party grandees – who have so far endorsed him.

Mr Obama is expected to win votes next Tuesday in Hawaii (where he was partly raised) and Wisconsin. On 4 March come two key states, Texas and Ohio, which have become Mrs Clinton's firewall against final disaster. A Quinnipiac University poll last night showed her still retaining double-digit leads in the two states. Mrs Clinton campaigned in Ohio yesterday.

There remains the strong risk, indeed, that come the summer convention, neither candidate will have assembled the necessary 2,025 delegates to claim the nomination. Hence the furious lobbying of the nearly 800 super-delegates headed to the convention.

But now Florida and Michigan become crucial. The national party continues to insist that no delegates from either state will be welcome in Denver. Keeping them out of the hall will project an image of party division, however. Democrats in both states say they are being unfairly disenfranchised.

"We believe those should be counted at the convention," Mrs Clinton's field director, Guy Cecil, said in a conference call with reporters. "The issue of the votes in Florida and Michigan – that has to be resolved." This is a clear reversal of positions Mrs Clinton took earlier and the Obama team is crying foul.

"Now, when they believe it serves their political interests, they're trying to rewrite the rules," said Mr Plouffe. "Now, at the 11th hour, the Clinton campaign is trying to rewrite rules that were firmly established, and I don't think there's a lot of appetite for that."

In fact, it is an argument that is already splitting the party. Julian Bond, the leader of the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP), told the Democrat Party chairman Howard Dean that ignoring Florida's votes would be reminiscent of the "sordid history of racially discriminatory primaries" in the state.

But Al Sharpton, a former presidential candidate, wrote to Mr Dean saying that changing the rules of the game now would constitute a "grave injustice".

Ultimately, the decision on whether or not to seat the delegates from the two states will rest not with Mr Dean, but with the party's convention credentialing committee. Its members will only be spared an agonising decision if one of the candidates manages in the final stages of the primary-caucus season decisively to break free. If Mr Obama's winning streak continues, then the arguments over Florida and Michigan could become moot.

Michigan and Florida: a mighty mess

Is Hillary Clinton right to lay claim to the Michigan and Florida delegates?

She is on extremely thin ice. In Michigan, Mr Obama was not on the ballot. Speaking last October about Michigan, Mrs Clinton said: "It's clear, this election that they're having is not going to count for anything". Has she forgotten?

How many delegates are we talking about?

Based on Mrs Clinton's winning margins, she could theoretically be entitled to 73 delegates from Michigan and an additional 105 from Florida. Mr Obama could claim 67 from Florida, but in Michigan 55 delegates would be awarded to the "uncommitted" vote. (Remember John Edwards was still around back then.) It is possible that Mrs Clinton could gain a net 100 delegates. In this race, that's huge.

What will the Democrats do?

The party desperately wants to avoid a scene in Denver with delegates from Florida and Michigan locked out. But it can't easily back down, particularly if to do so ends up making all the difference in favour of Mrs Clinton. Some party officials are discussing asking both states to start all over again with party caucuses. Yes, it's a mighty mess.

[Flagg]

Yeah, it's complete horseshit. If Clinton is so adamant about getting Florida and Michigan delegates then she needs to pony up some cash so that they can hold new caucuses or primaries with both candidates on the ballot. Especially since she already broke her promise not to campaign in Florida, yet showed up there on the day of the primary.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Okay, the woman is going round the bend. She needs to withdraw to 'devote herself to her constituents', regroup, and maybe try again in 8 years.

She's done this go-round, we just have to wait until she figures it out.

[Mr Bean]

It happened 4 years ago?

This is what would happen if McCain refused to debate Clinton:

Clinton: "My opponent is so afraid of engaging in a debate with me because he knows he cannot win!"

Conservatives: "What a pussy, if he can't stand up to Hillary, how can he stand up to Al Quaeda?"

Obama: "It's a shame that McCain refuses to debate with the legitimate Democratic Nominee."

McCain: "Yeah, I'll debate her! I never said I wouldn't! Umm... 9/11?"

Again you falsely assume it will happen in a vacume. The media will imprint it's own views on the situation. You seriously think that if Hillary steals the nomination she's going to have time to run around making statements like that? Your talking about a situation where the Democratc party is in mid-melt down. Where a core voting block(African-American's) have gotten a massive(In there eyes) statement that Democratcs won't let a black man in power.

Obama has taken between eighty percent to ninety fing five percent of the black vote in primaries. You have all the traditional media black leaders swearing to march on Washington if she pulls it off, and yet you assume that the media is going to give her a pass?

If she wins the nomination via super-delegates stand by, stand the fuck by. We've have no actual US equvilant since the Theodore Roosevelt and the United States Progressive Party of 1912.

[Flagg]

It happened 4 years ago?

This is what would happen if McCain refused to debate Clinton:

Clinton: "My opponent is so afraid of engaging in a debate with me because he knows he cannot win!"

Conservatives: "What a pussy, if he can't stand up to Hillary, how can he stand up to Al Quaeda?"

Obama: "It's a shame that McCain refuses to debate with the legitimate Democratic Nominee."

McCain: "Yeah, I'll debate her! I never said I wouldn't! Umm... 9/11?"

Again you falsely assume it will happen in a vacume. The media will imprint it's own views on the situation. You seriously think that if Hillary steals the nomination she's going to have time to run around making statements like that? Your talking about a situation where the Democratc party is in mid-melt down. Where a core voting block(African-American's) have gotten a massive(In there eyes) statement that Democratcs won't let a black man in power.

Obama has taken between eighty percent to ninety fing five percent of the black vote in primaries. You have all the traditional media black leaders swearing to march on Washington if she pulls it off, and yet you assume that the media is going to give her a pass?

If she wins the nomination via super-delegates stand by, stand the fuck by. We've have no actual US equvilant since the Theodore Roosevelt and the United States Progressive Party of 1912.

No, I'm just not assuming that the media will give McCain a pass if he pulls the bitch move of trying to pull out of the debates.

[Mr Bean]

No, I'm just not assuming that the media will give McCain a pass if he pulls the bitch move of trying to pull out of the debates.

They will give him a pass considering how much more interesting the narrative he's helping them create.

Consider how they give Bush a pass on damn near everything up to and including admitting to breaking the law. You seriously don't think they'd give McCain a pass?

Fuck, the Anti-torture man just voted against a bill Banning Torture and they are giving him a pass on it right this minute Sure Olberman will say something and an AP reporter will cover it, but despite being interviewed multiple times since the vote he's still not been questioned on it.

[SirNitram]

The media salivates over McCain because he puts on a tough guy act, just as they worship Bush because he's the rich popular idiot. Honestly, it's like High School never ended for these bozos.

Still, I look forward to the end of the 'Hillary will win via magic and superdelegates alone' narrative. I'll look forward to when she just plain loses, because the flat out paranoid delusions that the media propagates and people eat up about the Clintons are so very annoying to a thinking mind.

[Flagg]

No, I'm just not assuming that the media will give McCain a pass if he pulls the bitch move of trying to pull out of the debates.

They will give him a pass considering how much more interesting the narrative he's helping them create.

Consider how they give Bush a pass on damn near everything up to and including admitting to breaking the law. You seriously don't think they'd give McCain a pass?

Fuck, the Anti-torture man just voted against a bill Banning Torture and they are giving him a pass on it right this minute Sure Olberman will say something and an AP reporter will cover it, but despite being interviewed multiple times since the vote he's still not been questioned on it.

Except McCain bitching out on the debates isn't something that can be ignored. Like, at all. All the networks televise them. You think they are going to let a candidate get away with something like that despite how a nominee is chosen?

Because regardless of how she would get nominated, it would still be a legitimate nomination. This is the same media that gave Bush legitimacy as president despite the fact that he lost the 2000 election. What makes you think for a second that they aren't going to do the same for a Clinton nomination? Barring legal challenges, that is. And if we're at that point, then we might as well just fold up the umbrella and come back in 2012 hoping to christ that McCain doesn't have Huckabee or Ghouliani for a running mate, cause I doubt he'll last a full term.

Hell, the bigger story would be "McCain chickens out on debates!". He'd have to be completely retarded to even do that in the first place. It's an absolutely idiotic thing to do when the alternative is not making waves and watching with glee as the Democrats tear themselves to shreds. Maybe make a few snide remarks about having a clean and fair election during the debates.

[HemlockGrey]

Still, I look forward to the end of the 'Hillary will win via magic and superdelegates alone' narrative. I'll look forward to when she just plain loses, because the flat out paranoid delusions that the media propagates and people eat up about the Clintons are so very annoying to a thinking mind.

Except that's not the "narrative". The "narrative" is that she will try to win with superdelegates, and its hardly a paranoid delusion when Clintonistas like Harold Ickes and Mark Penn are out there laying the groundwork for the attempt with every public appearance.

[CmdrWilkens]

Okay so for the debates go out and see just how many stories there were about "Clinton pull sout of MSNBC debate" versus the 8 million other sotries about Obama's win streak, the growing crisis with the super delegates, and the when will Huck drop out narrative. Despite Clinton almost campaigning on the issue of the "pimp" comment it raised barely any hackles. If the Democratic nominaiton is seen as "stolen" then the networks will happily can presidential debates in favor of network shows follow by news-magazine specials about the protests to the Dems choice and the massive brouhaha. I honestly think in the event Clinton did pull off such a bullshit manuever GWB could literally go to war with iran and nobody would notice. The Democratic meltdown that would follow would be the biggest story of every US journalist's career...AND they wouldn't have to travel to shithole like Iraq to get the "authenticity" needed to score big ratings points.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Except McCain bitching out on the debates isn't something that can be ignored. Like, at all. All the networks televise them. You think they are going to let a candidate get away with something like that despite how a nominee is chosen?

Are you fucking kidding, Flagg? We're talking about a media structure that has completely swallowed the White House story on Iraq every single they've changed the narrative in the past six years. The largest part of the media is either stone-cold retarded or completely in thrall to the ratings beast--pick one, it doesn't matter since either one means they can't even tie their own shoes, the useless turds. These people aren't even sure whether we originally went into Iraq to find WMDs--when a quick glance at their own fucking archives would tell them that this was exactly the case. They would eat dogshit if the GOP told them it was chocolate pudding, and then they'd write on the front page about how good it tasted.

Now, I'm not making an allegation of media bias here. I'm just calling them fucking idiots. If the Democratic Party was better organized and more capable of manipulating the media, they could pull the same trick, but the GOP is just plain better at playing dirty, and has been since Nixon. Fourth estate my ass, they're nothing but a tool, and the best we can hope for is that good people like Obama will learn how to twist them up as well as the GOP already does.

[Flagg]

The media salivates over McCain because he puts on a tough guy act, just as they worship Bush because he's the rich popular idiot. Honestly, it's like High School never ended for these bozos.

Still, I look forward to the end of the 'Hillary will win via magic and superdelegates alone' narrative. I'll look forward to when she just plain loses, because the flat out paranoid delusions that the media propagates and people eat up about the Clintons are so very annoying to a thinking mind.

The problem is that they don't do themselves any favors by pulling shit like trying to get Michigan and Florida delegates in play despite the fact that she was the only person on the ballot in Michigan and showed up on election day in Florida despite promising not to campaign there. It's a naked attempt to grab delegates and the fact that her campaign is trying to cry "disenfranchisement" when there wasn't a fair election in the first place is the type of shit I expect from Karl Rove.

If she were saying "Let's have a new caucus or primary in those states" and then was willing to fork over some cash to help get that done, then I'd be all for it. But she's trying to get delegates from states where she has the advantage, but didn't actually have to spend any money to earn any votes and where she had the luxury of being the only person able or trying to get them.

[SirNitram]

Still, I look forward to the end of the 'Hillary will win via magic and superdelegates alone' narrative. I'll look forward to when she just plain loses, because the flat out paranoid delusions that the media propagates and people eat up about the Clintons are so very annoying to a thinking mind.

Except that's not the "narrative". The "narrative" is that she will try to win with superdelegates, and its hardly a paranoid delusion when Clintonistas like Harold Ickes and Mark Penn are out there laying the groundwork for the attempt with every public appearance.

Read what I wrote: I said superdelegates alone, somehow ignoring the will of the people entirely.. Despite the fact that the gap between delegates for her and the minimum required will still be large enough that she needs a strong popular showing in the remaining primaries.

There's nothing new or odd about winning with superdelegates, and that is the Clinton's message. The anti-Clinton narrative of 'She'll do anything to win, she'll turn the US into a wasteland!!!!' is paranoid delusions, and that's what I'm speaking of.

[Flagg]

Except McCain bitching out on the debates isn't something that can be ignored. Like, at all. All the networks televise them. You think they are going to let a candidate get away with something like that despite how a nominee is chosen?

Are you fucking kidding, Flagg? We're talking about a media structure that has completely swallowed the White House story on Iraq every single they've changed the narrative in the past six years. The largest part of the media is either stone-cold retarded or completely in thrall to the ratings beast--pick one, it doesn't matter since either one means they can't even tie their own shoes, the useless turds. These people aren't even sure whether we originally went into Iraq to find WMDs--when a quick glance at their own fucking archives would tell them that this was exactly the case. They would eat dogshit if the GOP told them it was chocolate pudding, and then they'd write on the front page about how good it tasted.

Now, I'm not making an allegation of media bias here. I'm just calling them fucking idiots. If the Democratic Party was better organized and more capable of manipulating the media, they could pull the same trick, but the GOP is just plain better at playing dirty, and has been since Nixon. Fourth estate my ass, they're nothing but a tool, and the best we can hope for is that good people like Obama will learn how to twist them up as well as the GOP already does.

I'm not kidding at all. There's a big difference between not making something into a big story, and then pulling a stunt designed to be a big story. The only possible way McCain would be able to gain at all from pulling out of debating Hillary would be for the media to completely ignore the fact that he's refusing to debate her. And it's too juicy a story for them not to cover it. It doesn't involve questions of legality or lies after the fact.

Which begs the question "Why the bleeding fuck would he even do it in the first place?" It's an attention grabbing ploy and one that would make him look just as bad, if not worse, than it would make Clinton look for "stealing" the nomination.

[Nephtys]

McCain is a different story. He has a backbone and character, something Hillary would be proving she lacked if she were to steal the nomination. We already have a President who lacks a backbone, character, or intelligence - do we really need another President who wants power that badly and is completely amoral?

...Character and backbone? McFlipFlopCain?

John Kerry was criticized for changing his views on something after DECADES. McCain changes his mind after MINUTES. Like his overt play for the lock-step religious voter's votes by speaking at Bob Jones University? Or his very recent voting AGAINST the waterboarding ban, because he 'does not support torture?'

I mean, how weak, gutless and morally bankrupt can you be, if you publically state that you hate and denounce torture, yet overtly support it when it comes to your vote?

[Pablo Sanchez]

I'm not kidding at all. There's a big difference between not making something into a big story, and then pulling a stunt designed to be a big story. The only possible way McCain would be able to gain at all from pulling out of debating Hillary would be for the media to completely ignore the fact that he's refusing to debate her. And it's too juicy a story for them not to cover it. It doesn't involve questions of legality or lies after the fact.

I agree that this would happen in a long campaign cycle, but as Bean was saying, a short cycle gives him opportunity to evade. All he would have to do is find something to do so he could claim he was too busy for a debate. Say, he takes a trip to the Middle East to tour Iraq and meet with the Israelis and some Arab leaders. He could eat up weeks acting like a President-in-waiting doing diplomatic work, which would keep him in the front pages, allow his staff to keep running ads in his absence, and put him out of reach for any debate. He could waste further time scooting around the South and so forth, pretending to reach out to the conservative wing of the GOP, again too busy for a debate. In a short race (that is, if the Democratic nomination has to go all the way to the convention) I doubt the media has the brains to put it together. He'd obviously take some damage in the coverage, but nothing compared to how he'd suffer if he actually went to the mat with the Democratic nominee.

In a debate he'll be hammered on Iraq, aggressive foreign policy in general, the economy, his guilt by association with George W. Bush, his shitcock flipflopping on torture, and more. If the debate was with Obama, Barack could even stomp him on religion, since McCain will have to rely on fundamentalist support despite himself being much less of a church-goer than Obama. He lacks the good ol' boy charm that allowed George W. Bush to turn a humiliating drubbing on national TV into a kind of neo-victory ("lol Al Gore is so mean that it doesn't matter that he's right") so a debate is bad for him. The only question is whether evasion is worse.

Now, in a long campaign over more than a few months, the media would probably clue in enough to his evasion to call him a coward for resisting a debate. But I agree with Bean that, in a short campaign, he could fox it out and it would hurt him less than appearing on TV to get his ass beat by Barack Obama or (god forbid) Hillary Clinton.

[Mr Bean]

Flagg
Ahem
"Terror Alerts"
2002-2004
Bush raises the Terror alert based off what the magic invisible man in the sky told him?
24/7 Terror Stories

There is precedent for this, McCain after all it supposed to be in this narrative the "principled" one. If he makes a Principled stand VS Hillary then the Media will weave him in, no questions asked.

[Jadeite]

...Character and backbone? McFlipFlopCain?

John Kerry was criticized for changing his views on something after DECADES. McCain changes his mind after MINUTES. Like his overt play for the lock-step religious voter's votes by speaking at Bob Jones University? Or his very recent voting AGAINST the waterboarding ban, because he 'does not support torture?'

I mean, how weak, gutless and morally bankrupt can you be, if you publically state that you hate and denounce torture, yet overtly support it when it comes to your vote?

Not to mention selling himself out to Bush the moment his pet legislation began running into trouble.

[Flagg]

Bean and Pablo:

Hopefully it won't come to than and it will forever be a mystery as to just how shitty our media can be.

[Big Phil]

McCain is a different story. He has a backbone and character, something Hillary would be proving she lacked if she were to steal the nomination. We already have a President who lacks a backbone, character, or intelligence - do we really need another President who wants power that badly and is completely amoral?

...Character and backbone? McFlipFlopCain?

John Kerry was criticized for changing his views on something after DECADES. McCain changes his mind after MINUTES. Like his overt play for the lock-step religious voter's votes by speaking at Bob Jones University? Or his very recent voting AGAINST the waterboarding ban, because he 'does not support torture?'

I mean, how weak, gutless and morally bankrupt can you be, if you publically state that you hate and denounce torture, yet overtly support it when it comes to your vote?

What's wrong with changing your position? It may not speak to your consistency, but are you seriously pissed off at McCain for changing his mind and now being opposed to torture? What's he supposed to do, ride the torture train into oblivion just so he can claim consistency?