Comments on: Clinton locks up the keystone state http://www.historiann.com/2008/04/22/clinton-locks-up-the-keystone-state/ History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present Sun, 12 Oct 2008 23:43:48 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Historiann http://www.historiann.com/2008/04/22/clinton-locks-up-the-keystone-state/#comment-7570 Historiann Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:48:10 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=268#comment-7570 Maybe--but the primaries aren't over yet. There are still 8 more (and 6 weeks) to go. We'll see what happens! Maybe–but the primaries aren’t over yet. There are still 8 more (and 6 weeks) to go. We’ll see what happens!

]]> By: Rad Readr http://www.historiann.com/2008/04/22/clinton-locks-up-the-keystone-state/#comment-7538 Rad Readr Thu, 24 Apr 2008 04:51:14 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=268#comment-7538 Well, while I don't think the primary/caucus system is democratic in the sense that all voters are represented equally, the delegate count does affect the way people view the reality of the vote. The popular vote, a bit closer to reality, still favors him slightly. Some people would say even if he won by one vote, right? I don't think "durability" with certain voters would or should win out over real numbers (popular vote) and certainly a lot of people will stick by the fabricated numbers (delegates at present). That's why he should be on top of the ticket. Well, while I don’t think the primary/caucus system is democratic in the sense that all voters are represented equally, the delegate count does affect the way people view the reality of the vote. The popular vote, a bit closer to reality, still favors him slightly. Some people would say even if he won by one vote, right? I don’t think “durability” with certain voters would or should win out over real numbers (popular vote) and certainly a lot of people will stick by the fabricated numbers (delegates at present). That’s why he should be on top of the ticket.

]]> By: Historiann http://www.historiann.com/2008/04/22/clinton-locks-up-the-keystone-state/#comment-7502 Historiann Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:22:05 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=268#comment-7502 Hey Rad--I agree with your analysis, except the conclusion. Why should Hillary, who's shown more success and more durability with people who actually vote Democratic (i.e. older rather than younger voters, who don't always show up, and the women who are voting in higher numbers than men) step aside and let "the younger person" take the top spot? Although I'm much, much, much younger than Obama, I don't see the appeal of youth this time around. Many faithful dems (that MAJORITY of women showing up at the polls this year) don't like the appearance of the young guy getting promoted ahead of the more experienced, more knowledgeable woman. If he beats her fair and square, then fine, but I don't think he'll want her on his ticket. Hey Rad–I agree with your analysis, except the conclusion. Why should Hillary, who’s shown more success and more durability with people who actually vote Democratic (i.e. older rather than younger voters, who don’t always show up, and the women who are voting in higher numbers than men) step aside and let “the younger person” take the top spot? Although I’m much, much, much younger than Obama, I don’t see the appeal of youth this time around. Many faithful dems (that MAJORITY of women showing up at the polls this year) don’t like the appearance of the young guy getting promoted ahead of the more experienced, more knowledgeable woman.

If he beats her fair and square, then fine, but I don’t think he’ll want her on his ticket.

]]> By: Rad readr http://www.historiann.com/2008/04/22/clinton-locks-up-the-keystone-state/#comment-7484 Rad readr Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:08:12 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=268#comment-7484 It's fairly tight -- delegates, super or not, and popular vote. Obama is up only by 2-300,000 or so in the popular. And who knows how many delegates he has through the freaky caucus process. Hillary won the popular vote in Texas, but it's being colored as both because he won the come-back-and-vote-again-even-though-you-have-work-and/or-kids caucus. As far as number of states won -- my home state of California is worth a dozen of those dakota type places. Unlike most pundits, I think Pennsylvania did clear up something -- Obama draws big with Af-Ams and new, younger voters and idealistic types but has trouble with the white working-class. Hillary does better with the working-class but could probably still pull in good Af-Am votes unless there is a total meltdown in the nomination process. She inspires women. Given their similarities in positions, the question now becomes not about who wins more delgates/popular votes (it's clear this is not a democratic process) -- it's a question of strategy -- do you bet on the new voters and those Obama inspires or do you bet on Hill's ability to draw older voters and those she inspires? I say we push an Obama/Hillary ticket with the younger person on top -- 46 is inspirationally young. New generation, etc. And don't even say it's not going to happen because that's the Republican line. Young guy/first woman vp versus that ghostly looking fellow seeking the next 100-year war. It’s fairly tight — delegates, super or not, and popular vote. Obama is up only by 2-300,000 or so in the popular. And who knows how many delegates he has through the freaky caucus process.

Hillary won the popular vote in Texas, but it’s being colored as both because he won the come-back-and-vote-again-even-though-you-have-work-and/or-kids caucus.

As far as number of states won — my home state of California is worth a dozen of those dakota type places.

Unlike most pundits, I think Pennsylvania did clear up something — Obama draws big with Af-Ams and new, younger voters and idealistic types but has trouble with the white working-class. Hillary does better with the working-class but could probably still pull in good Af-Am votes unless there is a total meltdown in the nomination process. She inspires women. Given their similarities in positions, the question now becomes not about who wins more delgates/popular votes (it’s clear this is not a democratic process) — it’s a question of strategy — do you bet on the new voters and those Obama inspires or do you bet on Hill’s ability to draw older voters and those she inspires?

I say we push an Obama/Hillary ticket with the younger person on top — 46 is inspirationally young. New generation, etc. And don’t even say it’s not going to happen because that’s the Republican line. Young guy/first woman vp versus that ghostly looking fellow seeking the next 100-year war.

]]> By: David http://www.historiann.com/2008/04/22/clinton-locks-up-the-keystone-state/#comment-7482 David Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:05:14 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=268#comment-7482 Excuse me, but what I said was that this post-facto spin is pathetic. And it is. That's not an insult. That is addressing an argument, not a person. Whatever. If I want Clinton spin I can go to her website. Your rehashing of campaign talking points has gotten really tiresome. I'm out. Excuse me, but what I said was that this post-facto spin is pathetic. And it is. That’s not an insult. That is addressing an argument, not a person.

Whatever. If I want Clinton spin I can go to her website. Your rehashing of campaign talking points has gotten really tiresome. I’m out.

]]> By: Historiann http://www.historiann.com/2008/04/22/clinton-locks-up-the-keystone-state/#comment-7481 Historiann Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:50:04 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=268#comment-7481 Fair enough, GayProf. This pandering to IA and NH has to stop! Let's make Michigan and Florida the FIRST primaries, held a week apart (and abolish caucuses held before April 1). Fair enough, GayProf. This pandering to IA and NH has to stop! Let’s make Michigan and Florida the FIRST primaries, held a week apart (and abolish caucuses held before April 1).

]]> By: GayProf http://www.historiann.com/2008/04/22/clinton-locks-up-the-keystone-state/#comment-7478 GayProf Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:34:47 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=268#comment-7478 Clinton keeping her name on the ballot, but never setting her foot in the state seems to me to be pretty disingenuous. So, she wanted to win without actually addressing the concerns of the state (which is why Michigan moved its primary up in the first place). She could have rejected the plan from the get go, demanded that votes count, etc.. Sorry -- I see it as indefensible. Clinton keeping her name on the ballot, but never setting her foot in the state seems to me to be pretty disingenuous. So, she wanted to win without actually addressing the concerns of the state (which is why Michigan moved its primary up in the first place). She could have rejected the plan from the get go, demanded that votes count, etc..

Sorry — I see it as indefensible.

]]> By: Indyanna http://www.historiann.com/2008/04/22/clinton-locks-up-the-keystone-state/#comment-7477 Indyanna Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:19:23 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=268#comment-7477 Too many sub-threads to keep track of here, much less weave them all into a short comment. I'll just address the money thing. Obama's agreement a year ago to accept public financing for the general election and subsequent construction of the bizarre concept of a "parallel public finance system" from netroot internet solicitations is no less disingenuous than the classic Clinton "what the meaning of the word IS is..." Too much money for one candidate is a bad thing no matter where it's from or how it's raised; even if it comes from a dime from every school kid in the country. It distorts the civil debate and I think it even hurt Obama in the end in "his" parts of Pennsylvania (the Philly exurbs, for example). What the heck was the guy even *doing* at a fundraiser in Marin County if he's raising $41 million a month on the web, while his poll workers in Philly don't even get donuts and coffee money, to say nothing of cheesesteaks? The "bitter" flap was but an accidental byproduct of such a greedy approach. While glib generalizations like "the Alleghenies are pretty racist places" would never come out of the Obama morning conference call, people on the bituminous flats around where I'm typing from can pretty much read the coded equivalences in phrases like "bitter," and thus you have your electoral map last night. (I guess that talking point effectively writes off West Virginia, Kentucky, and maybe even southern Indiana, depending on what the "Alleghenies" are?) No Democrat who can't even win Allegheny County (Pittsburgh) in the primary is going to beat McCain this November or any November. Too many sub-threads to keep track of here, much less weave them all into a short comment. I’ll just address the money thing. Obama’s agreement a year ago to accept public financing for the general election and subsequent construction of the bizarre concept of a “parallel public finance system” from netroot internet solicitations is no less disingenuous than the classic Clinton “what the meaning of the word IS is…” Too much money for one candidate is a bad thing no matter where it’s from or how it’s raised; even if it comes from a dime from every school kid in the country. It distorts the civil debate and I think it even hurt Obama in the end in “his” parts of Pennsylvania (the Philly exurbs, for example). What the heck was the guy even *doing* at a fundraiser in Marin County if he’s raising $41 million a month on the web, while his poll workers in Philly don’t even get donuts and coffee money, to say nothing of cheesesteaks? The “bitter” flap was but an accidental byproduct of such a greedy approach.

While glib generalizations like “the Alleghenies are pretty racist places” would never come out of the Obama morning conference call, people on the bituminous flats around where I’m typing from can pretty much read the coded equivalences in phrases like “bitter,” and thus you have your electoral map last night. (I guess that talking point effectively writes off West Virginia, Kentucky, and maybe even southern Indiana, depending on what the “Alleghenies” are?) No Democrat who can’t even win Allegheny County (Pittsburgh) in the primary is going to beat McCain this November or any November.

]]> By: Historiann http://www.historiann.com/2008/04/22/clinton-locks-up-the-keystone-state/#comment-7476 Historiann Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:37:26 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=268#comment-7476 I agree that it's a great advantage of Obama's that he's so flush with cash, but I disagree that Clinton is running out of donors. Already she's raised as much as she spent in PA in the 17 hours since the polls closed there ($3M or $3.5), and in the money race, nothing succeeds like success. But, it's true that her supporters aren't as wealthy on the whole as Obama's are. Her supporters are the ones for whom it's really going to matter whether or not John McCain or a Democrat is the next president. Her supporters are people who really need universal health care, social security, and student loans for their kids. Her supporters include more people for whom a $10 or $25 pledge is a meaningful amount, and might mean that they trim something from their budgets next week to pay for it. Speaking of which, I'm off to make a donation! I agree that it’s a great advantage of Obama’s that he’s so flush with cash, but I disagree that Clinton is running out of donors. Already she’s raised as much as she spent in PA in the 17 hours since the polls closed there ($3M or $3.5), and in the money race, nothing succeeds like success. But, it’s true that her supporters aren’t as wealthy on the whole as Obama’s are. Her supporters are the ones for whom it’s really going to matter whether or not John McCain or a Democrat is the next president. Her supporters are people who really need universal health care, social security, and student loans for their kids. Her supporters include more people for whom a $10 or $25 pledge is a meaningful amount, and might mean that they trim something from their budgets next week to pay for it.

Speaking of which, I’m off to make a donation!

]]> By: Historiann http://www.historiann.com/2008/04/22/clinton-locks-up-the-keystone-state/#comment-7473 Historiann Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:29:21 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=268#comment-7473 David, I'll ask you not to insult me or anyone else here (use of the word "pathetic.") I've never deleted a single one of your comments, but you've got to keep it civil. I was correcting GayProf's implication that HRC and BO are equally to blame for the erasure of the Michigan votes. She kept her name on the ballot and won, and it's only in BO's interest not to seat her delegates (and not to agree to a re-vote). David, I’ll ask you not to insult me or anyone else here (use of the word “pathetic.”) I’ve never deleted a single one of your comments, but you’ve got to keep it civil.

I was correcting GayProf’s implication that HRC and BO are equally to blame for the erasure of the Michigan votes. She kept her name on the ballot and won, and it’s only in BO’s interest not to seat her delegates (and not to agree to a re-vote).

]]>