Comments on: The “New Math”–for girls! http://www.historiann.com/2008/05/21/the-new-math-for-girls/ History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present Sat, 20 Sep 2014 07:56:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.2 By: Teh Ruelz : Historiann : History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present http://www.historiann.com/2008/05/21/the-new-math-for-girls/comment-page-1/#comment-14210 Sat, 24 May 2008 14:30:30 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=325#comment-14210 [...] my friendly hints in some recent posts about keeping the comments here on topic and specific to the points raised in my posts were [...]

]]>
By: David http://www.historiann.com/2008/05/21/the-new-math-for-girls/comment-page-1/#comment-13377 Fri, 23 May 2008 00:19:37 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=325#comment-13377 Yeah, I just read that too. I had earlier read that Michelle Obama had been urging her husband not to accept Hillary as VP also. Who knows if these things are really happening or not, though.

I look forward to reading a post on the “Oppression Olympics.”

By the way, though, I disagree with that author. I don’t think Clinton was hurt by going negative on Obama. Rather, it seems to me that she didn’t go negative soon enough. She did well in New Hampshire after going after him (and Edwards) at the NH debate. The “kitchen sink” strategy or whatever we want to call it seemed to work for her in Texas and Ohio. If she had pulled this out earlier it would have helped her. Rather, it seems to me that she made the mistake of overlooking Obama and following the Penn strategy of expecting to wrap things up in early February.

Anyway, the race continues. Now we will all be treated to the absurd spectacle of watching two politicians briefly pander to a colonized island that few in the U.S.–and probably fewer in either of these campaigns–actually care about. It should be fun.

]]>
By: Historiann http://www.historiann.com/2008/05/21/the-new-math-for-girls/comment-page-1/#comment-13247 Thu, 22 May 2008 21:42:11 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=325#comment-13247 According to this report (straight from the unsourced, non peer-reviewed internets, so take it for what it’s worth) Clinton has asked to be Obama’s VP and he has said no.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/22/122651/863

I’ve been very doubtful all along that Obama would even consider picking Clinton. His whole campaign was built on trashing the Clintons and suggesting that they are part of the “old politics” that his “Change” (TM) will obliterate. While some presidential candidates turn about pretty quickly and choose a VP as a marriage of convenience for both (Reagan/Bush for example), I seriously doubt that will happen. It would please the majority of Democrats, but I think Obama is intimidated by both Clintons. (I also can see why he wouldn’t want a popular former president hanging around his administration.)

]]>
By: David http://www.historiann.com/2008/05/21/the-new-math-for-girls/comment-page-1/#comment-13145 Thu, 22 May 2008 17:26:10 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=325#comment-13145 You are cherrypicking the one outlier poll. All the others had the gap narrower than 18 points. One showed Obama up by only four.

I certainly don’t think it was a mistake for Clinton to campaign in Oregon! She should have campaigned much harder in Oregon, because she needed to win Oregon if she was going to have any chance at the nomination. The opposite was not true for Obama. He did not need to campaign in Kentucky in order to maintain his position as frontrunner. He needed to match expectations in Oregon, which he did. My point has simply been that, at this point, his resources are best spent in other states rather than trying to narrow the margin of his defeat in Kentucky.

I suspect at this point Clinton is trying to strengthen her position to the point where Obama will have to put her on the ticket as VP. That’s what Bill is apparently arguing for. That’s what the popular vote argument is about. Unlike a lot of Obama supporters, I’m not opposed to this outcome. It could backfire, but it is worth considering.

]]>
By: Historiann http://www.historiann.com/2008/05/21/the-new-math-for-girls/comment-page-1/#comment-13129 Thu, 22 May 2008 16:12:27 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=325#comment-13129 The last I saw, the gap was 20 points, 55-35. The end result was 59-41, an 18 point gap with both of them picking up support, she more than he (6 points versus 4 points).

http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=121064144749596700

I guess you see it as a mistake that she campaigned in Oregon. That’s too bad.

]]>
By: David http://www.historiann.com/2008/05/21/the-new-math-for-girls/comment-page-1/#comment-13128 Thu, 22 May 2008 16:00:00 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=325#comment-13128 Historiann, please do a little research. Clinton did not “narrow the gap in the polls” in Oregon. What I was referring to was the fact that she canceled events in Oregon in the last few days before the primary, but whatever.

Anyway, Obama won Oregon by 18 points. A January poll had her up by 8 points. From there, every poll from April 4 to May 11 had Obama leading, but none by more than 14 points. In the last week before the polls, the average was Obama by 12 points.

Again, do some research. Thanks.

]]>
By: Indyanna http://www.historiann.com/2008/05/21/the-new-math-for-girls/comment-page-1/#comment-13124 Thu, 22 May 2008 15:54:20 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=325#comment-13124 I should clarify my “Cactus League” cheapshot–which it was–to say that I wasn’t referring to Super Tuesday, just to the 11-contest run that followed it, and then also retract it, because it wasn’t really a set of practice or exhibition contests, as implied in that metaphor. But it was, in fact, the early season. If you think the party should treat the primary season as an audition or tryout for the general election, rather than a part of some sacred compact in which the playing field has to be level everywhere–which clearly it wasn’t anyway–you’d have to be worried about going into November with a “winner” who pretty much seems to be “backing into,” the title.

And what are we to make of Nebraska? In its February 9 caucus, 38,670 people took part and Obama got almost 67% of the votes and ended up with two-thirds of the 24 delegates. Three months later, in Nebraska’s actual primary, with no delegates at stake but turnout plumped up by some apparently attractive statewide contests, 93,000 people voted, and Obama won this time by only 49% to 47%. This could either be a laboratory test of the structural inequality of the caucus system, or a measure of frontrunner “fade” as grinding season wore on. Or both.

]]>
By: Historiann http://www.historiann.com/2008/05/21/the-new-math-for-girls/comment-page-1/#comment-13101 Thu, 22 May 2008 14:24:27 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=325#comment-13101 ej: it’s unfair to say that Hillary “couldn’t be bothered” to campaign in Colorado. Obama visited Colorado only once before the Feb. 5 caucus. Clinton visited in late October, but unfortunately for her, coverage of that visit was swamped by the Rockies’ surprise appearance in the World Series last year. Undoubtedly Obama’s appearance here helped his case, but it’s not like either of them tore up the state campaigning.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Hillary+Clinton+visits+Colorado&start=0&sa=N

In fairness to both of them, the Colorado caucus was Super Tuesday, when they had not just one or two primaries/caucuses, but there were TWENTY THREE other contests that day. I think that’s probably the reason none of the presidential candidates spent much time here.

]]>
By: Historiann http://www.historiann.com/2008/05/21/the-new-math-for-girls/comment-page-1/#comment-13095 Thu, 22 May 2008 14:05:27 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=325#comment-13095 “Hillary didn’t do much campaigning in Oregon, either.”

Wrong. Clinton was in Oregon several times from early April up until the primary, as even this lazy search in the Portland Tribune reveals. (Just scanning the headlines, I count 9 visits between April 3 and May 16.) Bill Clinton made appearances as early as late March, and campaigned there regularly in April and May. Chelsea too.

Please do a little research to back up your claims. It looks to me like she campaigned extemely hard in a state where the odds were stacked against her. That is how she narrowed the gap in the polls. That is what leaders do–they go places where people aren’t sold on them already, and they make their case. They don’t just write off states where it looks like they won’t win.

http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/search_results.php?keywords=Clinton+in+Oregon

]]>
By: David http://www.historiann.com/2008/05/21/the-new-math-for-girls/comment-page-1/#comment-12936 Thu, 22 May 2008 04:56:17 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=325#comment-12936 The reason Obama did not campaign in West Virginia is that, after Indiana and North Carolina, he realized he had the nomination locked up. He decided he would be better spent trying to campaign in Michigan (where he’d never campaigned before, but a state that will be huge in the fall), Florida, Ohio, and Iowa, among others. You can quibble with the strategy if you want, and one could make an argument that he should have fought in West Virginia and Kentucky, but the reality is that once you feel you are the presumptive nominee, your goal shifts to November. I suspect that Obama will try to improve his image in Appalachia over the course of the summer, but he felt there were more important places to be right now. As someone who wants the Democrats to win in November, Michigan and Ohio are much more important than West Virginia and Kentucky. Not only are they more winnable, but they have more electoral votes, and with the winner-take-all system, Obama can’t afford to waste too many resources on states he doesn’t need to win and is extremely unlikely to win.

(Let’s also keep in mind that Hillary didn’t do much campaigning in Oregon, either. I think Obama did one stop in Kentucky.)

Also, as for feeling that your vote doesn’t matter: I came to grips with the fact that my vote doesn’t matter a long time ago.

]]>