« Obama: Clinton Won Dirty.... Clinton Campaign: Obama Lost Dirty | Main | Some lessons from the Democratic race so far.... » The Dirty Caucuses20 Jan 2008 06:59 pm Jon Ralston: Hey, guys, with this day-after tit for tat, can this be over now? Ok, but there were massive organizational problems with the caucuses in your state, and someone ought to be held accountable for them. Comments (28)
I think the explanation is that this has never happened before, so the media didn't know how to deal with it. They didn't understand this concept until well after they had declared Hillary the winner. That's why the AP and others initially said Hillary had won the 13 delegates to Obama's 12. They messed up, but they don't want to admit it, so they minimized the importance of the national delegates. I don't think we should dwell on this too much though. South Carolina is coming up and Hillary has the momentum for her wins in New Hampshire and Nevada. It'll be interesting to see what kind of bounce she gets there and whether Edwards loses support to her. This will be the critical race going into February 5th. 
Any idea on when the full counts will be released? At least the after-realignment tally should come soon since the state party already released the total turnout? Maybe since 2% of precincts are still outstanding, there's more complicated counting going on... No clue how things would bunch up or spread out from getting the full count. I guess it comes down to who won more of the close 2-1/5-3, etc delegates across the state. Tons of those in fairly big precincts in Clark County.
Is this an argument for Iowa's early status or what?
They messed up, but they don't want to admit it, so they minimized the importance of the national delegates. I don't think we should dwell on this too much though. . . . I think your interpretation is spot on. Still, why not dwell on it a little? We seem to agree Obama won, and every media outlet got the story wrong. From the perspective of Obama's interests, or the public interest, wouldn't it be good if these media organizations correct the story? Wouldn't that be right?
Well, I think the media is way too stubborn to correct their story. The best Obama could hope to do is insert some confusion about the result and blunt any momentum she might have gotten out of the win. I think he did that. There's not much more he can do without suffering a backlash from the media, accusing him of being a poor sport.
To spin this as a win for either side seems goofy. It's close enough to a tie. You can say Edwards lost if you like. All the rest is media spin.
Listen, after seeing Bill Clinton and Hillary in action these past couple weeks and especially in Nevada. I really believe the Clintons were up to no good in both NH and Nevada in so many disguised ways. This is frightening to me and I do feel like it was the wild, wild west- where there is no law and there is nothing we can do about it. I believe that if "Hillary and Bill" get the nomination there will be deep fissures in the Democratic Party that will never heal. I blame the Clintons because they started this. I was so disheartened up until I read and later heard Barack Obama's speech today. We need this man more than ever! W/F South and 43!
Some very interesting dynamics on the GOP side also. Republicans might really want to be careful about not nomination McCain. Two new polls released this week-end have Democrats winning in Virginia and Kansas (two VERY red states) against all Republicans but McCain who crushes both Obama and Clinton and who runs 15% better than his fellow GOPers. If the Democratic nomination had not been contested, would there have been any effort by registered Dems to go and sabotage McCain's campaign?
Marc, Another endorsement for Obama. This from a white woman. I bet the two Clintons are not happy. http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/politics/story/7E21094589C268BE862573D60065E99B?OpenDocument
So Obama's going GMA to whine about the Clintons being too mean to him? Pass the smelling salts! I'm concerned about Obama's penchant for playing the victim and creating diversions after his electoral losses and iffy debate performances. His behavior gives me no confidence that he can win against the GOP attack machine
So Obama's going GMA to whine about the Clintons being too mean to him? As I understand it, Obama is going on GMA to call Bill Clinton out for lying. Spin it however you like.
"Ok, but there were massive organizational problems with the caucuses in your state, and someone ought to be held accountable for them." Sure. But they are kind of new at this. And turnout was roughly double the highest high-side estimate I remember hearing. Kind of a baptism of fire, don't you think?
ElectoPundit: Back and Forth Could Help Obama Many are trying to envision where this Democratic campaign could be headed. The most common theme and most consistent message from voters so far seems to be this: we like both of these candidates for various reasons, and we want to consider them carefully and on our own terms... don't pressure us into taking one of them before we're ready and if you do, we'll vote for the underdog. This campaign could be divided into three phases until now. There was the "Clinton frontrunner" phase up until just before Iowa, and then after Iowa the 2nd phase was the very short "Obama Frontrunner" phase. After New Hampshire it was perhaps a "dead heat, no frontrunner" phase that I think may now be ending. If we're back into a "Clinton frontrunner" phase again... what does that mean for the campaign? Will Hillary and Bill wither under the spotlight? Look at the behavior of the voters so far: Everyone said if Hillary won Iowa, it was over, they voted for Obama. Everyone said if Obama won New Hampshire, it was over, they voted for Clinton. The Clintons and the media tried to say Obama should win Nevada because the culinary union was pressuring members, the members felt the pressure and they resisted, they voted for Clinton. So where is that conventional wisdom/media dialogue going decisively after Nevada? I think the current line is: "the Clintons are inevitable, Obama may win in South Carolina, but that's just the African-American vote, she's going to win big on February 5th." There's going to be two and a half weeks of this dialogue again in the press for the first time since before Iowa. If Obama had won Nevada and South Carolina, the "dead heat" phase would have continued. But Nevada shifts that, and I think this has significant potential to swing the race back in Obama's favor. One thing is clear, the focus for the next two weeks will be on Hillary Clinton, what type of presidency she would have, what Bill's role would be, their marital issues, etc. February 5th will now fundamentally be a referendum on her and it could be a decision too big for either candidate to come back from as they have had the ability to do so far in this campaign. Democratic Delegate Race: http://electopundit.blogspot.com/2008/01/democratic-delegate-race.html Republican Delegate Race: http://electopundit.blogspot.com/2008/01/republican-delegate-race.html
When HRC is in the White House, and starts to indicate that there's no troop withdrawal coming from Iraq, maybe then calcified Clinton supporters will look back on this primary, and start to realize how she won with the backing of the Machine.
I'm gonna kick back now and watch the Clinton's essentially blow themselves up. We're starting to see the process of Encirclement now, where many red state DEMS are coming out for Obama, because they don't want to be subjugated by The Machine. The Clintons are doing the same thing to Democrats that Bush did to the entire world. Basically everyone is starting to circle the wagons to protect themselves against the Dynasty getting back in power. I thought the New York muscle that the Clinton machine brought into NV this weekend to strong-arm the process was a good example of what many DEM leaders around the country want to avoid. Their solution is to come out early and support Obama.
Hillary won 51% of the vote in Nevada and probably a higher popular vote because many of the non-viable Edwards voters went to Obama. All those Obama supporters claiming that Obama won Nevada, to be intellectually consistent, are you also willing to admit that Iowa was a tie since both Clinton and Obama got the same number of delegates from Iowa? The point is that the number of delegates from these early contests do not matter because these are small numbers. Only the ones on Feb 5 matter. These early states are just beauty contests to see who is voting for whom. So far Hillary is winning blue collar democrats, older voters, and hispanics. Obama is winning the wealthy, the young, and the African Americans.
When Obama won in Iowa, I don't recall Hillary complaining! She had the class to come out and congratulate Obama. I think Obama (and his supporters) is trying to split the Democratic party to further his own ambition. First, it was a trumped up race card, now it is sour grapes over a loss.
Here is my question....would it surprise anyone if the Clintons cheated? If you answer no, but support Hillary, you need to think long and hard about George Bush and his 8 years as president after stealing 2000.
Obama got one more delegate than Clinton in Iowa from the caucus (assuming that delegates to the state convention are faithful to their candidates when they elect delegates to the national convention). Clinton has one more superdelegate from Iowa than Obama, but this has nothing to do with caucus results (superdelegates can announce support for whomever they want whenever they want). So Long Time Democrat is mistaken about the caucus results in Iowa.
Long time democrat, Your recollection is incorrect In Iowa, the clintons discounted the results by saying that Iowa was sexist and would not vote for women despite the fact that she led in the polls there much of the year and the Lt Governor of Iowa is female. The clintons were also complaining that people couldn't get time off to caucus, but there was no proof that this disproportionately affected HIllary voters. Also, HIllary did not acknoweldge Obama;s victory in her IA speech, she had a throwaway line about Edwards and Obama together. This is in stark contrast to NH where Obama asked his crowd to clap for Hillary for winning. On the eve of the NH primary, when the clintons thought they were going to lose, they were complaining that the primary was too close to Iowa and trashing Bill Gardner for setting the date on Jan 8th. What was left out of Bill Clinton's red faced rants on the subject was that the reason Bill Gardner saet it as Jan 8th is because Hillary's allies in Michigan kept pushing the process earlier and eariler trying to bust the earluy state system in favor of one in which name ID and money would rule the day and be much more favorable to them. But when they won NH, suddenly they forgot about all their previous complaints!
And now they are saying that SC is a dismissable as a black primary as a part of their broader strategy to misdefine Obama as Al Sharpton, instead of being the postracial candidate he strives to be. So, Long time democrat, everything you accuse Obama of, the Clintons have done about 10 times more: blaming the refs, blaming the process, being ungracious, being sore winners, sore losers, etc. And yet you clinton peeple have selective amnesia in your spin to say that Obama has sour grapes because he dares to point out the fac that he won more deleagtes or that Clinton caucus organizers were instructed to close the doors before the time designated by the rules. If you are a "long term democrat," you'll know that we had the presidency stolen from us in 2000 becuse of voting shennanigans and disenfranchisment. And it is really something to see the Clintons behaving just like the Bush 2000 crowd. I guess this is how entitled dynasties operate. The rules just don't apply to them. Bend down and genuflect before them or you are "dividng the party." Check out this page to see the America you and your ilk want: http://bushclintonforever.googlepages.com/
Back to the topic... Why would anyone be surprised there's not more clarity about the Nevada results? The Clintons are supported across the board by the state party officials....think they want to face any *mistakes* they made? Who cares...on to SC which will not be an easy win. Blacks may make up 50% of the electorate, but they will not vote in a monolith and the other 50% is southern white who voted in large numbers for Huckabee...
Vote hope, not fear. Vote unite, not divide and conquer.
LOL..just read the Halperin entry with the Clinton's screw up... She says she's going to be the COO of the country but can't put out a decent caucus handbook? Couldn't resist... ;0
Vote hope, not fear. Vote unite, not divide and conquer.
Obama can't be trusted after this. He is a sleazy soutside Chicago politician. All his pretty words can't change that. He is corrupt. http://www.suntimes.com/stng_article.search?page_size=20&query=Rezko&pub=cst Meet Obama's friend, mentor and pastor (and advocate and support of Farrahkan): http://www.suntimes.com/stng_article.search?page_size=20&query=Jeremiah+Wright&pub=cst Now there are reports that his supporters tried to imtimidate union voters in Nevada who wanted to vote for Clinton. Par for the course for the sleazeball Barry Obama. Obama isn't different and there is not movement. He is an African American politician that has proven he can't win the latino vote, the union vote, the Catholic vote, the Jewish vote, the female vote, or the white vote. He doesn't transcend anything.
Dick Head Flatts: You embarrass yourself time after time with your inane and moronic rants. But you persist. Why don't you post a link to an article about the Clinton's good buddy, Norman Hsu? Too bad about him being arrested by the FBI and all. Learn to write, jackass.
Caucuses are stupid beyond belief. That is the only organizational problem with them. They are too prone to arm twisting since people cannot vote in private. Do away with them. Hold regional primaries. Any attempt to fix a caucus system is doomed. Oh and all you enraged angry people out their in the comments section: get another hobby wont you? You obviously dont have the strength and stomach for politics.
Bill Clinton is a slimeball. ------ Sources confirm that the night before the former president was in MGM MIRAGE properties campaigning for his wife, he talked to reclusive MGM boss Kirk Kerkorian on the phone and raised issues about Culinary union tactics and how access would be granted to properties. Kerkorian apparently contacted MGM President Jim Murren, who then talked to the Clinton campaign about access today. And Hillary Clinton did well today at MGM properties.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Yeah, what Ambinder said.
And I hate to persist with the sour grapes, but I think non-Obama supporters have been pretty solid on presenting evidence that Obama won. Don't they at least deserve an explanation of why the county convention delegate count should trump the national convention delegate count?
Posted by southpaw | January 20, 2008 7:14 PM