|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 08, 2020, 02:08:39 pm
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers (search mode)
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers  (Read 19690 times)
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,914
United States


« Reply #25 on: March 21, 2008, 08:49:33 pm »

If Obama is doing so well in MI, why isn't he supportive of a revote?  This revote is fresh with  both candidates on the ballot.  Or are you just being a hack?
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,914
United States


« Reply #26 on: March 21, 2008, 09:47:42 pm »

If Obama is doing so well in MI, why isn't he supportive of a revote?  This revote is fresh with  both candidates on the ballot.  Or are you just being a hack?

The plans that were put forth were not 100% fresh.  Independents who voted in the GOP Primary would not have been allowed in the Democratic revote.  Had the Democratic vote in January mattered, some of those independents would have chosen to vote in the Democratic Primary instead.  Given the edge Obama has had over Hillary with independents, the net result is to skew the Michigan result towards Hillary.

On the other hand, if one were to allow all voters to participate in the revote, it would also skew things badly.

Any Michigan revote is not going to give a result the same as what would have been had there been a normal primary election.

First, let me be clear, I'd rather see a revote than seating the current delegates.

Obviously it won't be exactly the same, but it still represent a potential problem for Obama.  He's the one that has raised the will of the elected delegates, but he doesn't want some of them to vote at the convention.  Now, if he end up with a 150 net elected delegate lead, it isn't an issue; he may very well end up with an elected delegate lead of less than 100 or even less than 60.  That is the problem.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,914
United States


« Reply #27 on: March 21, 2008, 11:28:32 pm »

If Obama is doing so well in MI, why isn't he supportive of a revote?  This revote is fresh with  both candidates on the ballot.  Or are you just being a hack?

He may not win but he sure as hell wouldn't lose by as much as you're saying. Like I said, Rasmussen had the race tied. Hillary would have to do better in Michigan than Pennsylvania and even New York to get those type of numbers.

BTRD, why do you think I'm suggesting a re-vote?  It's cleaner.  If Obama will only net -5, great, but, if true, he should be willing to do it:

Gore said:  "Count every vote."

Obama is saying:  "Count every vote, except in Michigan and Florida."
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,914
United States


« Reply #28 on: March 22, 2008, 10:21:33 am »



Fixed it.

As I said, Obama has nothing to gain from a Michigan revote. He doesn't have much to lose either, but that's not enough reason for him to jump in joy at the opportunity.

It's not like it's even Obama's decision.  It's looks like Obama supporting the disinfrashisement of the voters in FL and MI.

And of course, you keep ignoring my original point which is that even if you want to argue it's not fair for Obama to argue he has more pledged delegates only excluding Michigan and Florida, it's also not fair to argue Hillary has more if her margin is less than 80 delegate lead in Michigan.

Fixed it.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fixed that too.

BRTD, I have numerous problems with how some GOP primaries are conducted.  The thing is, they won't make a difference in terms of who is nominated.  MI/FL may.  Like I've said, if Obama is ahead by 150 delegates on May 15, I don't think it makes a difference.  I question if Obama will be ahead by that much at that time.



Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,914
United States


« Reply #29 on: March 22, 2008, 05:22:11 pm »

So you seriously believe every single superdelegate is going to rally around Hillary if she leads in elected delegates counting Michigan and Florida (and if her margin is made up by her lead in Michigan which she holds for obvious non-democratic reasons)?

I seriously believe that the argument Obama would make is would be seen as being seriously flawed and would not convince the super delegates.  It won't be "every single" super delegate, but it will be enough.

The best argument in favor of it is that Obama is more electable, but I doubt that the poll numbers will be convincing.  The second one is the will of a plurality of the elected delegates argument that we're discussing.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,914
United States


« Reply #30 on: March 22, 2008, 07:27:37 pm »

So you don't think Hillary's argument wouldn't be seriously flawed if the only reason for her lead was her 80+ lead in Michigan? As for "enough", Obama only needs around 40% of superdelegates. He could get that with no "argument", it's not as if all superdelegates vote for Hillary by default. Your train of thought seems to operate like this:

Obama: The superdelegates must elect me as I won more pledged delegates.
Hillary: But that's only if you exclude Florida and Michigan. That's not fair.
Superdelegates: Yeah, Hillary's right. *Hordes of superdelegates flock to Hillary in droves*

That is the argument, in regard to the super delegates Obama has made.

In terms of MI, the score is 80 Clinton, 55 uncommitted.  Clinton has a net +25 delegates, even if all the uncommitted vote for Obama.  With FL, that gives her +67.  Now, I seriously doubt that all of those 55 will vote for Obama.

Ok, let's assume that Obama gets 50 of these 55, and 5 go to Clinton; Obama gets greater than 90%.  Clinton gets 85, Obama gets 50.  Clinton's net is now +35 from MI and, +77 combined.

Now, we're in a situation where Obama is basically not supporting efforts to get the delegates seated.  What effect will that have on the rest of the undecided?  Probably not favorable.

In answer two the question, "Do you honestly believe Hillary can legitimately claim to have fairly won more delegates if her lead is less than her lead in Michigan," yes, if the delegates are seated.  We don't know how many of those 55 will go to Obama, but even if the bulk do, let's say 70% plus (39 delegates), Clinton wins MI 96 to 39.  She could get +57 from MI and +42 from FL.  Obama at about 110-120 would easily be above that, but I have know idea if Obama will be above that.

Now, a revote would be a good way to settle it (and probably produce a closer result), but Obama is not even calling for one.  Obama is basically saying, **It's fine with me if FL and MI a disenfranchised,** while he's  making the argument that the super delegates should listen to the elected delegates and vote accordingly.

Now, it becomes a moot point if Obama can walk into the convention with a net of 110-165 elected delegates, so that this doesn't matter, but no one can guarantee that.  Last time I checked, it was 156, but I expect that to be reduced by PA.  What will happen in NC and IN?  I don't know.  KY and OR?  I don't know that either.  What happens if Obama loses some or all of these, even closely?  By May 31, he could be below that 110 margin and might even be below the 67 delegate margin.

Could FL/MI as currently selected delegates be seated?  Hell yes.

I see this as a problem for the Obama campaign, unless he can win some of those primaries (or at least limit his losses in some others).

Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,914
United States


« Reply #31 on: March 22, 2008, 08:42:05 pm »

In answer two the question, "Do you honestly believe Hillary can legitimately claim to have fairly won more delegates if her lead is less than her lead in Michigan," yes, if the delegates are seated.  We don't know how many of those 55 will go to Obama, but even if the bulk do, let's say 70% plus (39 delegates), Clinton wins MI 96 to 39.  She could get +57 from MI and +42 from FL.

This is EXACTLY my point.

Would Hillary win a net 57 delegates in Michigan in an actual election with both her and Obama on the ballot? Of course not. You are basically the only person in the world besides Hillary who thinks the election in Michigan was completely fair and valid. Luckily the super delegates aren't stupid enough to honestly believe the will of Michigan voters is a 57 delegate victory for Hillary.



Oh, maybe, Iowa would vote differently if Pastor Wrights comments were up now, so let's not take away half his delegates.  Maybe SC would be different, or any other state that Obama won.  Maybe TX would be stronger for Clinton, in today's situation.  Let's go back and redo those because the result might be different.

I really have no problem with a revote in MI; I've actually been critical of Howard Dean for not working out a solution.  Why doesn't Obama stand up say, "I support a revote in MI?"

Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,914
United States


« Reply #32 on: March 22, 2008, 09:07:28 pm »


What a dumb comparison. Obama and Hillary were on the ballot in all said states. Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan, so it's obviously not a fair representation of Michigan at any point in time, including when the election was held.

The bottom line is, you can only include the Michigan delegates if elected through a fair election. The "election" in Michigan was comparable to one in a third world dictatorship.

The conparision is quite apt.  If you do not support a revote, you are stuck with those delegates.  Obama doesn't support a revote.  I actually support a revote.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,914
United States


« Reply #33 on: March 27, 2008, 12:38:52 am »


What a dumb comparison. Obama and Hillary were on the ballot in all said states. Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan, so it's obviously not a fair representation of Michigan at any point in time, including when the election was held.

The bottom line is, you can only include the Michigan delegates if elected through a fair election. The "election" in Michigan was comparable to one in a third world dictatorship.

The conparision is quite apt.  If you do not support a revote, you are stuck with those delegates.  Obama doesn't support a revote.  I actually support a revote.

Unless those delegates aren't seated, in which case you aren't "stuck" with them. Obama can't force a revote even if he wanted one.


Obama can support a revote, which he has declined to do.  He can support seating those delegates, if it doesn't make a difference.


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Poor deluded Zach the Barak Hack.  He forgets here that it's his business, since he doesn't have a vote on the Democratic National Committee.

The reason I frankly am concerned is because of the effect it could have on the election.  Assume that Obama has a majority, but would not have it with the MI/FL delegates.  Does he, and you, really want him, or his supporters, to have to stand up, in full view of the television cameras and attempt to prevent elected delegates from being seated?  Even if he doesn't have an alternate delegation?

I am stating that, Obama has a poor strategy because:

1.  The could provoke a publicized rules fight.

2.  It effectively raises the net elected delegate total he needs to avoid this by the total net delegates Hillary could get, if the majority (or the Credentials Committee) seats them.

On this point, look at the totals again:

Delegates from FL:  +42 Clinton

Delegates from MI:

Clinton:  +80

Undecided:  55

Assume that when the "Undecided" are assigned, Clinton gets a mere 20%, 11.  Obama gets a whopping 80%, 44.  The vote total is:

Clinton:  +91 (80+11)

Obama:  +44 (0+44)

Net delegates for Clinton:  47

Net gain for Clinton from MI/FL:  +89

Just to overcome this potential, with the Undecided in MI strongly in favor of Obama, he would a 90 delegate lead, and we really don't know if Obama will get to the 80% level.  Calling for a revote would probably help Obama in the long run, but he's chosen to to support it.  Bad move on his part.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,914
United States


« Reply #34 on: March 27, 2008, 11:09:18 am »

Obama won't call for a revote because he's absolutely certain the DNC won't seat the delegates. And yes I know the convention can, but as I've explained it's a Catch-22 so don't copy and paste that crap again. Obama has decided he's got nothing to gain from a revote and doesn't care about what happens at the convention because no one watches them in this day anyway so being in view of the TV cameras is hardly an issue.

Obama shouldn't be certain; they can be seated.  So long as that potential is there, he needs more delegates.  That is why it is a bad strategy.  It gives the super delegates a way to remove an advantage, his claim that he had a plurality of the elected delegates.

And to stop it, even if he wins, he has to stand up and say, "Gee, I don't want the elected delegates of the people of MI/FL seated."

If you do think that a rules fight will be carried on television and the lead news story (barring a catastrophic event the same day), you are drinking something a lot stronger that the "Obama Kool aid."

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

This from the guy who stated the "Is J. J. a Hillary Hack" thread.  Perhaps the name should be Zach the Barrak Hack and a Hypocrat.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,914
United States


« Reply #35 on: April 24, 2008, 09:48:57 pm »

Three months ago, I said that Obama had the best chance of winning as the nominee; now I say Clinton does.  He's no McGovern, but he can't win this time.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines