Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on If Hillary Wins the Nomination, Blame Washington State.

1

I can help but wonder...if the shoe was on the other foot, and Obama had lost 11 consecutive contests, wouldn't he have been ridiculed and run off the stage by now?

Posted by I think so | February 26, 2008 9:07 AM
2

Since us Obama supporters are supposed to be all militant and angry (according to callers to the Stephanie Miller Show) I just want to let you all know I am supporting Obama for one reason: I WANT TO WIN IN NOVEMBER!!! Show me a poll where in a national election against McCain that Hillary wins and I will switch allegiances.

Posted by Andrew | February 26, 2008 9:09 AM
3

What a load of crap. Yes, caucuses are unfair. But so is a primary vote after everyone has been told "don't bother, it doesn't count". NEITHER vote represents the true level of Obama support in this state; it's presumably less than 68%, and more than 51%, but YOU DON'T KNOW.

This is classic Clintonism. She's doing the same goddamn thing with Florida and Michigan, arguing that these ridiculously flawed "votes" somehow indicate support for her. It doesn't matter if it's true; it just matters if it supports her or not.

Play by the fucking rules.

Posted by Fnarf | February 26, 2008 9:15 AM
4

if the super delegates vote to overpower who the people of america voted for come the general election Hillary will have a very hard time and Nader will probably receive votes from the people who feel frustrated by the American voting process, again. Its about time that the Clintons stop being "politicians".

Posted by unred | February 26, 2008 9:17 AM
5

"why aren’t they equally upset that elitist party rules disenfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan?"

You're buying into her argument that Florida and Michigan votes indicate whom Democrats in that state support. They do not. No one knows who would win there; Obama supporters stayed home in droves in FL, and he wasn't even on the ballot in MI.

Here's an idea: since she stole all those votes in MI by appearing on the ballot, why not disqualify HER, and refuse to seat HER at the convention? Makes as much sense as giving her delegates she didn't earn.

Posted by Fnarf | February 26, 2008 9:18 AM
6

Oh Josh,

We all know that the Clintonator is gonna be coronated as the nominee over the smoldering corpses of us piss-ons, no matter what happens in these alleged “primaries.” Can’t you just let us hang on to the fantasy that we’re changing the country for a little while longer?

Posted by Original Andrew | February 26, 2008 9:20 AM
7

Another flaw in her argument: the superdelegates are going to end up slightly for Obama overall, or very close to it. Everybody has this idea, based on numbers from December and January, that the superdelegates are overwhelming for Clinton. They are not; most of them haven't declared yet.

It's interesting to see how Clinton, after having failed at CAMPAIGNING, is resorting to probing at the rules for an end-around.

Posted by Fnarf | February 26, 2008 9:21 AM
8
Posted by Andrew | February 26, 2008 9:22 AM
9
She also makes a point I’ve been pushing for a while: If Obama fans think elitist party rules are unfairly empowering Hillary superdelegates, why aren’t they equally upset that elitist party rules disenfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan?

Seriously, Josh? Are you really suggesting that it's the responsibility of Obama supporters to stand by the result of a primary that didn't even include their candidate on the ballot? You don't think the results of such an election are suspect?

Posted by tsm | February 26, 2008 9:26 AM
10

Fnarf @3: This is classic Clintonism. She's doing the same goddamn thing with Florida and Michigan, arguing that these ridiculously flawed "votes" somehow indicate support for her.

I went and wasted 20 minutes of my life to go and vote in a meaningless primary Feb. 19. And I did so for one reason and one reason only--because I knew Clinton would pull this kind of crap. In fact, I bet one small factor in Obama's faring better in Washington than Michigan and Florida was that some voters, like me, were finally catching on to this.

Posted by cressona | February 26, 2008 9:27 AM
11

Does Josh=ECB, and ECB=Josh?

I actually had to scroll back up to see who wrote this post - initial thought was that it was one of ECB's. Was surprised to see Josh's name attached to something like this....

Posted by Willis | February 26, 2008 9:30 AM
12

If Hillary had done well in caucuses she would be claiming it was due to her campaign's superior organization, and that would be proof that she is "ready on day one." Since it's Obama, she is trying to distract us from the organizational strength it demonstrates, since it implies Obama knows how to run things. When Hillary's people do what she wants, they call it leadership and discipline. When Obama's people do what he wants, they call it fanaticism and personality worship.

Posted by elenchos | February 26, 2008 9:33 AM
13

Why can't elderly people get to a caucus? My crappy caucus location aside, most caucus sites seemed to be pretty well situated and not that difficult to get to. Why is there the assumption that elderly people are so frail and helpless that they can't make it to a caucus on an afternoon on Saturday?

Are we to assume that more elderly people missed out on the caucus due to a broken hip than young people missed out on it due to sleeping in?

Posted by keshmeshi | February 26, 2008 9:34 AM
14

@9,

No. But maybe they should vote again and have O win it fair and square.

I just don't like the idea of Democrats in Florida and Michigan not having a say. What is this? The MFDP?

(Google it, kids.)

Posted by Josh Feit | February 26, 2008 9:38 AM
15

It is pathetic to watch how low Billary will go to achieve her end goal.

She knows no limits to the depth of desperation she'll go in her flailing attempts at latching on to anything that might change the course of the trainwreck she is on.

Pa.thet.ic.

Elenchos @12, and Fnarf @ 5,7 and especially 3 have hit it out of the park.

I'm surprised that more Dems aren't angered by her little schemes... but it likely indicates they are of the same cloth too..

Sad.

Posted by Reality Check | February 26, 2008 9:39 AM
16

I went to the caucus and I didn't vote in the primary. Why bother? When it's the only thing on the ballot and it doesn't count for anything, screw it.

Posted by chris | February 26, 2008 9:40 AM
17

FNARF - this article is about everyone's opinion on the subject BUT Clinton. How does this become "Classic Clintonism"?

PLAY BY THE RULES? Then Obama Camp should leave the super delegates ALONE. The rules that they exist and what they are supposed to do were set long ago.

Posted by hello? | February 26, 2008 9:42 AM
18

Once again, Josh Feit publicly congratulates himself for his own stupidity:

"She also makes a point I’ve been pushing for a while: If Obama fans think elitist party rules are unfairly empowering Hillary superdelegates, why aren’t they equally upset that elitist party rules disenfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan?"

Posted by doink | February 26, 2008 9:43 AM
19

Hello? @17, you're wrong; this is absolutely coming from the Clinton camp. Don't be a fool. As for your second point, if you read my post again, you will see that I agree with you -- but you will also see that the superdelegates are not a Clinton positive. Obama's going to win more of them. Obama's not doing a thing about the superdelegates; they're lining up behind him on their own. We don't need Murray and Cantwell to win.

Posted by Fnarf | February 26, 2008 9:48 AM
20

Keshmeshi @13: my caucus was on the third floor of a building with no elevator.

I know it's fun for able-bodied young people who don't work on Saturday to pretend that everyone is just like them. "I made it, why can't you?" is the kind of thoughtless, selfish egotism that people erroneously believe only Republicans suffer from.

"Why should I care about losers who can't climb stairs, who don't have computers, who have to work? I've got mine, Jack."

Disenfranchisement is a fact. Democrats IN THEORY support the idea of extending the franchise as wide as possible. But not in Washington, where 1/30th of the population is considered an awesome turnout. What about the rest of them?

Posted by Fnarf | February 26, 2008 9:56 AM
21

It is ridiculous to try to find any meaning in our democratic primary, or in FL or MI.

I went to my caucus because that's where our delegates were being decided. I didn't bother to vote in the primary because it was completely irrelevant to the delegates. Why would you even care what a bunch of people think who don't even know that the primary doesn't count for anything?

Likewise, no doubt most people didn't bother to vote in FL or MI, knowing that their primaries held no meaning anyway.

To somehow claim that the votes in the states where the votes don't count for anything gives any clue as to how voters feel is preposterous.

Posted by Reverse Polarity | February 26, 2008 10:05 AM
22

I don't understand why they're so upset over how Obama's supporters

"...in many cases, include Republican voters and Independent voters."

Wow. If Al Gore or John Kerry could have swung a few more independents and taken some of the GOP vote we wouldn't be in the mess we're in.

Posted by Jake | February 26, 2008 10:10 AM
23

This is pretty absurd -- not that that has stopped Clinton up to this point.

The only reason I mailed in my stupid meaningless primary absentee vote for Obama is because I suspected something like this might happen. But if I didn't have a mail-in ballot I certainly wouldn't have bothered to show up on primary day just to revalidate my caucus vote. Someone who voted for Clinton -- the clear loser in both contests but do so just to feel they did everything they could for their candidate. Absentee ballots went out before Super Tuesday, btw, and Obama has been gaining every week since the process began, so it's conceivable that some people voted early for Clinton but changed their views by taking a closer look at Obama before caucus Sunday.

I she wants to talk about rule changes, we could also have had a winner-take-every-delgate contest like the Republicans, in which Clinton with 45% of the primary vote would still be fucked.

I don't really understand this strategy of dismissing every contest she's lost. I guess she figures she will worry about all the voters in the states she is working overtime to alienate later -- IF she manages to finagle a nomination.

I naively believed her conciliatory rhetoric opening the last debate, and stupidly believed she intended to go out with a little class. Clintons, you almost fooled me again!

Posted by Michael Canfield | February 26, 2008 10:33 AM
24

Fnarf @20: what keshmeshi @13 said. All year long all we hear about is how poor the turnout among young people is and how reliable the senior vote is. Now, apparently, that's all wrong. Seniors suddenly, for some unknown reason, can't make it to a caucus. (Disabled persons are permitted to caucus by proxy.)

The primary system is no panacea. Closed primaries just piss off independents (google elections and "love letters" to see how the election workers are treated by voters who don't understand the party system). And open primaries are a total disaster: the poor Rs got as their nominee someone they generally despise and who doesn't really support their platform.

The point is, a primary or a caucus is not a free-for-all lovefest for the general public. It is the means by which members of a political party choose their nominee. If a voter is not a member of a political party, then that voter should have zero interest in whom each party nominates. The general public gets to vote in the general election.

I feel bad for the Florida Ds because it was their boneheaded R-controlled legislature that moved up their primary, over the objections of the Ds.

Still, if Hillary Clinton manages to grab the nomination through maneuvering of superdelegates and Michigan and Florida "delegates," I expect there will be democracy, Chicago 1968-style. It will tear the party apart for decades, just like nominating Humphrey did.

Posted by kk | February 26, 2008 11:17 AM
25

Just FYI - all Dem caucus sites were ADA-accessable. And near transit where such existed.

So elderly people who "can't attend" are ... whiners.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 26, 2008 11:29 AM
26

"If a voter is not a member of a political party, then that voter should have zero interest in whom each party nominates."

Now, that's just stupid.

Picture this: the Dem party machine wrests the nomination for Clinton, and the general election is McCain vs. Clinton. The majority -- who support Obama -- get nothing.

It's a chimera to insist that the walled-off party insiders represent the real will of Democratic voters. America isn't like that.

Posted by Fnarf | February 26, 2008 11:32 AM
27

Hillary's working her way through the five stages of grief--she's still at anger and denial at present. I'd thought she'd jumped ahead to acceptance at the end of the last debate, but these things aren't necessarily linear.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | February 26, 2008 11:38 AM
28

Fnarf @26: I don't have to picture the machine wresting the nomination. It happened in 1968 in Chicago--see my post. That's why there are more primaries now (although generally in states, unlike Washington, where voters are required to register a party preference). Obviously, no system is perfect. The superdelegates came along after McGovern was crushed in 1972. Many in the Democratic Party is not anxious for a repeat of 1972, so caucuses remain. They are neither anti-American nor stupid.

Why on earth would members of a political party, who have rights of association protected under the First Amendment, want people who are not members (whether independents or members of another party) to have any say in who their candidate should be?

In fact, the "insiders" you appear to be concerned about are far likelier to be either superdelegates or delegates selected through a primary system (who are they anyway? in most states they don't appear on the ballot). In a caucus system, any member of the party can advance to the national convention. In that sense, caucuses are a far more democratic means of choosing the nominee.

Posted by kk | February 26, 2008 11:58 AM
29

Ah, yes, the old "fewer people involved means it's more democratic" argument. I've always enjoyed that one.

Posted by Fnarf | February 26, 2008 12:05 PM
30

If more people means more democratic, maybe we should have at-large elections for everything! I'd like to vote for Governor of Alabama, for sure, although I'm not so crazy about having our friends in Alabama vote for the school board here.

Posted by plebiscite | February 26, 2008 12:09 PM
31

For just what are you trying to lay the groundwork?

Posted by NapoleonXIV | February 26, 2008 12:14 PM
32

There's an easy way to get primaries in this state: support partisan registration. The parties have every right to restrict participation in choosing the PARTY NOMINEE to those who identify as members of the party. Most states do it that way. It seems to be only here that people blow a gasket over the idea of having to register, as if it were a lifelong commitment.

Posted by Geni | February 26, 2008 12:59 PM
33

@9
you are lying by saying Obama wasn't on the ballot in Florida. He was and you know it. He also campaigned there by having TV ads. I believe Hillary also campaigned by going there with one hour remaining in the Fl. panhandle to vote.


Josh, thanks for pionting out the obvious "If Obama fans think elitist party rules are unfairly empowering Hillary superdelegates, why aren’t they equally upset that elitist party rules disenfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan?"

The truth is this:
there are a mishmash of arbitrary and "undemocratic" rules that have happened to favor Obama or Clinton in each case, and differently and supporters of each one are in favor of keeping or junking those rules depending on the outcome, in a way that is both unrpincipled and entirely to be expected in politics.

So no, neither side can claim to be all about change and a new kind of politics, btw.

1. There was no agreement to not try to seat delegates in FL and MI so there is no "changing the rules" or "breaking the agreement" as OBama supporters claim. Clinton says she will try to seat them using established party rules such as credentials committee rulings -- not some kind of extra legal action.

2. Superdelegates - Obama didn't complain at all for months till he saw them favor Clinton. Now that they seem they will tip to Obama, suddenly they are okey dokey again.

3. Claims that superdelegates should follow their state are made by Obama folks only regarding states like Washington -- never regarding Mass.

4. Delegate allocation rules: Latino votes count a fraction of black votes in Texas. In general we hate those old rules that some folks are only worth 3/5 of a man. Except: when it helps our guy!! Obama folks don't complain as this favors them. (They count less because there as here it's not one person one vote in allocating delegates, it's "how many D votes did your district have 4 years ago?" so my precinct in Seattle with 76 attending got 5 delegates while a precinct in Yakima with 76 folks attending might have 3 delegates. In TX there was low turnout for D's 4 years ago as Bush got lots of Latino votes, but there was high turnout for AAs because of some local races in Dallas or Houston...)

5. Apportioning delegates by congressional districts resulted in the absurdity of 2-2 delegate splits even where the candidates had a 60-40% difference in votes. That ain't democratic, no sirree. But no one complains because it cuts both ways.

6. Ditto, but where the CD had 3 delegates the candidates focused attention there to get that one delegate prize. Undemocratic and absurd.

7. Cacuses:
it is well known that impassioned factions have more power than in a broad primary election. In WAsh. Sttate, the huge (!!!) drop off from the caucus to the primary for Obama were both Obama and Clinton supporters had the same incentive or lack of incentive to vote in the primary is a solid indicator that the caucus overstated the level of support for Obama. All us progressives agree on the general principle on the other side -- as when a few years ago Pat Robertson "won" the GOP caucuses in Washington state, we all said, "gee, look at that, the GOP was taken over by an extreme wing of kooks!"

8. compare all of this to the systemic de jure disenfranchisement of a few hundred thousands DC voters in general which nobody outside of DC really gives a shit about and you see the general point:

people are self interested mainly and pick and choose what elitist or arbitrary rules to keep or avoid based on the outcome for their preferered candidate.

This is not surprising to anyone who knows history or politics or economics. I guess if you are new to all of this and feel like your guy represents a transcendent change and you find this view to be defeatist, or cynical, gee whiz, get a clue, there are only about 10,000 years of human history backing up the fact that this is how people act. On both sides. so the worst sin is the dishonesty of claiming to be on a higher moral planee.

Those 2.5 million voters in Florida and Michigan didn't choose to be excluded totally and didn't agre to the insider elitist DNC rules and weren't trying to do anything excpet vote early just like NH and IA and SC had done for years -- hardly an evil thing to desire, no? -- and the guy who claims to be for unity and change is now in favor of giving those 2 million ++ people who voted no voice at all at the convention.

Mr. "I worked for civil rights," Mr. unity, Mr. "I am against the old style politics," right.

There's nothing more old style in US politics than floor fights over seating a delegation from a particular state....what's new here is that the opponent of seating them doesn't want ANYONE to be seated from those states.....it used to be was the Daley contingent seated versus the nonDaley contingent (I think the vaunted role model JFK won the nomination fight over such a dirty old style battle actually) ...

Plus ca change....


Posted by unPC | February 26, 2008 1:19 PM
34

@9 -

you are lying by saying Obama wasn't on the ballot in Florida. He was and you know it.

unPC, don't pull this shit again. You know full well that I was speaking of MI and not FL. The rest of your post appears full of the usual stream-of-consciousness lunacy and strawman attacks, so I won't bother.

Posted by tsm | February 26, 2008 1:54 PM
35

tsm was talking about MI. i remember when you pulled that shit last time, unpc. you are the one who is misleading. tsm even said "a" primary, not primaries.

and the rest of your long post is full of similar "logic" used to defend your view.

Posted by infrequent | February 26, 2008 3:28 PM
36

Who reads unPC's posts anymore? I scroll a little and can't see the bottom, note the disjointed structure and grammar, recognize the random angry senseless arguments, and I know who wrote it.

It's actually good that he's so distinctive. I can skip reading it and know that I'm not missing a single useful or original opinion.

Posted by V | February 26, 2008 3:29 PM
37

good point, V. i read parts of only to find nuggets like this one:

...Obama and Clinton supporters had the same incentive or lack of incentive to vote in the [WA] primary is a solid indicator...

it's dizzying!

Posted by infrequent | February 26, 2008 3:45 PM
38

That Geraldine Ferraro ... what a card. What a disingenuous, dead-wrong card. And if Josh thinks the following is the heart of the argument for superdelegates (he must, since he bolded it), I have to wonder about him too:

Most officeholders, however, were reluctant to run as delegates in a primary election — running against a constituent who really wants to be a delegate to the party’s national convention is not exactly good politics.

Utter bullshit.

In a presidential primary, it's very difficult to tell who you're actually voting for. The ballot may say "Barack Obama" or "Hillary Clinton", but in reality you're voting to see how many of each candidate's hand-picked slate of prospective delegates will end up going to the convention. You the voter have essentially zero input into selecting the slate; no matter how much that constituent "really wants" to be a delegate, he or she doesn't have a prayer unless the campaign includes that constituent's (read: big-time contributor and/or big-name pol) name on the in-crowd slate.

It's caucuses, not primaries, that can send regular constituents to the national convention. A relative and two friends of mine went to the DNC in 2004 as the Dean delegates and alternate from the 7th Congressional District. There's no way on this planet that those three would have gone to Boston if Washington used a primary.

This is getting too long already, so I won't say anything about the ludicrous false equivalence they're trying to draw between MI/FL on the one hand and attempts to persuade superdelegates on the other. Suffice it to say that I'm opposed to attempts to force actions upon the latter, and not at all worried that they'll do something contrary to the best interests of the Democratic Party. Especially when I observe that about half of the superdelegates are state chairs and DNC members who strongly support the 50-state strategy.

Posted by N in Seattle | February 26, 2008 4:11 PM
39

The Slog attacks Ron Paul, the only real presidential candidate, and now this blog wants to have a political voice that means something? Forget it. You already destroyed your reputation, you pro-neocon tools. And the word is spreading FAST...

Posted by Kimberly | February 27, 2008 4:59 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).