Numbers Don't Lie

Here is a fact: more Americans have voted for Hillary Clinton in this presidential election cycle than any other candidate.

Now, before you frantically punch that comment button, let me clarify: I know that the votes in Florida and Michigan generally aren't counted in the popular vote total. So I know it's not a generally accepted measurement. But human beings went to those polling places and voted in the outlaw states. There's no denying that more Americans have voted for Clinton than for Senator Obama since the snows of Iowa - after last night, she holds a tiny .4% lead over Obama.

Last night changed this race. It doesn't mean Clinton has a clear path to the election, but a big victory in Pennsylvania - when she was massively outspent in media - may be the equivalent of a large undersea earthquake: the big waves may just hit the beach in North Carolina and Indiana.

And there's another metric from the last 24 hours that shows a bit of that tremor. Clinton raised $10 million since the networks called the Keystone race last night - that's an Obama-like haul, if I may compliment the Illinois senator's fabulous fundraising operation.

Two big numbers, and this thing goes on. I still find it fascinating, though that six-week gap was wearying indeed. And the longer Clinton hangs in, the more the superdelegates pause, and the better the chance for what I'd really like to see - yeah, one ticket.

UPDATE: For those who don't get it (my fault entirely), the headline to this post carries no small bit of irony in this season of the endless numbers game. That said, I'd recommend all the comment combatants go and read Jerome Armstrong's piece on the numbers and on the Michigan-Florida controversy.

Comments

[blue girl]

Great post, Tom. Happy to see it!

Last night changed this race.

I completely agree.

[tina oiticica harris]

I completely agree and add, facetiously, men after ladies, meaning, Hillary for oresident, Barack Obama for vice-president.

BTW, it would be nice to watch a game at Wrigley Stadium, which I have seen every single time I stayed in Chicago but never gone in.

[BlueStateGirl]

"And the longer Clinton hangs in, the more the superdelegates pause"

Then why do I keep reading about more super-d's endorsing Obama? OK Gov. Brad Henry endorsed today, along with three more congressmen and a chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party who is also a DNC member endorsed Obama just today. (I heard a rumor about a bunch of endorsements coming out of NC but that's still a rumor.) Only one congressman endorsed Hillary today by comparison.

Just when are the super-d's supposed to be pausing?

[Judith]

"But human beings went to those polling places and voted in the outlaw states"

or, as they are know in Obama-land - "those who must be punished (until we need them) states".

[Ralph]

Devil's in the details, huh Tom?

I know that the votes in Florida and Michigan generally aren't counted in the popular vote total. So I know it's not a generally accepted measurement.

Wow. I would say a whole army of demons in that one! I did some research and here's the uncomfortable truth:

In August 2007, Clinton, Edwards, Obama, all signed a pledge not to "campaign or participate" in Michigan or Florida. (Obama had much more to lose by not campaigning because his is less known by the voters.) Then, in December, Clinton told New Hampshire Public Radio that the votes of Michigan would not count. In January she refused to remove her name from the Michigan ballot, even though John Edwards and Barack Obama, honoring the pledge all three signed in August, removed their names. On January 15, she "won" the Michigan Democratic primary. On January 25, she released a statement urging that the delegates pledged by Michigan's primary be seated.

hmmmmm. nice try though.

[Richard]

Thank you Ralph. I used to love to come to this web site and read well thought, logical posts. Now I get absurd arguments about vote totals that include votes that Clinton agreed not to count. The dishonesty of this tack is sad coming from someone who I used to be able to count on for integrity.

[Judith]

I dont know what is funnier - Ralph claiming he did some "research" or the same old bulldoody about how the two guys took their names off a ballot and are pissed that Clinton didnt follow like a lemming.

Actually, they are both pretty funny. Thanks Ralph! When you catch up to GE voting realities let us know - my guess is you'll catch up on Nov 8, 2008 how important those states are to Democrats.

[Ralph]

Wow. Your cogent arguments have convinced me that whatever benefits Senator Clinton's campaign, is just and fair. How could I have been so confused? Obama and Edwards were saps to go along with the rules. Psshaw! Rules! How quaint. True leaders make the rules up as they go along. Damn. Come on, let's go with the dream team: Clinton/Obama 2008! Yes!

[bainbridge island flowers]

i just hope that she actually make a difference when the time comes that she's announced as the next president.

[Judith]

Ralph - all I can say is - about time and welcome aboard!

[Tyler]

As a Michigan voter let me say this -

It's stupid and absurd to ignore us. You want to punish the party leaders and the DNC, that's fine. But why ignore voters like me? It's just stupid.

It was dumb for the candidates to withdraw their names and it was dumb for the DNC/Obama camp to squelch any chance for re-vote. It's stupid for Obama supporters to make the Michigan delegation or the vote about Hillary and her political calculations.

It's about our vote.

And one more thing - it was quite simple to put "Other" on the ballot for someone other than Hillary. I put down "Other" because I still hope (beyond reason) for Al Gore.

But voters aren't stupid. They didn't vote for Hillary because Obama wasn't on the list. They voted for her because she was their choice.

Stop playing politics and count our fricking votes!

[rick]

Sigh. Tom, what did you do with the guy who did well thought out posts? Is he gone now? Because all I see now is a Hillary shill. It's sad.

The MI and FL vote totals can't be counted because they weren't real contested elections. Of course Clinton got more votes in MI than Obama - his name wasn't on the ballot. Of course, actual logic doesn't seem to belong here anymore and what we're left with is just the parroting of a candidate's talking points. You used to inspire me. Now you simply make me sad.

[ForeignObserver]

Not counting Michigan and Florida (when 3 other states got a pass for the same offense) is a grave political mistake which will bite back in November. You don't even need any vivid imagination to picture the same McCain ad running in both states, where he looks into the camera with a serious and earnest look and reminds the voters that Obama didn't care about their votes before.

Florida is even worse considering it was actually the republican legislature who orchestrated the whole thing and are now looking at the fallout with glee.

From the other side of the Atlantic and without any stakes in the race in any way (except hoping that a democrat president would have a more positive effect on the economy), both candidates appear to have been busy burning too many bridges that an unity ticket would work, moreso since both would probably not accept the veep spot on the ticket.

Find a way to count all votes. If none of the candidates reaches the required delegate threshold by the end of the primary season, pretending that the one who is ahead is still entitled to the nomination and any other decision by the SD is a stolen nomination will lead to an inevitable McCain win in the GE. Those, too, are the rules they all agreed to, however arcane they may be.

Oh, and please revise them for 2012. We stupid foreigners don't even get baseball, a combination of primaries, caucuses, primaries + caucuses and the super delegates is totally beyond our limited intellectual reach.

[Ralph]

Judith, I think you missed my sarcasm. I don't have a horse in this race. I don't care if Clinton or Obama become the nominee of the party. I don't care if it's Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama.

After seeing how ugly this race has become, I don't want to end up like Tom or you. I am free to criticize Obama for his poor choice of words, his arrogance stemming from his gift for oratory, his long-time association with Rev. Wright, and his lack of real national accomplishments other than raising lots of money and inspiring people to register and vote.

On the other hand, I also have no problem criticizing Hillary Clinton for her fear-factor negative ads, her previous defense of the war in Iraq, and her silly lie about sniper fire in Bosnia. And, if we can't trust Clinton to stick to her word on whether MI and FL votes will count, how can we trust her if she's elected President?

Nobody expected MI and FL to be so important in the election, because they usually aren't. But now that they are, you can't just turn around and say - well, those votes for me are legitimate when there was nothing fair about the elections.

Look, Judith, if the tables were turned and you switched the names, would you support Obama counting those votes? No, because you support Hillary Clinton. You see the double standard? Go ahead and get the claws out, I can take it.

[Slappy]

Come on Tom W., a flat out misleading post. At least mention how she received those votes in MI. I usually get your pro-Clinton posts. At least there is logic and honesty behind them. This is plain FOX-style spin.

Judith: Yaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwn,

Ralph: Amen

[Tom W.]

Geez guys - it's right there in the second freakin' paragraph.

It's not spin at all - I'm struck by the fact that more Americans have pulled a lever, checked a box, or raised their hands for Hillary than for any other candidate this cycle.

I do not make a "count the Michigan raw vote" argument anywhere in this post. My goal is to point out how razor-thin this thing really is, and how much support Clinton has managed to draw despite the impressive Obama juggernaut.

And you all know I want the unity ticket, don't care that much about who's in the top slot.

Secondarily, I don think PA opened up with the slightest of windows for Clinton - I didn't see much daylight before for her candidacy. There is now a sliver. If she pulls it off, she will undoubtedly ask Obama to be the VP candidate - whether he accepts is a test of his commitment to party and country. (Hillary would accept a similar offer, I've come to believe, conventional wisdom notwithstanding).

[Tom K]

Ralph, Rick and Slappy:

Part of being deluded is that you don't realize you're deluded. I like to think that's where's Tom's at, because I prefer not to think of him as a hack. Also, there is something evidently principled about him hewing to the HRC line -- however insultingly demented his reasoning -- at a time when the conventional wisdom has largely written her off (mistakenly, in my view.)

BTW Tom, why would Obama be obliged to accept the VP slot as a "test of his commitment to party and country", when the operative function of that job is to serve as President in time of crisis? Wouldn't duty require him to refuse the post, due to his lack of readiness? Or can it be that he is *qualified* to serve as President in time of crisis? If so, I haven't noticed you saying so very prominently.

If I recall corrrectly, your candidate believes the Rep. nominee is qualified to be C-in-C, for example, but as to BHO, well, she daren't presume upon the voters' perogatives by offering an opinion. Humility forbids.

It's really all too funny.

[Ralph]

Tom, I think it's the way you worded you post that bothered some people and exited others. You do realize that those who wanted to vote for Edwards or Obama in MI could not even write them in? So, citing the votes in MI as telling of her support in that state is silly. The question is, do you want to be taken seriously as a political blogger, or just another spin-meister hack who happens to support Hillary Clinton? We are liberals and so we care about the details. If you want to employ Republican style rhetoric, than you must deal with the fall-out. That being said, you don't need to play games with language to support Hillary Clinton. The obvious answer to your post title is, yes, numbers often do lie when you don't know the context behind the numbers ('How to Lie with Statistics' is a book that many freshman are required to read).

[BEW]

Tom K,

I think this qualifies as projection

"Part of being deluded is that you don't realize you're deluded"

Perhaps there is hope for you yet.

[zuzu]

In August 2007, Clinton, Edwards, Obama, all signed a pledge not to "campaign or participate" in Michigan or Florida. (Obama had much more to lose by not campaigning because his is less known by the voters.) Then, in December, Clinton told New Hampshire Public Radio that the votes of Michigan would not count. In January she refused to remove her name from the Michigan ballot, even though John Edwards and Barack Obama, honoring the pledge all three signed in August, removed their names.

Sorry, Ralph. Not true.

I've been asking people for months now to come up with some support for the position you just articulated by citing to the DNC rules and the pledge the candidates signed, and nobody's taken me up on it.

But truth is important, so I will persist in trying to set the record straight.

First, the pledge. I don't know where everyone gets this idea that the candidates "agreed" that the Michigan and Florida primaries wouldn't count, but there's no such "agreement" contained in the text of the pledge, for a few reasons. First, the pledge was signed before the Rules Committee made a decision on either Florida or Michigan (indeed, before Michigan moved up its primary). So since the penalty wasn't known at the time, they couldn't have "agreed" that none of the delegates would be seated.

Second, the pledge is not binding on the DNC, nor do the candidates have any power to seat delegates, so any such agreement would be without effect.

Third, the only thing that the candidates agreed to do in the pledge was what they were obligated to do under Rule 20.C.1.b (please do look it up and compare to the text of the pledge), i.e., not campaign, as defined in the DNC rules. Sure, the pledge added "participate," but that term was left undefined and thus no one can say that any particular action was "clearly" participation.

Finally, nowhere in the pledge or the DNC rules is any candidate required to withdraw from any ballot anywhere. Obama and Edwards voluntarily withdrew from the Michigan ballot as an overture toward Iowa and New Hampshire, who were pissed off that Michigan was trying to muscle in on their turf. A friend of mine who worked on the Dodd campaign (and Dodd refused to withdraw when approached) said that the Iowa and NH people were PISSED at Dodd, so the move was certainly effective as a way to kiss up to early-primary states. Not so effective now that we find ourselves in a close race.

If you can find any rules that say differently, please provide them.

As for the statements that Michigan and Florida wouldnt' count, I keep seeing those cited, but I never see a link so that I can see them in context. Can you provide one? Thanks.

[zuzu]

Oh, shoot, my links didn't work.

Here's the text of the pledge (ignore the fact that it's from the Politico):

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0807/Dear_candidates_early_state_edition.html

And here's a pdf of the rules:

http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/democratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/pdfs/2008delegateselectionrules.pdf

[Mike P]

The unity ticket, while nice to think about, isn't going to happen. By all accounts, the Clinton and Obama staffers hate each other and I can't see Obama wanting to be 3rd fiddle (behind Bill) in a Hillary administration.

As to the popular vote argument, I think Charlie Cook addressed that rather well today.

[Tom K]

BEW:

Are you familiar with the logical fallacy known as "tu quoque"? If not, you might want to look it up (though continuing to wallow in ignorance, if applicable to your condition, is certainly an option as well).

One of the most debased ways of deploying this particular fallacy is to accuse someone of "projection" (a concept from a specialty usually outside the accuser's expertise), without identifying what, specifically, in the statements of the accused supports the charge.

So tell me -- assuming you meant something beyond "you're one two" playground patois -- what in my statements are you referring to?

[mrmobi]

Let's start with the title, shall we? "Numbers don't lie". Of course, numbers do lie. Haven't you been watching Republicans in congress at all? They explain how school vouchers will make it possible for the poor to send their children to better schools, while they plan the destruction of the public education system. You should know better than to say numbers don't lie, Tom.

This is a failed attempt to bolster the spin your candidates' campaign is running, unfortunately for her, it's just not true.

This primary election is about delegates, not about the number of people who have voted for either candidate. You can try to spin the primary as if it were the general, but it isn't. Obama is ahead by over a hundred delegates, and, the way things are going, he'll continue to be ahead when all the voting that everyone agreed would count has been finished. You can try to change the rules of the game after the fact, but you won't succeed.

But let me try, at least, to understand your reasoning. You're saying it is fair to count the votes Hillary Clinton got in Michigan, where Obama wasn't even on the ballot. So, when the general election comes, it doesn't matter if whomever has won the nomination has their name on the ballot? Because "undecided" or "write-in" is just a good as actually having your name on the ballot.

Good to know, but I don't think the word "fair" means what you think it means.

If Clinton wins, I look forward to seeing her continuing "interpretations" of common English words. Might "up" actually mean "down?"

[Slappy]

Tom W: You dont mention on the 2nd paragraph that the MI ballot did not include Obama's name. A minor point for some when counting votes. For myself, it skews the results to a point that it must be mentioned when proposing Clinton has a lead in the popular vote.

Should Obama have the lead in the popular vote (even with distorted accounting methods) in the end but Clinton somehow gain the lead in delegate votes I assume the popular vote will then become meaningless. This is a farce.

[Tom W.]

Tom, I never said Obama wasn't qualified - of course he is. Nor am I deluded - you actually believe Clinton has a better chance than I do, if I recall correctly.

And folks, the headline on this post was supposed to be ironic - the numbers have conveyed many different stories to many different people during this long political process. Just look at the myriad delegate counts. Guess it didn't work, eh?

[Tom W.]

Slappy, it's not a farce at all - just a historically close primary process, an entirely political process that isn't wrapped up yet.

[Tom K]

Do you think HRC should stop basing her campaign on the proposition that BHO is not qualified? I mean, why not just say "I'm more qualified" -- she's expressly refused to limit it to that, openly calling his qualifications, even relative to the Rep. nominee, into question. Do you think she should stop doing that? (BTW, I agree that McCain in more qualified than BHO, or HRC, but that's a different point.)

By "deluded", I didn't mean you have an exagerated sense of her chances of victory. I meant that your admitted preference for her candidacy makes you unable to objectively appreciate the merits and demerits of various arguments made by her campaign.

Thus, when I saw the clip of her yesterday claiming the popular vote lead, my first thought was: "that's pushing the 'say-anything' approach a bit far, but I bet Tom W will be blogging it, with approval, tomorrow.'"

And my first thought was not that you would do that because you are consciously saying things you know to be nonsense. I thought, and still think, that your usual judgment when it comes to separating the wheat from the chaff is off -- distorted if you will -- such that you think some material quantity of wheat can be drawn from this bag of chaff.

[Tom K]

Tom:

I read tha Armstrong piece linked to your update. It raised a question in my mind -- do we know whether HRC can credibly claim to have received a majority of the votes cast by registered D's (putting aside the FL and MI votes for a moment.) If she could argue that credibly, it would be a stronger pitch for the nomination than what she's hawking presently.

It would be stronger still if she could make that claim even after making some popular vote adjustment for caucus states, but even without that it would have a certain force. Are votes tabulated in a way that allows an answer to that question?

[Tom W.]

Where do I say she has the popular vote lead? She can claim that if she wants, I don't think it holds up yet. I do find it interesting that she's received more votes in total, before you get to the business of deciding which ones count, don't you?

My point, which is getting repetitive, was that this race is much closer - almost a dead heat, but not quite -than it's generally given credit for being. I was parroting no talking point, though it may seem like that to some. I thought the race was as good as over, now I'm not so sure at all.

I wasn't crazy about her characterization of Obama has less qualified than McCain, but then she clarified it (rather famously) in the debate.

[zuzu]

Obama is ahead by over a hundred delegates, and, the way things are going, he'll continue to be ahead when all the voting that everyone agreed would count has been finished.

As I said in my earlier comment, this "everyone agreed that Michigan and Florida wouldn't count" is BS. The candidates don't determine who the nominee is, and the rules of the DNC allow for appeals and reversals of delegate-stripping decisions by the Rules Committee.

But more importantly, the DNC doesn't count the votes, it just seats delegates. The primaries are certified by each state's Secretary of State, and the Secretaries of State of Florida and Michigan certified the results of the primaries in those states. Those totals are official, and can't be changed by the DNC.

What the DNC decides to do about delegates for those states is a separate question. But the Rules Committee can only strip delegates, it can't invalidate elections certified by state authorities.

[Kevin Kraynick]

Bruce Springsteen has won more Grammys than Tom Hanks.

[Judith]

Slappy - now yawning at me was funny. Thank you. So eloquent and meaningful.

I was actually waiting for you to post here to tell you I think your website is great - I have to say it shows a creative and fun side not shown in your writing here - maybe you get tired making the move between blogs? ;-)

[Judith]

Tom W - you sure are polite to people who denigrate your writing at the same time showing themselves to have not actually understood the point you were making anyway.

Some of these guys remind me of Otto in that old movie - "what was that middle thing again?"

Ok Slappy - you can yawn now. No flies around.

[Judith]

Ralph - you just dont seem to catch on to facts so it is no wonder you cant make up your mind whom to support. But frankly, playing what if something were true games is a waste of my time when you dont even know what actually IS true now.

So you and your pals can get all mad and goofy and yawn and refer to claws - I laugh at it frankly - because it reflects on you and not me.

cue to slappy.

[Jeff Travers]

How do you nominate someone who would count votes where their opponent couldn't be voted for?

How do you nominate someone who says that all votes should be counted, but then says that only certain votes really matter (Pa, Ohio)?

It's an unscrupulous act and I can't support someone who would do it. Hillary, what goes around comes around. Remember that when McCain is president because of you and your naive followers.

[Ralph]

Judith. I don't need to make up my mind on who to support -- I already did that and he lost (Edwards). I plan on giving money to and voting for whoever the Democratic candidate for President turns out to be. I really don't care much if that person is Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama. You see, Judith, I am a Democrat who will vote for the Democrat because I can't stand Republicans and their platform. I cannot understand the Democrat that is so emotionally tied to their candidate that they are willing to vote for McCain or not vote at all. To me, they are fools who don't understand what's really at stake here. It's not about yawning or claws, it's about the future direction of OUR country. So... I only mentioned claws because you and the other Hillary supporters seem to be very hostile to anyone who doesn't agree with everything Tom writes in his posts. If you want to sway people to the Hillary camp, y'all are doing a pretty poor job of it.

[Tom W.]

I'm 100% with Ralph on the fall - I'll switch in a second. Sure I'll be a bit downcast should it come to that, and I'm also not one of those Dems who thinks this fight is so gosh-darned "vicious" and bad for the party. I like Obama - he wasn't in my top tier, but he's certainly earned the right to be where he is, in my view.

Both sides are pretty hostile right now - I really hope it fades and the unity ticket emerges.

[mrmobi]

You see, Judith, I am a Democrat who will vote for the Democrat because I can't stand Republicans and their platform. I cannot understand the Democrat that is so emotionally tied to their candidate that they are willing to vote for McCain or not vote at all. To me, they are fools who don't understand what's really at stake here.

Seconded!

[Tom K]

*Where do I say she has the popular vote lead?*

Tom:

I am not sure if you are asking this in response to my post but, in case you are, let me clarify.

My last post wasn't intended to focus on what you had said or (for a change) to challenge or criticize it. It was intended to raise a different question that JA's link in the update to your post brought to mind for me, and which I hadn't seen discussed elsewhere.

That is, since Obama got heavy indpendent support throughout many of the primaries, is it possible to determine what the popular vote count would be if only registered D's were considered?

Since it is the D nomination we're talking about, it would be credible for HRC to claim that a majority of registered D's is at least as important as majority of the larger popular vote. (Certainly, I think it would be more credible than her claim to a popular majority based on including MI.)

I don't know which way this would cut if the answer can be determined, nor do I think that the answer should decide the entire issue. But I would be curious to know if the answer is knowable and, if so, what it is.

Even if it might help Hillary.

[mrmobi]

Both sides are pretty hostile right now

It might not seem like it, but I'm making a conscious effort to be more respectful and not hostile. I like Hillary Clinton, the person, and, to a lesser degree, the candidate. However, we could do lots, lots worse than her, and I'll support her and vote for her, as we say in Chicago, early and often.

[Slappy]

I havent a clue what you're talking about Judith. Now I am confused as well as bored.

Will we have to go through this again in 2012 when Hillary Clinton challenges Obama's re-election bid? (Relax, its a joke)

How about them Mets Tom W? Pleeeeease!

[Judith]

To all you guys who find the need to gang up: ;-0

Let me make this perfectly clear. I come here for Tom's posts. I think he is great and his writing is terrific. I dont come here for you. I dont know who you are. You are free to ignore me.

[Judith]

slappy - sorry, mistook you for someone else- his/her site is great. So sorry to have bored and confused you. Feel free to ignore me - I wont address you again.

[Judith]

mrmobi - I will say this once.

I have never stated who I would vote for if Clinton werent the nominee becasue I am pulling for her to WIN. Why should I bother thinking like a LOSER? I am a winner and I win by playing for the win Every Single Day.

People who think about and talk about losing LOSE.

[lillianjane]

Ralph et al,

I consider this site a safe haven from the Obama hordes. When you barge in and try to ruin this, too, I just think it's rude. Isn't the entire HuffPost enough for you? Plus the dailykos etc. etc. Are you mad because we stopped commenting on those sites and you have to taunt someone?

[zuzu]

How do you nominate someone who would count votes where their opponent couldn't be voted for?

If you're talking about Michigan, that was a self-inflicted wound.

Obama gambled there, and while it paid off in the short term in Iowa, it's come back to bite him now.

[Ralph DeMarco]

lillianjane - just for the record, and I thought I made this clear, I am not part of the Obama horde. I'm not barging in, I've been posting comments on this site since it started in 2004. And, I have never been an avid reader of the HuffPost - a site, btw, that none of you really had a problem with until this contentious primary. I like Hillary, I like Obama. The only reason I have been leaning towards Obama is Hillary's campaign rhetoric. But I also don't have a problem calling out the BS when I see it whether it comes from HRC or BHO. I don't like blind allegiance to any candidate. Those who do are more like conservatives than liberals to my mind. So my beef with Tom is simply his desire to bend facts to fit his support for Hillary. I don't think he needs to do this. In fact, if she really is the best candidate, the facts should be self-evident. The problem is, they both have equal strengths and weaknesses. But despite that, they are much better suited to be POTUS than John McCain.

[Tom K]

Let's combine the LillanJane and Judith rules: only one point of view allowed and, if somehow someone finds himself in disagreement with any views expressed, he should ignore them rather than respond.

Why, this could become a forum for political debate to rival the Pravda op-ed page circa 1975!

(BTW, please don't take my grammer to be political: as Winston Churchill said, "the male embraces the female.")

[Tom W.]

Ralph, I think you meant cherry-picking facts rather than bending them - on the former, I'd probably be found guilty by a jury of my peers - on the latter, I'd bet on acquittal.

That Pravda blog rocked, btw...

[Judith]

Zuzu - of course. But that is reality and cannot be addressed by those with sand filled ears.

[Judith]

Hye Tom K - with wit like that you must be part of the creative class!

[Judith]

lillianjane - dont sweat it. This is Tom W's board and he says who he wants to talk to or not.

I actually dont feel taunted. Whenever a whole bunch of boys have to gang up it is becasue they know that individually they cant deal one on one and need a mob. This reinfonces the impression that certain people are weaklings individually and have to run in packs. What they fail to understand is that makes them easier to spot and easier to pick off.

Take care - - - -

[donna darko]

Zuzu, exactly. The DNC rules state they can't strip MI and FL of popular votes only delegates so the popular vote totals stand.

[donna darko]

Judith, you crack me up. Time for cake!

[Judith]

CAKE!

[Tom K]

*Hye Tom K - with wit like that you must be part of the creative class!*

No, not me. They're all for Obama, I hear.

I'm more like Ralph, with a twist. He'd support either, I'm opposed to both. But we're united in our dismay at Tom's departure from the path of reason in supporting his chosen candidate.

[Ralph DeMarco]

If I have offended anyone by my comments, my apologies. If anyone felt ganged up on, they shouldn't. We should all be able to have thoughtful discussions and friendly disagreements. We are all, ultimately on the same side. We support the Democratic platform which is, really, the true center in the country. When you get right down to the nitty gritty, there's not much of a difference between the two Dems, and a world of difference between them and McCain. So, really, our main focus should be on November and whipping McCain's sorry confused wrinkled butt (sorry for the visual). Sweet dreams.

[kateNC]

I recently discovered your blog and I've been very impressed. You're thoughtful and present reasoned arguments, rare in the blogosphere these days. People would better represent their candidates by presenting their position in the same way. Supporters have really damaged their preferred candidates this year rather than helping them.

We're all trying to win others over to our candidate and won't do it through insults. Ah well, another plea for sanity which will drown in a sea of invective.

[B]

Ok all the people who uses the argument that Michigan shouldn't count because Obama wasn't on the ballot, I have a question for you: If Obama took his name off the ballot in all the other states where Clinton would do well should we ignore those votes too?

He knew he wouldn't win and he knew he would get the approval of Iowa if he did remove his name - a ganble that paid off for Obama. Now, not only is the Obama camp crying "unfair", the Obama campaign wants to count both votes for Clinton and Edwards as his and get 50% of the delegates.

If Obama gets the nomination, his behaviour, refusal to count the votes and refusal to get a revote, will cost the Democrats two great states in the general election. How clever is that?

[bmc]

It's pretty clear that Obama took his name off the ballot in Michigan [along with John Edwards} to pander to Iowa and New Hampshire [which also violated the primary deadline rules, but curiously weren't sanctioned for it]. Obama didn't take his name off the ballot in Florida because he knew it wouldn't help him in Iowa and New Hampshire. Why would Obama take his name off the ballot in Michigan, but not take his name off the ballot in Florida? After all, both states were subject to the pledge, right? So, from the beginning, Obama's actions were cynically calculated in Michigan. For Obama supporters to now argue that Michigan voters should not be counted because Obama wasn't on the ballot is laughable; it's rank hypocrisy and embarrassing for the Democratic Party. Both Florida and Michigan Secretaries of State have recorded official votes from the voters who pulled a lever, pushed a button or filled in a ballot to select a candidate. Those votes count in determining the will of the voters, regardless of the DNC's idiotic charade regarding seating the delegates of those two states. The numbers of officially recorded votes from Michigan and Florida don't lie; and those votes count in determining the popular vote. Anything less is an illegitimate process in determining the Democratic Party nominee. And, on that note, Hillary Clinton has also garnered more DEMOCRATIC votes than Barack Obama.

[katiebird]

bmc -- I've never got why we should baby a man who deliberately removed his name from a ballot. And how do Obama supporters figure that Hillary's the anti-democratic candidate for counting the votes in that election.

[Slappy]

For the record, I have never disparaged Hillary Clinton. To do so would be counter productive to winning this election. I have pointed out where her faults lie and why I think Obama the better candidate. There hardly is an "Obama horde" here at Tom W's pad. Those threatening to not vote if their candidate loses were almost exclusively from the Clinton side. Electability is the main issue with Obama folks, from what I read. But I have read A LOT of Obama bashing. Tom W has softened a bit in his Obama bashing lately and Im thankful for it. DKos' Clinton bashing is just as counter productive. (Even if his arguments on this subject hold more water with me.) Keep bashing the odds on favorite to win the nomination and you might just convince somebody that you are right. Convince someone that Obama won nomination by immoral means. Convince somebody that Obama is really a Republican. Congratulations, you just helped the GOP win another election. Id be saying the same thing were Clinton the odds on favorite and everyone was trashing her. I honestly don't see how Clinton has a chance at this point. You disagree. But if you are wrong, you just proved how short sighted you have been in bashing the man. We should all be thankful that someone able to pull off what he has, an unknown to this in a short 5? years, is a Democrat. Thank your lucky stars.

[Tom K]

*We are all, ultimately on the same side. We support the Democratic platform.*

Hey, Slappy, how could you forget about little ol' me?

[Slappy]

A libertarian/conservative like you vote Republican? Even you have more sense than that. Bloated budgets, failed war, Federal gov imposing on states rights. Everything you claim to be against. Democrat is your only viable option at this point. I welcome you with open arms comrade.

[Slappy]

I misspoke. Im not sure you have said you are against failed wars. I am projecting.

[zuzu]

Why would Obama take his name off the ballot in Michigan, but not take his name off the ballot in Florida?

From what I understand, under Florida election rules, anyone who removed their name from the ballot for the primary had to also remove it for the general. Michigan didn't have such a rule.

[Tom K]

I am not against failed wars, per se. That would be unfairly judging with the benefit of hindsight.

Generally, a war must have a reasonable chance of success to justify the horror it will bring, but even with such a prospect at the time of decision it may fail. And in some (rare) circumstances, I think fighting may be a reasonable alternative to surrender even though failure is essentially certain.

No, I'm just against ill-advised wars. Which includes most, but not all.

For that reason, among many others, the D party presents no "viable option" for me. Especially with HRC leading the ticket, but almost certainly also (tho' principally for other reasons) with BHO.

[Bob]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-k-wilson/the-weighted-popular-vote_b_97962.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shawn-christensen/dont-be-fooled-obama-is-a_b_96118.html
As long as we're counting every vote.....

[Judith]

This is fun - I am seeing my comments in this thead show up elsewhere in posts by women on some boards I read - rewritten and expanded of course - but pretty much the same.

I take this as a wonderful compliment.