Letters to the Editor
-
It's Simple
If Obama does not have 2025, and Hillary won California, New York, Ohio, Texas, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and revotes in Florida and Michigan, she should be the nominee. Or she will be 2012 after Obama loses the general, or maybe even if he wins the general.
-
Wes
Well I guess that makes Hillary The Diamondbacks then...cause she sure ain't the Red Sox (there ain't no way she'd ever do a metaphorical Papelbon Riverdance! :)
(and now I suspect we've annoyed pretty much eveyone else on this board - cheers!)
-
There could be a great irony
If, in a couple months, the delegates from FL are seated as-is and are enough to put Obama over the 2,025 line.
-
The other consideration
The 2025 magic number is based on a percentage of total delegates. If florida & michigan don't count, shouldn't the total number to clinch nomination be lower?
-
Good luck with those big states
If Obama does not have 2025, and Hillary won California, New York, Ohio, Texas, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and revotes in Florida and Michigan, she should be the nominee.
She lost Texas, according to the delegate count. Go ahead and make the "caucus vs. primary" argument if you want. I know it by rote now, and it doesn't change the fact that she lost Texas. She's also losing the popular vote by more than 600,000 votes (300,000 if you count Florida).
And good luck winning any of those other states without sizable support from black Democrats, who might have a bit of a grudge against Sen. Clinton if they perceive that the nomination was stolen from Obama. I'm not even going to get into the fact that waving a Clinton in front of Republican voters will energize the base more than all the anti-gay marriage initiatives in the world, or how well McCain matches up against her when it comes to wooing independent voters.
-
Notorious WES
WES: "If Obama does not have 2025, and Hillary won California, New York, Ohio, Texas, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and revotes in Florida and Michigan, she should be the nominee. Or she will be 2012 after Obama loses the general, or maybe even if he wins the general."
Funny, I didn't see that in the Democratic nomination by-laws: "No states matter except 8 big ones."
But you're wrong about Texas -- Obama won the most delegates there.
Also, last time I checked, the caucus delegates were considered as legitimate as the primary delegates.
WES: "We cool.....I will stop annoying people when I stop breathing and not a moment before.....and if I can find a way after I stop breathing I will."
Too bad you're more interested in annoying people then truly challenging, enlightening or informing them.
-
Well, if you want to play the general election card...
Oh you mean the caucus part of Texas, Obama's strong suit...How many caucuses are there in the general?
If we're talking about how things are going to go in the general election, what are the odds of Texas choosing Hillary Clinton as their next president? Probably about the same as them choosing Obama: none.
The only difference between the candidates? One of them came out on top in the nominating contest, according to the convoluted rules of the contest. But then again, winning according to the rules hasn't been a Clinton strong point so far, has it?
-
There's Still
A big chunk of my fellow liberals who are too idealistic and easily fooled. They are in for a reality check if we send Obama to the general. Then we can get back to reality in 2012.
-
Rules is rules
If Obama does not have 2025, and Hillary won California, New York, Ohio, Texas, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and revotes in Florida and Michigan, she should be the nominee.
W.E.S.: I'm somewhat sympathetic to your argument, which seems to be that the candidate who can win those high-population states has a better chance of winning the general election. The fact remains, however, that the rules are not set up that way. The Democrats apportion their state delegates proportionally rather than winner-take-all. If you've got a problem with the rules, fine - start organizing a push to change them for the next election cycle, and we can have an open debate about whether or not it's better to have the primaries work more like the general election. Arguing to change the rules in mid-election is patently unfair, and when the change in rules benefits the candidate that you obviously favor, it doesn't reflect very well on you.
Regarding Florida and Michigan: seating those delegates as-is is tremendously unfair, since (a) the states broke the rules, which has to have *some* consequence, and (b) those states voted on the understanding that the delegates would *not* be seated, which definitely affected voting patterns. (I'm a MI Democrat, and I opted not to vote in the primary given the situation, and quite a few of my friends did too.) The idea of a revote is attractive, but the states *did* break the rules, and should reasonably suffer the consequences. Let it go to the convention. That used to be the *purpose* of conventions, remember?
-
Scott
I'm not for changing the rules.........The rules are you need 2025 for the nomination. For some reason the Obama camp thinks less than that means an automatic winner.
-
@ W.E.S.
I notice that, unlike a Patriots win in the Super Bowl, you haven't threatened to leave the country if Senator Obama wins. Does that mean you're getting better at hedging your bets?
Also, re: your proposal of Senator Clinton getting the nomination on the strength of large state wins: you might be confused; it's the Republican party that's in favor of that kind of loser-takes-all malarkey. Unless by "fighter," Senator Clinton's campaign means "took copious notes in Florida in 2000."
-
It's The Obama Camp
That wants to change the rules--- to if no one gets 2025, superdelegates have to vote for the person closest. Or do away with the 2025 and superdelegates all-together and whoever gets the most delegates wins.
-
"stolen"
"She lost Texas, according to the delegate count. . . the nomination was stolen from Obama
something ironic about talking re an election " being stolen" while trumpeting that Obama won the delegate count in Texas since that necessitates ignoring that when three times as many people voted they preferred Hillary. So you're ok with a group the third of the size of those voting in the primary changing the primary delegate outcome, huh? It certainly is "new" politics.