Letters to the Editor
-
Uncle Fester
"Given current pledged delegate, super delegate and popular vote compositions, Obama needs far fewer additional super delegates than Hillary to reach 2024 delegates. Current RCP Composite polls show Hillary at +16 in PA and Obama at + 12.7 in NC. A tight race in IN will not help Hillary. An Obama win in both NC and IN will likely negate any Hillary wins in PA. So how is it close?"
You're not arguing the same issue. My point isn't that they have an equal chance to win. In fact, if you read my post, I'm even willing to concede the likelihood of discussing how close the race "was", in the past tense i.e. as if Obama wins as he is almost certainly (though only almost) to. My argument is the way Obama supporters talk as if he is winning or will win with some huge margin of victory. The way they dismiss Hillary as if she got her ass kicked. The way they argue that "the people" are doing one thing or another in some sweeping generalization. The way they refer to "everyone" or a "tsunami" or "the voters".
How is it close? Obama is ahead by a whopping 2.6 percent among voters. How is that not close? Include Florida, which was a relatively decent indicator at the time since both were on the ballot, and it's actually 1.4 percent. Include MI (which is not as good an indicator) and it's .4 percent. And it will probably drop slightly more when Hillary wins PA (in terms of popular vote, not delegates). So Obama will end up with a popular vote victory of somewhere between .4 percent and 2.5 percent. Mostly ignore MI (though just mostly since it's prime Hillary territory) and let's say it somewhere between 1 and 2.5 percent. And that's a skewed number based on his doing disproportionally better in caucuses than he'd do if more people actually voted (one need only look at the two states that held both to see proof of this).
So again, you are trying to refute a point never made. I have no problem saying or having Obama people saying Obama is ahead. I have no problem saying he is almost definitely going to win. But as I did say, I thought pretty clearly, I have a problem with people overstating his victory or understating what Hillary has done. It's like Bush claiming a "mandate" in 2000. Obama has not kicked anyone's ass, he is not a "tsunami", he hasn't swept anybody away. He's currently squeaking out and probably will squeak out a voter victory. I don't see why that's so hard for Obama supporters to acknowledge. It is, after all, only reality. Or maybe that's the reason.
-
You're not arguing the same issue.
Ok, my apologies then, when peering through the fog of vaporized ... stuff. I would agree that Tsunami is overstating, but I think it's better than squeaking. It's probably 3-2 in a best of seven.
And I don't see how you can object to caucuses and then include MI and FL, since these were not free and fair elections. You can't say it doesn't count in January but it counts now in March. I think that undermines your case.
As far as the crazies go, there are plenty enough for me on both sides, so I tend to tune them ou.t
-
@uncle fester
And I don't see how you can object to caucuses and then include MI and FL, since these were not free and fair elections. You can't say it doesn't count in January but it counts now in March. I think that undermines your case.
if i might make an educated guess, i'd say he's not making the point that michigan and florida *should* be included as is, but that they would likely have gone hillary's way had there been a vote, perhaps not eclipsing obama's lead but certainly narrowing it even further. he was using the numbers from their ignored primaries as the roughest guage for how voting might have gone had those states had an actual contested primary. a crappy guage, as he acknowledges, but even obama supporters are generally aware that obama would've had a tough time in those two states, especially florida.
point is, in a hypothetical primary season where there are no caucuses in any state and where michigan and florida vote and their vote counts, obama is not likely to have the lead he currently enjoys. quite possibly he comes out a touch behind, and he's the one pleading for consideration from the superdelegates, which would be perfectly fair and in keeping with the way the democrats have designed their nominating process.
the bottom line is, the "will of the people" argument that obama's campaign and supporters like to bandy about is flimsy and obviously self-serving, though they've effectively gotten it to come out of the mouths of pundits everywhere, particularly in the last week.
this race has been close -- in fact remains close -- and, like many close contests, will partially be decided by a lucky break, which for obama was that michigan and florida didn't get to weigh in.
-
Uncle Fester/Cabick
Thanks for the assist, Cabick--that's exactly what I meant, that Obama's currently slim lead is probably at its highest point possible given the process. Take some money out of petty cash for yourself :)
-
Lucky and High Water Marks
Seeing as how Obama got zero percent of the MI vote, I don't see that as a high watermark. And it's pretty speculative to think that a contested primary in Florida would turn out the same as the uncontested one. For starters, one can make a strong case there would be radically different outcomes depending on when the election was held. Hillary has superior name recognition, so she tends to start out ahead in the polls, especially the ones earlier in the season.
So yeah, those people in MI and FL definitely voted for Hillary, but I don't think it's quite kosher to use those numbers as a basis for relative strength or "closeness".
-
Forgot to mention: Edwards
If full on primaries occurrd in Jan for MI and FL it's likely that Edwards would have siphoned off votes from Obama and Clinton. In fact, he may have stayed in the race until least Feb 5th. So we could be looking at a three way race, or even a race without Obama in it.