Here, clearly, is the best and most easily understood reason for Hillary to stay in the race:
Giants (10-6-0) 3 0 0 14 17
Patriots (16-0-0) 0 7 0 7 14
Note the total scores of the teams — and especially the (undefeated) perceived favorite — in the third quarter. Anything can happen in the fourth — a fumble, a memo leak, or a shift in momentum. True, it’s not a perfect analogy: if the Clinton team had a total of 3 points by the 3rd, then Obama would really only have 3.2.
Please share widely!
But your analogy is problematic.
<
p>In a football game, only time is bounded. A team can score a lot of points in very little time under some circumstances.
<
p>The number of available points in the primaries are quite bounded, and the timing of their allocation is well defined.
<
p>As such, the only way Hillary could outscore Obama in a way comparable to 14-7 is through some MI/FL action.
<
p>I think we can all agree that the MI/FL situation is really unfortunate, and bad for the voters there. But the fact remains that these states made their decisions, and the DNC made theirs. They made rules, and MI and FL chose not to follow them.
<
p>Do rules matter? Does breaking rules get people into trouble sometimes? Does doing so tarnish their reputations and legacies?
It will be impossible for her to win double digit leads over Barack Obama in any of the remaining primaries.
<
p>This means that due to the proportional rules even if she beats him he will still be getting delegates and since he already has the lead that lead will continue to the moment of convention.
<
p>The only way she can win the nomination is by claiming she won the popular vote in the last few states and thats assuming she wins every round, claiming the mantle of momentum and then bribing superdelegates to support her. Unfortunately Obama will have more delegates so she can only win by usurping the democratic process and that will alienate tons of supporters even if she does offer him the VP spot.
<
p>The only way to unite the party is to have this primary end NOW.
Neither will Obama. It’s time for supporters of both candidates to stop living in fantasy-world where one of the candidates unilaterally pulls out. Ain’t gonna happen, folks.
Which brings us to the superdelegates.
<
p>I took a moment to look at the uncommitted list; there are a lot of uncommitted DNC delegates (by a very quick count, over 250 of ’em).
<
p>I’m not hugely concerned with elected superdelegates doing anything shady, even those in safe districts, b/c I just don’t think there will be a huge bias in them voting against whom won their district- some may cross over, but I expect it to largely cancel out.
<
p>What does concern me greatly is the large number of uncommitted DNC superdelegates, who aren’t really answerable to anyone. If they as a group do something stupid, I predict President McCain in 1/2009.
…buy this….
<
p>
<
p>…..one bit.
<
p>Further, I find it very disturbing that many an Obama supporter* is forwarding the notion that a continuation to challenge his “right” to the nomination will cause a fracture in the party. It reads like a very thinly veiled threat to disengage from the political process if they don’t get their way. This is, of course, the height of hypocrisy considering what Obama’s message is supposed to represent. It is becoming clearer with each passing day that the Obamaphenomenon may simply be a cult of personality interested only in the speaker and not the message. If there is a fracture in the party as a result of Hillary getting the nomination it will be because of too many people acting impertinently as a result of not having their demands met. Demands they were in no position to make. The rules of the democratic primary were put in place long before Obama and Clinton started running for president.
<
p>* I have no idea what your position is and am only criticizing a message I find disturbing.
thinks Hillary is well within her rights to keep going, and that it’s not a great tragedy for Democrats, unless either candidate gets really dirty.
<
p>But I am very concerned about machinations at the convention.
<
p>
<
p>As my demands include not being overruled by a party elite that has served us so poorly for the past 25 years or so, I don’t find objecting to that impertinent.
…your demands include changing the rules that have been in place for nearly 30 years to suit your ends. And it should be noted that the demand is only being filed when it is required by political convenince.
<
p>If the party has been so poor for 25 years where has the call to remove the provision of super delegates been for the past 25 years?
<
p>Super delegates, by design, are not beholden to the popular vote or the proportional vote in any way.
<
p>To demand, only now when it seems the super delegates may potentially not provide Obama with the nomination, that they observe rules scrabbled together in the eleventh hour by Obama sopporters or else face the pains of party fracture is nothing if not impertinent.
To my knowledge, no one has said anything about changing the rules about superdelegates, per se. That is a bogus characterization. Has anyone seriously talked about changing the rules?
<
p>I accept that superdelegates are within their rights to support whomever they choose. That’s the system. It’s a crappy system in a close race (which we haven’t seen in awhile), but it’s what we got.
<
p>I’m talking about the consequences of choices made by superdelegates.
<
p>Is the primary process meaningful, or is the whole thing a sham?
<
p>If the Democratic candidate for POTUS is to be chosen in a smoky room, why did we waste our time over the past few months having elections? I know that US history is full of all sorts of hijinx regarding the selection of party candidates (Lincoln’s maneuvering in Chicago in 1860 was particularly impressive), but I naively assumed we now chose candidates through primaries and caucuses.
<
p>If the tables were turned, and superdelegates awarded the nomination to Obama, would you passively accept that as a wise, just, and fair outcome?
<
p>If the DNC crowd chooses not to respect the outcome of the primary process, I will be put out. It won’t matter for the MA vote, but I would not make the trip to NH and canvass, etc., as I did for Kerry in 2004 (and I’m sure my efforts made the difference there đŸ™‚ ).
<
p>It’s not about rules, and it’s not about ‘my guy’, and I, for one, am not making any ‘demands’. I am simply stating that I would find a DNC-driven nomination of Clinton intolerable if Obama maintains a significant lead in pledged delegates.
<
p>If you define impertinence as choosing to not rally behind a candidate in effect selected by the DNC, a candidate whom I believe is not better suited to win the general election nor to lead this country, then yes, I am impertinent.
you certainly are. You insist you are not talking about changing the rules yet do so while talking about changing the rules.
<
p>The super delegates are free to vote any way they please but if they don’t vote the way I insist then there is a problem? The rules are that they get to vote any way they choose.
<
p>If Obama were 90 delegates behind Clinton and he was awarded the nomination I would be disapointed because I voted for Clinton. I would get over it immediately and engage in every way for him that I would have for her because this election is just that important.
<
p>If you cross your arms and disengage that is your prerogative, but all it will do is prove that Obama’s message was actually lost on you in the first place.
Trying to get MI and FL delegates reinstated after the DNC voted to strip those states of their delegates? That’s changing the rules.
<
p>Now, I’m all for the voters of MI and FL being heard, but it has to be via a legitimate primary or caucus. You can almost make a weak case for the FL results as-is, where Obama was at least on the ballot, but trying to reinstate MI based on its results is simply insane.
<
p>But I digress.
<
p>You are using the words “change the rules” in a way that my small mind is unable to comprehend.
<
p>If Clinton wins the nomination because the balance of currently unelected DNC superdelegates put her over the top, I will recognize Clinton as the Democratic nominee, because that’s how the rules of the convention work. I seek not to change their capability to vote as they wish, at least in the 2008 election cycle.
<
p>But I know of no DNC convention rules, or planks in Obama’s platform, that say I must be excited about such an outcome.
<
p>In fact, among the first words you see here are “bring about real change”, which is a little different than “mindlessly obey your DNC overlords.”
<
p>The rules allowed SCOTUS to appoint GWB the winner of the 2000 election. We all respected the rules, inasmuch as no one attempted a coup or armed insurrection. But I don’t recall being particularly excited about that process, either. Were you?
..I was not particularly thrilled, but I didn’t regard the SCOTUS as sitting in a smoky room plotting to undo the will of the people, either.
<
p>The “change the rules” statement is simple – insisting that the super delegates behave in a manner that the are specifically not required to. It is wrapped in hypocrisy…let’s fight for a “new kind of politics” just as long as our guy gets the nom, otherwise, eh…gonna stay home.
<
p>Yes, Clinton is advocating reconsidering the decision vis a vis MI and FL, but last I heard she has not advocating dropping the political ball if she doesn’t get her way….and she is actually petitioning the party to reconsider the rules through the political process. That is much different than saying, hey do things my way even though you don’t have to or pay the price. It is not just about the rules changing, it is about silly threaths about a fractured party and even worse, an abandonment of what is supposed to be a new political movement and vitality because of a set back.
so this will be my last comment on this topic.
<
p>My closing remarks:
…definitive difference between changing the rules throught the prescribed process and insiting on changing the rules, or else.
<
p>Clear hypocrisy…change now, please without having to really work for it, or we quit.
<
p>No insult, just an observation. Anyone who thinks that change happens with a few rallies in a few months and then walks away because it doesn’t happen is not really serious to start with.
<
p>Funny, but when you said you would disengage from the most important election in a century it sounded like abandonment to me.
<
p>
<
p>You just won’t give up on that, will you? I’ve explained myself quite clearly on that point.
<
p>
<
p>Both an insult and a stunning mischaracterization in one fell swoop.
<
p>
<
p>I would have gone with 2000, 1960, or 1932. Or the democratic primary of 2008, in which I am quite engaged.
…for her to win double-digit leads on tuesday? That’s what the media told me anyway…
<
p>If this race proves anything, it is that NOTHING is impossible or predictable.
was Hillary at the begining of the game.
Not for the Clinton/Obama comparison, but for bringing up the super bowl again.
<
p>As for this primary, I hope it goes all the way to the convention. Regardless of who wins, this primary is taking up all the electoral oxygen right now, focusing America on our two talented candidates and leaving McCain nothing to work with. What’s not to like? Even people who normally only show up on election day are seeing Clinton vs Obama wherever they go. If we can turn this primary into the de facto election, fine with me.
The wounds from the Superbowl are still a little raw around here… đŸ™‚