2008 Primaries Thread 2: THE QUICKENING

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (7160 of them)

or they could like, count the actual votes that people cast. obama and edwards withdrawing their names from the ballots wasn't part of any agreement or punishment for those states, it was a strategized piece of theatre. that's what you do when you know you're going to lose.

eppy not sure what you're talking about. i think the clinton aide said something that is pretty obvious and it got spun into "omg this is the clinton strategy".

Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 16:01 (eighteen years ago)

I still love and would vote for Hillary, but it's certainly interesting that her campaign is doing what it's doing, and there's meaning in the fact that a reporter thought he could make that frame out of that comment.

Eppy, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 16:02 (eighteen years ago)

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44436000/jpg/_44436090_clinton_203body_ap.jpg

classic.

kenan, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 16:02 (eighteen years ago)

more on this story, "Clinton Spokesperson: We "Will Not Pursue" Obama's Pledged Delegates:"

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/clinton_spokesperson_we_will_n.php

Mark Clemente, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 16:02 (eighteen years ago)

We have not, are not and will not pursue the pledged delegates of Barack Obama. It's now time for the Obama campaign to be clear about their intentions.

Mark Clemente, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 16:03 (eighteen years ago)

i voted the hell out of some voting this morning. and i bought some banana bread at my polling place!

-- Jordan, Tuesday, February 19, 2008 3:27 PM (36 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

Jordan, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 16:04 (eighteen years ago)

or they could like, count the actual votes that people cast. obama and edwards withdrawing their names from the ballots wasn't part of any agreement or punishment for those states, it was a strategized piece of theatre. that's what you do when you know you're going to lose.

yah cause im sure theyd be happier to just have no delegates W T F

jhøshea, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 16:05 (eighteen years ago)

besides it was a decision made by the party that all the campaigns agreed to

jhøshea, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 16:06 (eighteen years ago)

Please locate... Black River Falls

...

Very Good Hillary!

gabbneb, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 16:07 (eighteen years ago)

tracer, you know, i do think this is just piss-poor message control from the clinton campaign, but i wouldn't put it past clinton to spoil for a convention fight

elmo argonaut, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 16:08 (eighteen years ago)

lol @ a TPM comment:

While we are on the subject, Obama has never explicitly spoken to the subject of whether he intends to hire a hit-man to assasinate Sen Clinton in the next debate. Sen Clinton has already ruled out such measures, and it is time for Sen Obama to make his intentions on this subject clear...

Mark Clemente, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 16:10 (eighteen years ago)

well it was a gamble. the gamble could come back to bite them. it's pretty clear from what i've been reading that florida and michigan will almost certainly be seated at the convention. the question is, does this happen just for unanimity's sake, after counting everybody else up, or do you throw those states' votes into the mix -- somehow?

frankly i think the punishment of stripping the delegates was bone-headed from the outset. and letting some people withdraw and hillary stay on the ballot was completely confusing. it was enough to get the candidates to agree not to campaign there. it took all the spotlight away. this way you're guaranteed to look like a weird, lever-pulling political machine. repubs stripped some delegates but not all, and allowed campaigning, which i think was a much better way to go.

there's meaning in the fact that a reporter thought he could make that frame out of that comment.

yes, but that meaning has almost entirely to do with the culture of national political reporters and their tribal mentality and solipsism, and i would argue very close to 0% to do with hillary clinton.

haha that tpm comment is great

jhøshea sorry: what decision are you referring to?

Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 16:11 (eighteen years ago)

to not seat the delegates and to not campaign

jhøshea, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 16:13 (eighteen years ago)

Obama Bought Home Without Rezko Discount, Seller Says

elmo argonaut, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 16:17 (eighteen years ago)

i don't think any of them specifically agreed to "not seat the delegates" though? they agreed not to campaign. and none of them did. then when edwards and obama saw that, left on cruise control, they were going to get hammered, they pulled their names from the florida and michigan ballots in order to try and thoroughly destroy any vestigial legitimacy those ballots might have had. which makes sense, strategically, but it is a gamble. because of the situation we're now finding ourselves in. sorry if this is all obvious, i'm still working it out for myself.

what i still don't understand is why anyone was allowed to vote for the demoaratic presidential nominee in michigan or florida AT ALL, given that the organization in charge of the vote had decided 1) not to seat that state's delegates and 2) forbidden campaigning. the dnc really created this. whoever was ahead in those states -- it happened to be hillary -- would eventually try to get those delegates seated if things got this far.

Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 16:19 (eighteen years ago)

i believe their names were only pulled from the michigan ballots

jhøshea, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 16:27 (eighteen years ago)

xpost Oh, so it's OK then.

Eppy, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 16:32 (eighteen years ago)

tracer you're nuts

deej, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 16:34 (eighteen years ago)

This election is well on its way to bringing 2 or 3 of you around to my views on Broken America. Hooray.

Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 16:35 (eighteen years ago)

also lol@ this quote from the wsj:

"It seems like someone else should be there," says Dan Leihgeber, a smelter in a steel plant here, who is supporting Sen. Clinton. "It's like there's someone missing."

that shit is classic right there
the disenchanted white male voter ;_;

deej, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 16:35 (eighteen years ago)

This election is well on its way to bringing 2 or 3 of you around to my views on Broken America. Hooray.

I wonder how far away we are from the understanding that Hillary is not to be trusted.

kenan, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 16:36 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.slate.com/id/2184491/

gabbneb, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 16:39 (eighteen years ago)

gabb help us out here - what was the justification for allowing people to vote in fl and mi, and counting those votes?

Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 16:41 (eighteen years ago)

they agreed not to campaign. and none of them did.

"Hundreds of thousands of people have already voted in Florida and I want them to know I will be there to be part of what they have tried to do to make sure their voices are heard," said Clinton before jetting to Sarasota and Miami for events on Sunday.

The Clinton campaign claims that the senator from New York is abiding by the no-campaigning pledge because Sunday's two Florida events were technically closed to the public. But the stops were treated as major news events in a state where many Democrats have expressed anger over the absence of the party's presidential candidates during a period when Florida is overrun by Republican contenders.

The truth of the Clinton strategy was writ large in a memo from top strategist Howard Wolfson, who announced on the day of the campaign's dismal showing in South Carolina that, "Regardless of today's outcome, the race quickly shifts to Florida, where hundreds of thousands of Democrats will turn out to vote on Tuesday. Despite efforts by the Obama campaign to ignore Floridians, their voices will be heard loud and clear across the country, as the last state to vote before Super Tuesday on February 5."

dmr, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 16:44 (eighteen years ago)

there is really no argument that the DNC caused the mess but I think you're still being too charitable to Clinton's campaign

dmr, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 16:46 (eighteen years ago)

the Clintons are throat-slitting poli-gangsters, always have been. Zurprize.

Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 16:47 (eighteen years ago)

honestly that WSJ article is probably pretty accurate and my friends still in OH say that in the GE it would be hard to see folks they know voting for either clinton or obama

deej, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 16:49 (eighteen years ago)

Barack Obama Campaign Events in Florida

Tuesday, December 25, 2007

* Time N/A, Debate in Orlando, FL.

Monday, November 5, 2007

* 6 p.m., House Party in Sarasota, FL.
* 6 p.m., Fundraiser in Sarasota, FL.

Sunday, September 9, 2007

* Time N/A, Debate in Coral Gables, FL.

Saturday, August 25, 2007

* 3 p.m., Party Event in Miami, FL.
* 6 p.m., Fundraiser in Miami Beach, FL.

Friday, August 24, 2007

* Noon, Rally in Tallahassee, FL.
* 7:10 p.m., Party Event in Tallahassee, FL.

Sunday, July 22, 2007

* Time N/A, Speech in Miami Beach, FL.

Saturday, June 30, 2007

* 3 p.m., Forum in Lake Buena Vista, FL.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

* Time N/A, Fundraiser in Miami, FL.
* Time N/A, Fundraiser in Jacksonville, FL.

Sunday, April 15, 2007

* Time N/A, Fundraiser in Tampa, FL.

Sunday, March 25, 2007

* Time N/A, Fundraiser in West Palm Beach, FL.

Saturday, March 24, 2007

* Time N/A, Fundraiser in Hallandale Beach, FL.
* Time N/A, Fundraiser in Miami, FL.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/tracker/candidates/barack-obama/states/fl/

Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 16:49 (eighteen years ago)

tracer i think you'd have a much stronger argument here if instead of denying that clinton is being opportunistic you just pointed out that if these tricks win her the nomination then its a sign of how well she would be able to perform against John McCain

deej, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 16:50 (eighteen years ago)

hey tracer did you actually look up WHEN Dean stripped the delegates

deej, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 16:51 (eighteen years ago)

cause it wasnt until late Nov. 07

deej, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 16:51 (eighteen years ago)

at least in MI

deej, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 16:52 (eighteen years ago)

(unless im wrong but im basing this on a Dec. 1st article saying that 'saturday' the DNC stripped MI delegates)

deej, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 16:54 (eighteen years ago)

oh!

Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 16:55 (eighteen years ago)

obama eating into clinton's hispanic vote

The tracking data suggest [Clinton's] support advantage among Hispanics may be eroding, at least on a national level. In the Feb. 5-9 data, Clinton led Obama by nearly 2-to-1, 63%-32%, among Hispanic Democratic voters. In the most recent polling, the two are essentially tied among this constituency, with 50% preferring Obama and 46% Clinton.

Mark Clemente, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 16:57 (eighteen years ago)

deej i think all candidates are opportunistic if they're any good at all

Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 16:57 (eighteen years ago)

yeah but what dnc rules is obama breaking??

deej, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 17:01 (eighteen years ago)

the campaigns had to make early moves to schedule events in MI and FL cos the two states were threatening to move their primaries ahead of IA and NH! this is the actual controversy (which somewhat murkily has been blamed on the GOP too, now -- i'm not nearly wonky enough to look into that). dean and the dnc stripping their delegates for doing so looks a bit harsh, but it preserves the pride of place of "small states" (arguably helps out smaller candidacies)(yeah right), and the overall stability of the system.

i'm all for primary reform, but letting state committees race each other to see who can hold their events first is not the way to do it.

gff, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 17:02 (eighteen years ago)

this is a crazy article about florida and the charge-countercharge the campaigns were making:

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/jan/28/me-clinton-obama-guess-states-weight/?news-politics

Don Fowler of South Carolina, a Clinton backer and a member of the national Democratic Party's rules committee, said, "Just the mere announcement that you're coming there could be interpreted as a breach of the rules."

But Clinton has accused Obama of violating the pledge as well, by airing a national television ad that reached viewers in Florida. Fowler called that "the much bigger problem, in my mind."

Obama denied that violated the pledge. He said he got clearance to run the ad from South Carolina Democratic Party chairwoman Carol Fowler, who is Don Fowler's wife. The two have opposing views on the boycott.

Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 17:05 (eighteen years ago)

gff what i don't understand is why votes even took place at all. what's the point?

Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 17:07 (eighteen years ago)

I think the florida deal was that the gop moved their primary way up and there is a law that both party primaries have to be held on the same day. so the Florida dems were kind of stuck. they had an option to hold a later caucus that would count but instead they took their chances w/ the earlier primary and had the delegates stripped. (I think.)

dmr, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 17:09 (eighteen years ago)

because the state parties still have some autonomy from the national party and they can hold an event whenever they damn want, i guess. all the national party can do is say they won't pay attention to it.

xp

gff, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 17:10 (eighteen years ago)

also, if it's anything like MN, lots of other party business goes on at those events, it's not just a presidential candidate poll.

gff, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 17:11 (eighteen years ago)

what a palaver

Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 17:12 (eighteen years ago)

new david brooks column happily offering the following metaphors for obama popularity:

-- drug addiction
-- psychological disorder
-- viral contagion

elmo argonaut, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 17:22 (eighteen years ago)

Equally valid metaphors for David Brooks' columns:

-- brain farts
-- canine Slaverings
-- lunatic ravings

Aimless, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 17:30 (eighteen years ago)

On the February 17 edition of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show, host Chris Matthews asked his panel if "Barack Obama's oratorical ability on the lectern in front of big rooms will continue to be his winning edge?" In response, New York Times columnist David Brooks said: "Yes, but he's got to get away from colleges. Go visit a factory for once." In fact, Obama visited a Wisconsin General Motors factory, where he delivered what his campaign called a "major economic policy address" a few days before Brooks made his comment.

deej, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 17:34 (eighteen years ago)

We have not, are not and will not pursue the pledged delegates of Barack Obama. It's now time for the Obama campaign to be clear about their intentions.

-- Clinton spokesman Phil Singer, via internet director Peter Daou

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=02&year=2008&base_name=pledged_delegates_too

Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 17:34 (eighteen years ago)

lol @ comments

deej, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 17:35 (eighteen years ago)

they shd lock the comments, that's perfect

HI DERE, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 17:36 (eighteen years ago)


This thread has been locked by an administrator

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.