Comments on: Count-Pointercount

By: Todd

Todd — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 04:29:33 +0000

Let’s see if the new KC with Levin, Fripp, Belew, Gavin Harrison, and Pat works out before we bury the King.

This election is over. Hillary isn’t the opposite of David Carr, she’s like someone who didn’t get drafted showing up for practice in a self constructed foil helmet.

Given:

1.) The SD’s aren’t going to overturn the plurality of voters. There’s too much risk for too much cost.

2.) This doesn’t reveal any major weakness in Obama’s proverbial armor, only in Hillary’s psyche.

3.) Jennifer is beautiful and I love her.

By: The Editors

The Editors — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 23:28:53 +0000

But as I seme not to be able to make clear. The superdelegates will decide this. Ergo some arguments must be made to them. You can choose ‘will of the voters’ as an ethical stand. If there is some other stand that is ethical, I would like to hear it. Becaus eotherwise it is the ‘will of the pledged delegates’ which is a little less than the will of the voters, being a different and more cumbersome and more insidery process.

If I wanted Clinton to win, I would make just that argument, and be careful to elide the fact that Clinton’s popular vote lead is due to Obama – and everyone else but Clinton – withdrawing their names from consideration in Michigan and did no campaigning in Florida, in deference to the DNC’s right to make their own – admittedly rather stupid – rules. If I were dedicated to getting Obama in, I’d emphasize and conceal the opposite facts. If one or the other argument carries the day with the SD’s, then one or the other candidate wins easily. If it’s a wash, then Obama likely wins by a small margin. I’ve got no ethical problem with either outcome, or if there is a general agreement to follow some other course, like a ‘do-over’ in FL and/or MI. My only objection is to one party changing the understood rules after play has ended, and seating delegates which it had already been determined would not be seated. This screws the people who abided by the process, and undermines the – again, admittedly already compromised – integrity of the process. This would be the worst possible outcome.

By: Uli Kunkel

Uli Kunkel — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 23:16:43 +0000

“what Jennifer said.”

Jen-ni-fer! Jen-ni-fer! Jen-ni-fer!

Clap-clap-point! Clap-clap-point!

By: Righteous Bubba

Righteous Bubba — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 23:14:16 +0000

Frippetronics is the peak of Prog Mountain

[elven tea spew]

What time signature is that in then?

By: secondharmonic

secondharmonic — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 23:09:18 +0000

And the bill to move up the date in FLA? The moving of the daate was a rider attached to a bil allowing for a paper trail in voting that yes the Dems wanted and had to vote for, don’t you think? The rider the amendment was attached by the GOP leadership in committee and not part of the original legislation. A poison pill.

By: secondharmonic

secondharmonic — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 22:51:29 +0000

I am not saying HRC should have Mcihigan and Fla, just 50% as — which was the status quo ante, or the rules as they were before the rules committee went back and decided to screw FLA and Mich. Or even just 50% of FLA, and let Michigan do its own thang.
But as I seme not to be able to make clear. The superdelegates will decide this. Ergo some arguments must be made to them. You can choose ‘will of the voters’ as an ethical stand. If there is some other stand that is ethical, I would like to hear it. Becaus eotherwise it is the ‘will of the pledged delegates’ which is a little less than the will of the voters, being a different and more cumbersome and more insidery process. In other words, plurality of pledged delegates doesn’t cut it as an argument for me. Leading at the beginning of the fourth quater doesn’t entitle you to declare the game a victory. Especially when the score is 30-28.

You can choose ‘the most likely scenario to get us a victory in November’. Then you have to look at the electoral patterns. And you might see that Obama won a lot of states that are not going to go blue.

If you tote up the electoral votes, and I have seen a lot of maps Obama where supposedly does better. Well, we’ll see what the polls look like in August, shall we?

By: The Editors

The Editors — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 22:40:18 +0000

No, I guess I can’t make charts, either. Anyway, when in doubt, what Jennifer said.

By: The Editors

The Editors — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 22:35:19 +0000

I have completely lost the ability to say what I mean. This is frustrating. Maybe I can still make charts:

point ————- agree —- disagree

Frank ————– X

2ndH ————– X ——————– X

2ndH, let the –X
voters decide

2ndH, let HC ————————– X
have MI & FL

Jennifer ——– X

And ‘rules is rules’ also implies that superdelegates are going to decide this. Given the facts on the ground.

One way or the other, this seems inevitable. But what I mean by ‘rules is rules’ is that you can’t change the rules now. Arguments about ethics v. practicality are essential, but are not appropriate discussions to bring up in the 4th quarter, to labor the NFL analogy. Yes, whatever the result, somebody’s not going to be happy, and they’ll have a decent argument. The party will have to do some amount of work to smooth that out. Maybe they will decide on a less absurd system for 2012, though that’s not how its trending. Changing the established rules now won’t help things.

By: Jennifer

Jennifer — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 22:33:32 +0000

secondharmonic – the primary date set by the Florida legislature was also voted upon by Florida Democratic state legislators, a majority of whom voted in favor. I agree it sucks for the voters, but at this point in time, there’s no way to seat any of their delegates based on the non-primary without it stinking of a fix. And certainly you know as well as I do that if Obama’s had been the only name on the ballot in Michigan he would have “won” the non-primary, and if Obama had “won” the most votes in the Florida non-primary, Clinton would be arguing that those delegations should be excluded.

Look, I have no problem with Clinton as the nominee – if she wins. And that means without applying new metrics to decide who the winner is, such as your suggestion w/r/t “who the most Democrats voted for”, by which I assume you mean “let’s tott up the popular vote totals nationwide and nominate whoever comes out on top.” We didn’t do that in 2004, 2000, etc etc etc, because that’s not the way the nominating process is set up. And again, those are the rules we had on game day. If you want to change the rules, you have to do it before the game gets underway. Otherwise, you have the refs changing the rules halfway through to throw the game one way or the other, and again, that stinks. I’ve had about my fill of the DLC and would not at all be sorry to see their candidate go down, though I would vote for her if she won the nomination fair and square by the rules set before the process got underway. But if the “win” was only accomplished by gaming the process and bending the rules to produce the desired outcome? I would stay home in November.

By: secondharmonic

secondharmonic — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 22:31:45 +0000

Big Electric Cat was indeed cool, youse guys.
And the video was *acid*.