What gives? May 16, 2008 3:32 PM   Subscribe

Seeing that, by any other name pundit Frank Rich's essentially anti Clinton bloviaton was given space on the blue for the measure of 131 comments last I looked, I thought it appropriate to post two articles that past muster with Washington Post and was found politically and factually correct to be published. One is about the misogynistic comments across the board against Hillary Clinton --and Howard Dean and the DNC's silence about it, and the other is about the newest wave of belittling "Poor Hillary." Both articles reveal the difficulties the Democrats may face by their own antagonized and disenfranchised Hillary supporters, which I believe worthy of consideration. Yet the post disappeared in a hurry without a trace. What gives?
posted by semmi to Etiquette/Policy at 3:32 PM (238 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite

Without a trace isn't exactly true - it's here: "This post was deleted for the following reason: don't do this here. -- jessamyn"
posted by GuyZero at 3:36 PM on May 16, 2008


I think there is a post that could be made about the misogyny that Hillary Clinton faced (didn't Salon do a roundup?) but two links to the washington post without any context, leading with a somewhat inflammatory "bros before hos" phrase didn't seem like that kind of good post.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:37 PM on May 16, 2008


FYI, opinion columns do not need to be "politically and factually correct."
posted by desjardins at 3:37 PM on May 16, 2008


"This post was deleted for the following reason: don't do this here. -- jessamyn"

Don't do this here either. Trust me. Unless you are trolling, you are likely to come to regret having posted an "OMG MY SPECIAL SNOWFLAKE POST WAS DELETED WTF?" MetaTalk thread.
posted by dersins at 3:42 PM on May 16, 2008 [1 favorite]


I appreciate both links, semmi, since they sum up everything I hate about the current US election.
The Obamatons have been, IMO, the worst offenders.
posted by loiseau at 3:44 PM on May 16, 2008


semmi különleges.
posted by Wolfdog at 3:45 PM on May 16, 2008


Wow, this is an especially charming comment on that post.

Any post about HRC is gonna bring out the hate, as I'm sure this meta thread will as well. The Frank Rich fpp was lame, but I never expected it to be deleted because I know how pro-Obama mefi is.
posted by mandymanwasregistered at 4:02 PM on May 16, 2008


That's a ridiculous comment, mandymanwasregistered, and a rather insulting view of Matt, Jessamyn, and cortex.
posted by Justinian at 4:06 PM on May 16, 2008 [1 favorite]


Could it have been a...

(okay)

(wait for it)

(...not yet)

(.......now!)

...poor Hillary post?

Oh my. Ha ha ha ha ha!

Seriously, though. Not great. Plus, is any misogyny directed Hillary's way really worse than this "hard working people, white people" bullshit? If she'd been somehow stainless throughout I could almost see working up a real head of steam over it. But come on. It cuts both ways -- you can't throw shoutouts to the racists in the crowd and also expect people to take you seriously when you call sexism. What a cynical bullshit artist she is.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:09 PM on May 16, 2008 [1 favorite]


What gives?

USian political posts in an election year are held to a higher standard of "please make an effort if you want someone to care about and considerately discuss your content" quality which was not reached by your five word post.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 4:09 PM on May 16, 2008 [1 favorite]


Please don't do this here.
posted by Dave Faris at 4:16 PM on May 16, 2008


Can I move that this be considered asked, answered, and closed?
posted by never used baby shoes at 4:17 PM on May 16, 2008


MetaMan, is that you again?
posted by dawson at 4:30 PM on May 16, 2008 [2 favorites]


Move to table never used baby shoes' motion in favor of continuing important discussion on United States politics and how humans blow hard.
posted by carsonb at 4:32 PM on May 16, 2008


Metafilter: It's about the links, not the conversation.
posted by blue_beetle at 4:52 PM on May 16, 2008


They always delete the speeches of Enver Hoxha I post as well. The mods are patently imperialist running dogs, revisionists and Trotsky-Fascist wreckers!
posted by Abiezer at 4:54 PM on May 16, 2008 [5 favorites]


You made a post to make a political point, that's obvious from this MeTa post. It got deleted. Boo fucking hoo.
posted by empath at 4:57 PM on May 16, 2008 [3 favorites]


Semmi, a little bit of salt in food makes it taste good. Half a pound of salt added to a meal will kill you.

Your complaint is, this other post was just the same as mine, but only mine got deleted. Why? The answer is that a little bit of political posting adds flavor to the site, but too many such postings will ruin the community.

It nearly happened during the 2004 election campaign. I think the mods are trying to prevent a repeat in 2008.

(...and where in the rules does it say that the mods are under any obligation to be consistent?)
posted by Class Goat at 5:03 PM on May 16, 2008


You made a terrible post (just two links) about an interesting subject, for the wrong reasons (because Obama was getting attention) and then came to Metatalk with a self righteous attitude to whine about it.

Now would be a good time to stop, because you're not ahead.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:11 PM on May 16, 2008 [5 favorites]


Though to be fair we're totally on the take from Obama's campaign. "Big O", we call him. Have proof.
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:26 PM on May 16, 2008 [1 favorite]


Everyone knows all the working class WHITE men are all voting for Hillary. She never fails to mention it. It's because she is above nasty identity politics.
posted by tkchrist at 5:32 PM on May 16, 2008




I love it when people practically volunteer themselves to be lynched by the MetaFilter mob. This is as close to pitchforking and torching people as I'm ever likely to get.

*waves pitchfork*
posted by WalterMitty at 5:53 PM on May 16, 2008


What gives?

Your post didn't so it had to.
posted by cashman at 5:58 PM on May 16, 2008


Maybe an interesting post would be one trying to use misogyny as a justification for Hillary's single-minded bloodthirst for power. But you didn't do that, you made a profoundly shitty post. Such is life.
posted by cmonkey at 6:02 PM on May 16, 2008


I have it on poor authority that MeFi is actually just a front for Mr. Obama and that the mission is to sink Hillary and that this has been the plan for the site since 1999. It's all funded, in an ironic twist, by George Soros and Richard Bruce Cheney.
posted by dawson at 6:05 PM on May 16, 2008 [1 favorite]


"Any post about HRC is gonna bring out the hate (...)"

this is why we need an ignore user option.
posted by krautland at 6:11 PM on May 16, 2008


Why the hell would a strong, empowered woman need Howard Dean to ride to her rescue? As Clinton herself would say: "I anticipate it's gonna get even, you know, hotter and if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen and I'm very much at home in the kitchen. So I think I'll stick around."
posted by oneirodynia at 6:15 PM on May 16, 2008


Hey guys, my Obama check didn't clear this week. Was I supposed to hold it for a few days, or what?

Also, Obama is having a "Town Meeting for Working Families" right across the street from my apartment on Monday morning at 10:45. Wait a minute. Working families? At 10:45 am? On a Monday? Hmmmm...

I saw the line for tickets at lunch today. It was about 3 blocks long, 3 or 4 people wide. In a Montana town of less than 100,000.

Now about that check...
posted by Fuzzy Skinner at 6:15 PM on May 16, 2008


We need an ignore Hillary option.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:16 PM on May 16, 2008 [3 favorites]


Damn those ambitious power hungry bitches who claw their way to the top, amirite? I mean every time I hear her shrill voice it's like I'm meeting my ex-wife outside the probate court. She's like Glenn Close in fatal attraction. And she is tearing this party apart by her conniving ability to win half of the votes. In fact if Obama loses in the fall it will be because of her blood thirst for power. Someone should take her into a room and teach her a lesson. We all know West Virginia doesn't count because it's full of racist white people and that's the only reason she beat the putative nomination winner by a 40 point spread. I mean sure I want a woman to be president, but god, not that woman.

Feel free to add on!
posted by mandymanwasregistered at 6:18 PM on May 16, 2008 [7 favorites]


I agree with mathowie in that my post probably wasn't explanatory enough. I continually err in trying to allow links to speak for themselves (which annoyingly forces a reading of them) without inevitably editorializing with my explanations. Sorry about that. I disagree with jessamyn's cryptic "don't take us there." It's throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Trollers should be excised, not the opportunity for reasonable talk, although it may be impossible in this framework. My coming to Meta wasn't out of concern for my fpp, I have dozens deleted without word from me, but out of concern for the outcome of this election, the future of the democratic party, the future of the political process, the unchecked power of the "media" to manipulate every aspect of our lives, and ultimately the future of this country.
posted by semmi at 6:19 PM on May 16, 2008


Feel free to add on!

And those pantsuits, my sweet Lord.
posted by dawson at 6:21 PM on May 16, 2008


So if you don't vote for Hillary, you HATE WOMEN?
And if you don't vote for Obama, you HATE BLACKS?
Maybe if you don't vote for McCain, you HATE OLD WHITE GUYS?

No! No, no, no, no, no, no, no. No.

If I don't vote for ANY of them, it's because I don't think they are the best person for the job. Period.
posted by yhbc at 6:22 PM on May 16, 2008 [2 favorites]


I have dozens deleted without word from me

This is a problem. I think you need to re-evaluate what MetaFilter is for. The answer is not "my opinions on US politics".
posted by GuyZero at 6:24 PM on May 16, 2008 [1 favorite]


My coming to Meta wasn't out of concern for my fpp, I have dozens deleted without word from me, but out of concern for the outcome of this election, the future of the democratic party, the future of the political process, the unchecked power of the "media" to manipulate every aspect of our lives, and ultimately the future of this country.

Well, Metatalk is certainly the right place for all that ::rolls eyes::
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:25 PM on May 16, 2008 [4 favorites]


If only Hillary had made the greatest speech since the dawn of Man, you wouldn't be in this predicament, Semmi.
posted by Dave Faris at 6:35 PM on May 16, 2008


I have dozens deleted without word from me, but

Twenty-one, actually. The fact that this is true also explains the brevity of my deletion message. Most people go through their entire MetaFilter arc without ever, once, having a post deleted. Your "this would make a good post for MeFi" calibrator may be off.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:39 PM on May 16, 2008 [17 favorites]


> Wow, this is an especially charming comment on that post.

OMG, and it's not even my birthday.

The editorials were entirely worthy of the referenced mocking contempt.

I have little respect for Hillary to begin with for any one of a hundred different reasons, but hearing whining from her supporters about how America's sexism is what's to blame for her utter and complete electoral failure conveys a "we are such victims of the sexism inherent in the system!" attitude that I find utterly contemptible.

And whether or not you believe me, I'd find it just as mockable were the situation to be reversed and were Obama supporters to be claiming campaign failure due to racism. Although I find Hillary to be nearly as bad a Presidential possibility as Dubya himself, it's victimization I'm disgusted with here.
posted by WCityMike at 6:41 PM on May 16, 2008 [1 favorite]


And whether or not you believe me, I'd find it just as mockable were the situation to be reversed and were Obama supporters to be claiming campaign failure due to racism.

Oh, I believe you. Because you're right- there's no such thing as sexism or racism. Just an evil joke the world is playing on you.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:47 PM on May 16, 2008 [2 favorites]


Meanwhile, how can someone have 21 deleted FPPs and still be around? I would have thought that a person would get banned before that point?
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:48 PM on May 16, 2008 [1 favorite]


> Oh, I believe you. Because you're right- there's no such thing as sexism or racism. Just an evil joke the world is playing on you.

Aren't straw men fun? Lemme try. PinkSuperhero, how dare you say that racism is a joke! (This is fun.)
posted by WCityMike at 6:53 PM on May 16, 2008 [1 favorite]


hey I never got my MetaFilter ark!
posted by dawson at 6:53 PM on May 16, 2008


21, over six years.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:56 PM on May 16, 2008


Huh, I guess that's not so crazy.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:57 PM on May 16, 2008 [1 favorite]


Huh, I guess that's not so crazy.

Metafilter, your standards are too high!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:58 PM on May 16, 2008


I WISH the first woman with a serious chance to be elected President of the United States didn't have to be a Former First Lady. That's for countries like the Phillipines and Pakistan, not here. (The only woman in US politics who gets MORE demerits for marrying well would be Elizabeth Dole, Senator Dole's Second Wife and Ex-Mistress).

It also does no good that I NEVER really supported Bill Clinton, from the first time I heard a radio report about a small state governor starting an organization to help the Democrats become more "business friendly" and thought to myself, here's an obvious crook... and a future President.

It really doesn't help that her "freshman failure" involved the only chance we had for Health Care Reform in the 1990s, and I have been a personal victim of the Health Care Crisis since then to the tune of a high-five-figure dollar amount... I do not blame here solely for it, but allocate her 10-15% of the blame. I've never been a single-issue voter for any issue before, but, you know, this time it's personal.

On the other hand, I WISH the first black man with a serious chance to be elected President didn't have to be a relative political newcomer of mixed racial heritage with possibly the worst name in American Political History (until "General" Patton "Lee Harvey" Oswalt runs for something).

So does that make me misogynist? Racist? Chauvinist? WcityMikist? PinkSuperheroist? DaveFarist?
posted by wendell at 6:59 PM on May 16, 2008 [2 favorites]


DaveFarist?

You should be so lucky.
posted by Dave Faris at 7:01 PM on May 16, 2008


Of course metafilter is pro-obama. It's pro a lot of things. Obama is worshipped here and his supporters are one of the biases that metafilter has. To deny it is to deny that the Pope wears a big hat.

But the post was weak. And I agree with what your post says - just try a little harder next time to through it together.
posted by Stynxno at 7:04 PM on May 16, 2008 [2 favorites]


see? this will wendell after all. and I happen to agree 100% w/ his observation above.
posted by dawson at 7:05 PM on May 16, 2008


Obama is worshipped here

He knows how to use a one button mouse.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:10 PM on May 16, 2008 [1 favorite]


He knows how to use a one button mouse.

He's claims he wants gay people to be "free" to get civil unions, but it's not exactly free if you have to purchase a license.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:12 PM on May 16, 2008 [15 favorites]


He supports a guest worker program, but who asks their guests to work? I don't even let mine help with the dishes. I'm like, just stack it on the counter, I'll deal with it later. Who wants another glass of wine?
posted by found missing at 7:20 PM on May 16, 2008 [8 favorites]


Frank Rich, the theater critic who told us there was no difference between Bush and Gore in 2000 (this is true - check his archives).. I'm kind of surprised that a post which is just praising an already very-well-known NY Times op ed writer and just preaching to the choir of Obama supporters was OK for MeFi, because it sure seemed like that one only existed so someone could give their opinion on US politics? I really think that's a double standard.

The articles on sexism were very good, I wish you'd post more like that with a better introduction so they'd stick around. It's also surprising that people who seem to me to have been polite and reasonable on other threads are here saying some pretty nasty things about Sen. Clinton. Also, if sexism is bad, isn't it always bad, even if this woman in particular is apparently such a horrible powermongering psychotic witch that some folks think she deserves it?
posted by citron at 7:20 PM on May 16, 2008 [2 favorites]


semmi, I share your concerns about the future of the Democratic Party.

mandymanwasregistered.. for the exhaustive version of that (with links!) see: Women in Politics: The Same As It Ever Was
posted by citron at 7:28 PM on May 16, 2008


ThePinkSuperhero: "Meanwhile, how can someone have 21 deleted FPPs and still be around? I would have thought that a person would get banned before that point?"

Or get a clue and figure out how to post.
posted by octothorpe at 7:29 PM on May 16, 2008


Metafilter goes Ron Paul for Obama.
posted by Krrrlson at 7:36 PM on May 16, 2008


Poor post-poor-"poor-Hillary"-post post.
posted by oaf at 7:43 PM on May 16, 2008 [5 favorites]


I don't know OP semmi, and I disagree with the premise of this MeTa, but to be fair 21 deletes (while perhaps on the high side) in six years with 254 keepers doesn't seem like a retention ratio to be really ashamed of.
posted by dawson at 7:45 PM on May 16, 2008


LOL re: Ron Paul. I just read the Frank Rich thread and it's like a different planet in which.. an underlying assumption seems to be that the American electorate is as smitten with Obama as MeFi, or will soon be? Not quite. His prospects of winning vs McCain are not good at all. Despite the national media anointing him the nominee and declaring the race over a week previous, West Virginia voters turned out in record numbers and rejected him 3 to 1. That's remarkable. The Wright story mattered deeply to many people and there are plenty more videos where that came from - the church used to sell them on its website, and I don't think it'd be like the RNC's oppo guys to dump it all now, the timing is wrong. My theory at the moment is the DNC/powers-that-be don't have or don't want cover to move to Sen. Clinton, have already written off the general election, and just want all the cash he can bring in for the downticket contests.
posted by citron at 7:50 PM on May 16, 2008


just preaching to the choir of Obama supporters

Yes. This gets very old to me, even though I am an Obama supporter. It reminds of me of posting on a fan club list for the Who in the mid 90s. Occasionally I would say something slightly negative about the Who, and a million people would jump down my throat:

"how dare you say anything bad about the Who??? This is a Who fan list!!!!"

My view was: we know everyone here is a fan, I am too. But if the only thing we're allowed to say is, "man the Who sure is great," why have the list? That's not a conversation. At some point it gets alienating, even to people who like the Who very much.
posted by drjimmy11 at 7:54 PM on May 16, 2008 [6 favorites]


FEAR!!! UNCERTAINTY!!! DOUBT!!!

Stop it. Stop it all of you obvious fucking trolls.
posted by yhbc at 7:57 PM on May 16, 2008


West Virginia voters turned out in record numbers and rejected him 3 to 1. That's remarkable. The Wright story mattered deeply to many people and there are plenty more videos where that came from - the church used to sell them on its website, and I don't think it'd be like the RNC's oppo guys to dump it all now, the timing is wrong. My theory at the moment is the DNC/powers-that-be don't have or don't want cover to move to Sen. Clinton, have already written off the general election, and just want all the cash he can bring in for the downticket contests.

On the other hand, the one thing that annoys me more than Obama bandwagon-ism is knee-jerk negativity carried to near-insane levels. "written off the general election"???? Seriously?? Republican house candidates are losing this past week in heavily Republican districts of Mississippi and Louisiana! the republicans poured a ton of money in, went out of their way to cast the dem's running as buddies of Obama, and they got their asses whupped. In a republican part of Mississippi. Republicans themselves as saying they haven't faced such a negative environment since Watergate.

Congress will be HEAVILY democratic, maybe "override a verto" heavy- that's a given. It's possible Obama could lose the general election, but everything is heavily in his favor.
posted by drjimmy11 at 8:00 PM on May 16, 2008


Elizabeth Dole, Senator Dole's Second Wife and Ex-Mistress

I've been comparing Senator McCain's run to BobDole's 1996 run: two candidates with distinguished carreers who I admire even though are politics are different who sold out the principles that made them admirable in one last desperate grab at the presidency. So that plus the whole marry-the-mistress thing is two things they have in common.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:38 PM on May 16, 2008


I floated over Beerfilter's first link and it ends: clinton_nearly_ready_for_her_c and I thought for sure that "c" began the word "close-up".
posted by telstar at 9:30 PM on May 16, 2008 [1 favorite]


I've been comparing Senator McCain's run to BobDole's 1996 run...

You know you could probably do one of those Kennedy/Lincoln things with those two. Did Dole have a secretary named McCain?
posted by the christopher hundreds at 9:36 PM on May 16, 2008 [3 favorites]


stick a fork in her, she's done
posted by caddis at 10:25 PM on May 16, 2008


I missed this on the Blue, but the links are interesting so I'm glad I saw it here. Thanks, semmi.
posted by homunculus at 10:52 PM on May 16, 2008


For what it's worth:

1. The links are interesting, and I'd have liked to see Mefites respond to them.
2. I like semmi's practice of letting the links speak for themselves.
3. And I wish the post had stayed up, even though I'm a strong Obama supporter and at this point pretty much detest Hillary.
posted by orthogonality at 11:02 PM on May 16, 2008 [2 favorites]


So does that make me misogynist? Racist? Chauvinist? WcityMikist? PinkSuperheroist? DaveFarist?

y2karlmarxist.

But you know it is kind of cool that we have a presidential candidate with a Cardassian first name.
posted by y2karl at 11:08 PM on May 16, 2008 [3 favorites]


I do not currently have pie, but I do have a fucking awesome pork stirfry. Anyone? I have spare chopsticks.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:25 PM on May 16, 2008


I want in on this hot pork stirfry action.
posted by puke & cry at 11:49 PM on May 16, 2008


I'm guessing that based on your remarks here your interest was not necessarily in the sexism aspect in the primary, but that there may have been some sexism directed at your candidate.

In other words you have a clear agenda behind your posts, or at least the one that got removed.

In general it seems that posting sharply agenda driven posts have a much higher likelihood of being removed.

A really interesting FPP might be a well constructed post exploring both the purported sexism and racism that has occurred, without directly interjecting a personal viewpoint, at least on the FPP part.

And, frankly I hate that it seems that to most Americans a person being rumored to be Muslim is reason enough to not vote for them. And beyond that, Muslims in general seem to be the new niggers of American social conscious. Just moving the bigotry from on group to another. I want a progressive Muslim female to be elected president.
posted by edgeways at 11:58 PM on May 16, 2008 [1 favorite]


Probama has more zing, even if it does conjure up images of abductees being violated by aliens in the Deep South, depending on pronunciation.

Metafilter goes Ron Paul for Obama.
posted by Krrrlson

Hey, I tried to warn people.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:05 AM on May 17, 2008


Snore.....xnkxxnxxx....slurp...What?! I'm awake! Hillary what?
posted by The Light Fantastic at 1:42 AM on May 17, 2008


Seeing that, by any other name pundit Frank Rich's essentially anti Clinton bloviaton was given space on the blue for the measure of 131 comments last I looked

If you saw that piece as anti-Clinton bloviation, you missed the entire point of it. The reason that I thought it was worthwhile to post was not due to some petty pro-Barack, anti-Hillary (booohiiisssssss!!) viewpoint, but that I genuinely felt that Rich has captured the zeitgeist, and that if he turned out to be right, it would be worthwhile to point to the piece years down the road and say that this was a defining moment.

He doesn't even elevate Obama in it over Hillary, he's trying to identify social forces at work and doing a pretty good job explaining, in layman's terms, a Hegellian dialectical moment that's happening right before our eyes.

I'm sorry that you saw it as empty, pro-Obama stumping, but I'm even sorrier that you didn't get the point at all.
posted by psmealey at 2:56 AM on May 17, 2008


Mostly, it seems like you rolled a natural 20 and fumbled your post.

(And just to toss another spanner in, primary retention rates have historically been high, meaning that Clinton's likely adding Dem votes simply by carrying the primary to voters who have never had much stake before.

Oh, and while I have my beefs with Clinton, c'mon, against McCain? In a heartbeat. Of course, after eight years of the stump-humper we've got, I'd probably vote for the zombie corpse of Hitler over anyone the Republicans could field. "Well," I'd say to myself, "at least he's got a plan to deal with Russia…")
posted by klangklangston at 2:56 AM on May 17, 2008 [3 favorites]


Any post about HRC is gonna bring out the hate

Granted, there is a small cohort of posters who reflexively post some nasty stuff about HRC, but I wager there are just as many HRC supporters doing the same about Obama and his "Obamabots". This is the same bullshit we saw in 2004. You don't like my candidate, so you're obviously motivated by hatred, spite, personal vendetta, etc, and I'm going to interpret all of your comments on this matter through that narrow lens. Grow up.
posted by psmealey at 3:07 AM on May 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


He's claims he wants gay people to be "free" to get civil unions, but it's not exactly free if you have to purchase a license.

If you're gonna call me out, buddy, don't be a weasel about it. There's too many of those types here as it is.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:56 AM on May 17, 2008


Obama is the nominee; time to get over the primaries, people

If you're unhappy with it, by all means, vote for John McCain; that will show those misogynists that you're willing to give up the right to choose for all women because some people said mean things about Hillary Clinton during the primaries while no one said anything at all but "here's the key to the white house" to the black guy.

Gee, it's hard being a (deeply corrupt) former first lady with $110 million bucks in the bank. No one gives you a break.

I think Obama wins without the disaffected Hillary supporters; see today's NY Times for an article about how massive black turnout in the South (expected for Obama) may even swing some deep red southern states for democrats up and down the ticket.

And personally, I don't care about the future of the inept democratic party of the last 20 years. I'm glad to see it replaced by a new infrastructure built around a massive influx of younger voters, an independent and ruthlessly efficient fundraising machine, and a visionary candidate who can inspire apathetic and disaffected Americans to sit up, take notice, and vote.

November 5 is going to be very, very sweet. Hillary fans can skip the party if they prefer, I'm sure.
posted by fourcheesemac at 4:04 AM on May 17, 2008 [14 favorites]


I'm glad that we as a nation website have been able to move forward from soft-posting Obama stories to the grey to soft-posting Clinton stories to the grey. Fan-fucking-tastic!
posted by 0xFCAF at 4:11 AM on May 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


You might need to check your joke detector, Blazecock.
posted by johnofjack at 4:11 AM on May 17, 2008


Sorry, it's been a rough primary; I meant to say, how about a group hug and we all agree that the point is to move forward and

KICK GEORGE BUSH'S AND JOHN MCCAIN'S RIGHTWING ASSES THIS FALL!

That is all.
posted by fourcheesemac at 4:11 AM on May 17, 2008


Your post/candidate/face sucks. Delete as applicable.
posted by Jofus at 4:55 AM on May 17, 2008


The Wright story mattered deeply to many people

But not enough to matter.
posted by oaf at 5:06 AM on May 17, 2008


I'm beginning to sense that there may be a pro-Obama bias among the voters in Democratic primaries. It's subtle, but I think it is there.
posted by mmahaffie at 5:14 AM on May 17, 2008 [17 favorites]


This is why I prefer Obama; he's been fighting Hillary with velvet gloves on, and he has just removed them for the main event (YouTube link).

But

I feel your pain: if Obama were in Clinton's position, I'd be very disappointed and perhaps pretty angry about all the racism that contributed to his defeat. What's impressed me is that *despite* the racism, he put it together and ran a letter-perfect campaign. Senator Clinton ran a good campaign, but came up short and could not overcome all of the negatives working against her, of which her gender was only one part. Plenty of feminist women and men did not support her for other reasons, in my case because her militaristic posturing and support for the IWR trumps any gender issues for me, I'm sorry to say (does that mean I have to turn in my feminist ID card?). Bombs are killing women, children, and men in Iraq, without much concern for the nuances. Climate change is not going to care if you're male or female. The surveillance state targets men and women alike. Our current government is not bad because it is male (see Condi, Karen Hughes, etc) or white. It's bad because it's evil.
posted by fourcheesemac at 5:52 AM on May 17, 2008 [10 favorites]


I want a progressive Muslim female to be elected president.

No chance. We value our hot pork stirfry action far too much to ever see that happen.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:58 AM on May 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


citron: "I just read the Frank Rich thread and it's like a different planet in which.. an underlying assumption seems to be that the American electorate is as smitten with Obama as MeFi, or will soon be? Not quite. His prospects of winning vs McCain are not good at all."

Different planet? "Obama is an unelectable, slick-talking empty suit" is just the other side of "Clinton is an unprincipled, dishonest self-aggrandizer" on the topography of Planet Constructed Campaign Narrative. It's the same damn planet. One of its landmarks include:

"Despite the national media anointing him the nominee and declaring the race over a week previous, West Virginia voters turned out in record numbers and rejected him 3 to 1. That's remarkable. The Wright story mattered deeply to many people"

It's not at all remarkable. First of all, turnouts in this year's Democratic contests broke records all across the board, especially in states with big Obama victories. Also, the West Virginia outcome was never in doubt: as I've previously pointed out, demography is destiny. The media finally acknowledged Obama's nomination after running out of "big states" to keep the narrative of the contested race going, long after the race had already been mathematically decided in February. West Virginia's timing after that was a mere accident of the calendar. Do you think West Virginia would've voted with any significant difference had it done so on Super Tuesday like everyone else? Or to put it differently: if the most recent contests in April and May had been Idaho (Obama +62%, or 4.6-to-1), Hawaii (+52%), Alaska (+50%), Washington (+37%), Georgia (+36%), Colorado (+35%), and Minnesota (+34%), would you now be compelled to conclude that those results prove that voters don't trust Hillary after her Tuzla sniper fire fiasco, that they reject her reinvention as the female John Edwards of the working class, and that they were offended by her and McCain's blatant gas tax holiday pandering?

It proves no such thing, you would say, because she was going to lose those states big-time anyway. Likewise, the whole idea that West Virginia is somehow a damning rebuke of Wright's shameless showboating and a rejection of Obama's insurmountable delegate lead is also a manufactured narrative, courtesy of the Clinton campaign and the media who both have a vested interest in this spin. The truth is, all the polling done since last year -- both independent and internal -- as well as all the voting since then have shown that Obama runs poorly in Appalachian districts in all states (among Democrats -- the general election has its own set of numbers) and, surprise surprise, West Virginia is the most Appalachian state of them all. All the latest nonsense about whites and income levels are baloney: Obama won those demographics in the states where he scored blowout victories, many of them in white, rural, low-income states like North Dakota. The media could more factually be running stories like "why can't Hillary win in the Mountain West?", but slicing and dicing the demographics by geography has less "people like me" appeal (and hence lower ratings) than doing it by race and income levels, so thus suddenly all the talking heads are discussing Hillary's appeal among blue-collar workers again. It's all a sham, just like Obama being supposedly unelectable.

"My theory at the moment is the DNC/powers-that-be don't have or don't want cover to move to Sen. Clinton, have already written off the general election, and just want all the cash he can bring in for the downticket contests."

"My preferred candidate isn't nominated, so obviously my party doesn't want to win." As opposed to, say, the party nominating its most strongly-preferred candidate as judged by the overall outcome of all the nominating contests?

Obama's campaign has declared attacks against Clinton's electability as off-limits, but surely an impartial observer would be skeptical of a party that nominates a candidate whom polls show half the public views unfavorably and as dishonest. An Obama partisan could argue at least as convincingly that Clinton would be unelectable. Or in other words, playing this unelectability game is political hackery for those who can't or won't discuss actual policy differences, like cable news pundits and campaign spokespeople. Metafilter is better than that.

For Democrats to be squabbling about unelectability this year of all years is incredibly myopic. Of all people, even Peggy Noonan admits that the Republicans face an incredibly difficult election landscape. If Democrats lose this year, it will be by fratricide, period. And looking at the history of the Democratic party and the contentiousness between each candidate's supporters this primary season, they just might pull it off yet again if they drag this thing all the way out to August -- or November.

And the stupid sexist comments of this primary season? This answer rightly lays it on "media gasbags." Political pundits and partisan bloggers are not-so-distant cousins of gaming "journalist" shills and XBox-PS3 fanboys when it comes to level of discourse and has little to do with any of the candidates themselves. And the media didn't lose the nomination for Clinton: her own much-recounted mismanagement of her campaign did (and Hillary supporters unconsciously acknowledge this when they say things like "she's a better candidate than her campaign" or "she deserved to do better than she did"). So if they didn't factor largely into the outcome, the only thing left is: were these sexist and predictable media invectives supposed to be the topic of the next OMG OUTRAGE thread? Gawd, and I thought the list said it would be PETA's turn again.

Lastly, if you still must discuss the sexism in this campaign. From the aggregate exit polls nationally: "Among voters who said race was important, Clinton netted 100,000 votes. Among voters who said gender was important, Clinton netted 1.5 million votes." Clinton won both the race AND the gender cards: she benefited from being a white woman to the tune of 1.6 million votes. QED.
posted by DaShiv at 6:11 AM on May 17, 2008 [57 favorites]


What's impressed me is that *despite* the racism, he put it together and ran a letter-perfect campaign.

Poor Hillary.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:18 AM on May 17, 2008


Obama is the nominee; time to get over the primaries, people


This, to me, is the strangest thing I have been hearing for quite some time.

I am 38 years old. I live in the US. Ever since I can remember learning about US history/politics, I have had the major party nominating process described to me in the following way: The states hold a series of primaries. Delegates are awarded based on the results of those primaries. If any candidate reaches a magic number of delegates (each party has its own magic number), then that candidate will receive the party's nomination. If no candidate reaches that magic number, then the candidates head to the party's convention and the nominee will be chosen there.

The thinking would seem to be, "We will give the voters the opportunity to choose a nominee. If they fail to choose one by the standards that we have clearly set out, then we will choose one for them as we are the party power-players and the most informed." So those at the convention choose a candidate. They take into consideration what the voters have said, but they take into consideration whatever other factors they want to. It is sort of a free-for-all. I always thought it would be cool if that situation arose and I was able to watch it unfold.

Well, it seems to be unfolding now, but there seem to be a large amount of people who are essentially saying that the nominee should be chosen by who received the majority of the delegates, not whether someone was able to reach the magic number. This changes the entire nominating process. This makes the "magic number" completely irrelevant. This turns the nomination process into a contest to see who can get the majority of delegates.

Which would be fine, of course, if those were actually the rules everyone agreed to play by.
posted by flarbuse at 6:39 AM on May 17, 2008


DaShiv, you rock
posted by fourcheesemac at 6:43 AM on May 17, 2008


We're still playing by those rules; there's only one side of this primary campaign that is interested in changing those rules; Obama won't be the nominee until the convention, but Clinton can't be the nominee at the convention without damaging the party severely and changing the rules significantly
posted by fourcheesemac at 6:45 AM on May 17, 2008


Wow, from the Peggy Noonan piece linked by DaShiv above, quoting Clarke Reed in *Mississippi:*

Is the Republican solid South over?

"Yeah. Oh yeah." He said, "I eat lunch every day at Buck's Cafe. Obama's picture is all over the wall."

posted by fourcheesemac at 6:51 AM on May 17, 2008


"hi, i'm hillary clinton, and i want to be president of the hard-working white people of america"
posted by pyramid termite at 7:07 AM on May 17, 2008


Well, it seems to be unfolding now, but there seem to be a large amount of people who are essentially saying that the nominee should be chosen by who received the majority of the delegates, not whether someone was able to reach the magic number.

The magic number is a majority. The point is that unless something Obama's hit by a meteorite or evidence of his secret second family in Idaho surfaces, he will hit that magic number, and soon. He'll have a majority of the pledged delegate count after Tuesday, and given that superdelegates have been declaring for him at a rate of roughly four a day for over a week now, it's clear that the party's lining up behind him as well. You're correct that he's not at the magic number yet, but that's not the point. It's indisputable that he will be, barring something utterly unexpected.

As for the general election, the fundamentals for the Democratic party are as strong as they've ever been. The Dems could nominate Kucinich and beat McCain this year.
posted by EarBucket at 7:34 AM on May 17, 2008


The Wright story mattered deeply to many people

But not enough to matter.


I think it's more prudent to wait until November to pass judgement on how much Wright really mattered in this race. I'm -- by US standards, which isn't saying much frankly -- as liberal as one can be, and even I find Wright's videos a little unbecoming. I fear your average elusive "centrist" US voter might not be crazy about them either, and it remains to be seen if Obama can create a brand new winning coalition out of thin air without those people.


"hi, i'm hillary clinton, and i want to be president of the hard-working white people of america"

"hi, i'm barack obama, and i want to be president of the liberals of america"

See how easy is it? The tragedy here is that Hillary Clinton, for once, and it's clearly not a family tradition, told the truth -- there are people who just won't vote for a black person, period, not even if Jesus came back as a black guy, much less for Obama. It's a very impolite thing to say for anybody, and a terrible mistake for a politician, but it's the truth (truth is not politically correct). Of course she made a mistake because she should never ever say that -- I mean, it all has to be done using code words, just check out how the Republicans do it. They never brag about how the white Southerners always vote for them, they simple kiss their asses and cover them in sweet sweet code words. Remember how Nixon in private said "the niggers" (check out those taped oval ofice conversations) but in public simply said "law and order"? Same thing.

A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth, remember.
posted by matteo at 7:35 AM on May 17, 2008 [2 favorites]


See how easy is it? The tragedy here is that Hillary Clinton, for once, and it's clearly not a family tradition, told the truth

no - she revealed how she cynically divides the american people into segments and panders to some of them, just like many other politicians

obama has told a much greater truth - that we're supposed to be one country united, at least according to what's on our great seal, and we need to act like that, which includes listening to our political opponents' concerns and considering them

that's not a liberal appeal
posted by pyramid termite at 7:48 AM on May 17, 2008 [3 favorites]


The numbers really do not support "Americans won't vote for a black man" conclusions, not by a long shot. That is a great canard drawn from very limited evidence; Obama has won many white working class votes and regions handily, as DaShiv showed above.

The Americans who won't likely wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton either. Or they would to stop the black guy in the primaries, but think about it: anyone racist enough to oppose Obama *because* he is black is not someone I want in my coalition, and with Obama at the helm, s/he's not someone I *need* in my coalition either.

As for Wright, I'm sure each of us has friends who say things our other friends would not find appealing. The public, so far, has by and large seemed to see the effort to tar Obama with Wright as the bullshit guilt by association tactic it is. Obviously, Obama does not share those views that make some -- even some white liberals -- "uncomfortable." Any more than McCain shares the views of Hagee.

We can win by sticking to principle, and to pyramid termite's "much greater truth." Anything else is appeasement, quite literally.
posted by fourcheesemac at 8:11 AM on May 17, 2008


What gives?

Nuthin'. Nuthin' fuckin' gives. Nuthin' and no one. Everything's for sale, Chuck, ain't nuthin' for free. Gives? Huh!

Chump!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 8:32 AM on May 17, 2008


For those not watching TV, Ted Kennedy has just been rushed to a hospital with stroke symptoms.
posted by fourcheesemac at 8:32 AM on May 17, 2008


But you know it is kind of cool that we have a presidential candidate with a Cardassian first name.

Garak notwithstanding, Barack sounds more typically pointy-ears than spoonhead.
posted by Sys Rq at 8:40 AM on May 17, 2008


Kopechne karma.



Hey, it's a joke, okay? A joke!


maybe
posted by flapjax at midnite at 8:40 AM on May 17, 2008


Huh.

Note to self: Preview thread so as not to follow sobering news about Ted Kennedy suffering a stroke with crass and pedantic Trekkery.
posted by Sys Rq at 8:44 AM on May 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


It takes an awful lot of chutspah to make a metafilter post with two links, then, when it's deleted, to repost those links on metatalk by way of j'accuse. And these aren't particularly interesting links.

That said, semmi has a pretty fantastic posting history and we should probably cut him/her some slack.

DaShiv saves the thread, though:

From the aggregate exit polls nationally: "Among voters who said race was important, Clinton netted 100,000 votes. Among voters who said gender was important, Clinton netted 1.5 million votes." Clinton won both the race AND the gender cards: she benefited from being a white woman to the tune of 1.6 million votes. QED.


Next up: could someone help me parse these two maps? Obama v. McCain and Clinton v. McCain.
posted by anotherpanacea at 8:57 AM on May 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


If you're gonna call me out, buddy, don't be a weasel about it. There's too many of those types here as it is.

BP, it was a riff that maybe two dozen people on the planet could get, including you. That was a long thread full of pretty passionate arguing from either side; I was hoping you take it as it was intended, as a joke, and maybe laugh. It certainly wasn't intended as some bizarre out-of-character, out-of-context callout. I'm sorry if it bugged you.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:58 AM on May 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


Pour Hillary, another Tom Collins.
posted by dawson at 9:08 AM on May 17, 2008


For those not watching TV, Ted Kennedy has just been rushed to a hospital with stroke symptoms.

Yeah -- he was taken from the Kennedy compound in Hyannis to Cape Cod Hospital at 8:30 a.m. this morning. According to the Cape Cod Times, he was airlifted to Mass General after spending two-hours on the Cape.
posted by ericb at 9:14 AM on May 17, 2008


And today is the annual Best Buddies Challenge -- a bike ride from the JFK Museum (Boston) to the Kennedy Compound (Hyannisport). Senator Kennedy was to be the host of a concert at the compound this evening.
posted by ericb at 9:19 AM on May 17, 2008


Wow, that Peggy Noonan column DaShiv linked is blistering and perceptive. Only about 1/10 as great as DaShiv's post, but still well worth reading.
The headline Wednesday on Drudge, from Politico, said, "Republicans Stunned by Loss in Mississippi." It was about the eight-point drubbing the Democrat gave the Republican in the special House election. My first thought was: You have to be stupid to be stunned by that. Second thought: Most party leaders in Washington are stupid – detached, played out, stuck in the wisdom they learned when they were coming up, in '78 or '82 or '94. Whatever they learned then, they think pertains now. In politics especially, the first lesson sticks. For Richard Nixon, everything came back to Alger Hiss.

They are also – Hill leaders, lobbyists, party speakers – successful, well-connected, busy and rich. They never guessed, back in '86, how government would pay off! They didn't know they'd stay! They came to make a difference and wound up with their butts in the butter. But affluence detaches, and in time skews thinking. It gives you the illusion you're safe, and that everyone else is. A party can lose its gut this way.

Many are ambivalent, deep inside, about the decisions made the past seven years in the White House. But they've publicly supported it so long they think they . . . support it. They get confused. Late at night they toss and turn in the antique mahogany sleigh bed in the carpeted house in McLean and try to remember what it is they really do think, and what those thoughts imply.

And those are the bright ones. The rest are in Perpetual 1980: We have the country, the troops will rally in the fall.
This Peggy Noonan wrote that. And it gets better from there.
posted by ibmcginty at 9:23 AM on May 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


Oh, hey, I finally got it! cortex, you sly dog.
posted by timeistight at 9:23 AM on May 17, 2008


I think we can all agree, at the very least, that white men have caused or severely exacerbated every problem currently facing us.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 9:27 AM on May 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


Kennedy family summoned to Boston.

Let us pause our internecine squabbling to pay respect to a man who, no matter his personal flaws, was a great public servant even by reasonable republican standards.







?
posted by fourcheesemac at 9:28 AM on May 17, 2008


I think we can all agree, at the very least, that white men have caused or severely exacerbated every problem currently facing us.

Stay classy.

<3 DaShiv.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:34 AM on May 17, 2008


I think we can all agree, at the very least, that white men have caused or severely exacerbated every problem currently facing us.

My pen stopped working. Goddamn white man, always trying to suppress the black ink.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:39 AM on May 17, 2008


Next up: could someone help me parse these two maps? Obama v. McCain and Clinton v. McCain.

It looks like Clinton beats McCain by the numbers, and Obama loses to McCain. Why? Because of the state-by-state electoral college. The swing states matter more than anything else because they are up for grabs. So if that is the case, then why are Obama supporters so delusionally confident? Oh yeah, he won Idaho by a huge margin in the primary.
posted by Brian B. at 9:41 AM on May 17, 2008




Oh yeah, he won Idaho by a huge margin in the primary.

this will explain it all to you, brian b
posted by pyramid termite at 9:54 AM on May 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


pyramid termite, could you be more specific?
posted by Brian B. at 10:05 AM on May 17, 2008


certainly, you can tell what the best assumption is from my link, can't you? or am i tempting you to do something rash like showing off your latin?
posted by pyramid termite at 10:11 AM on May 17, 2008


certainly, you can tell what the best assumption is from my link, can't you? or am i tempting you to do something rash like showing off your latin?

Then you're bluffing. Did the electoral college analysis take you by surprise?
posted by Brian B. at 10:14 AM on May 17, 2008


Did the electoral college analysis take you by surprise?

do you mean to say you did some?
posted by pyramid termite at 10:20 AM on May 17, 2008


My pen stopped working. Goddamn white man, always trying to suppress the black ink.

No, but white men's insatiable, sociopathic greed is responsible for our consumption culture and the advent of disposable consumer goods. Quality craftsmanship and obscene, exploitative, mass-produced profits are mutually incompatible, and we both know which one the white man will pick, every time.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 10:22 AM on May 17, 2008


What color were the men on Easter Island?
posted by Dave Faris at 10:23 AM on May 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


Mostly pastels, natch.
posted by box at 10:42 AM on May 17, 2008 [4 favorites]


face it, mccain is already president
posted by clavdivs at 11:16 AM on May 17, 2008


I think what bothers me a lot about this primary (both here and in a general sense) is that you have identity politics being fought over by a lot of people who don't own those identities. For example, I know several Hillary supporters (not *here* just to be clear) who deeply distrust/distance themselves from the label of feminism or who even deny that our society has a deeply patriarchal bent. These are women who insist "eew I'm not a feminist" or guys who call feminists all kinds of names - but because they want Clintons back in the oval office, they suddenly taking up the flag of feminist, anti-misogynist speech. They are using *bad* feminism, or fake feminist arguments (what would be labeled "strident" in a lot of circles) as reason for why people don't like Hillary. People say mean things because she's a woman, her detractors are sexist, etc.

Likewise, I know Obama supporters who walk around spouting how they "hate white people" (this is *always* said by young white people, just to be clear, and is so bogus I can't even get into that). I've heard too many times that the only reason Obama could possibly be lacking in support is because of all the racists in America who just hate black people and that is the only conceivable reason. Often these are individuals who had little to no interest or investment in social justice of any kind before this election. So these people - again, not *all*, and this is just my experience I know this may not be yours - are making simplistic, offensive (and often classist) arguments against people who would have voted democratic but are now completely disenfranchised by the supporters of your candidate and could just as easily swing to McCain. Because you called them stupid redneck yokels. Is this really wise?

In these examples, it's like borrowing a jacket for dinner - you put on the political face of whatever "identity" you're trying to fight for - but at the end of the day if you spill soup on it, you don't have to clean up after yourself. You don't care if you make a rational, reasoned, measured commitment to the underlying causes because you're just trying them on for a spell in order to ensure that YOUR TEAM WINS. And what you've done is enacted the very worst stereotypes that the actual feminists, or the people working towards equal rights and freedoms or anti-discrimination movements are constantly fighting against.

The people who go back to the trenches after election season will be stuck with even worse "bra-burner!" "angry black people!" "feminazi!" "quota!" "strident!" nonsense than before. So guess what? You're not helping the next [insert race] [insert gender identity] [insert sexual orientation] candidate, what you're doing is hurting all the non-homogeneous candidates to come. Next time it could be your side.
posted by SassHat at 11:16 AM on May 17, 2008 [4 favorites]


face it, mccain is already president

That's fine, if thats how the votes fall. It's not what I would prefer, but if the majority chooses McCain, then so be it.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:20 AM on May 17, 2008


It takes an awful lot of chutspah...

I always liked James Randi's definition of chutzpah, which I read in one of his books about Uri Geller, appropriately. Chutzpah is when a boy murders both of his parents, then asks the court for leniency because he is an orphan.
posted by Fuzzy Skinner at 11:32 AM on May 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


Likewise, I know Obama supporters who walk around spouting how they "hate white people" (this is *always* said by young white people, just to be clear, and is so bogus I can't even get into that).

bingo the racial poliarity is amazing. I mean OBAMa talks about talking or not talking to terrorists like achmaydinajihad. He should just talk to his buddy bill ayers.
which i help uncovere in a askmeta last LAST YEAR.
and the mancurian candidate shit will rears it's head.
(guess who gave RFK a ride to the hotel the day he was shot...JOHN FRANKENHIEMER)

frikkin wierd.
if thats how the votes fall. it will.
posted by clavdivs at 11:37 AM on May 17, 2008


from last night..
knee-jerk negativity carried to near-insane levels

My friend, I don't appreciate being called near-insane simply because I hold a different opinion.
posted by citron at 11:42 AM on May 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


If this is the soft-posted politics thread of the moment, then I'll post a link to this memo by Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) (20 pp. PDF) assessing the GOP's chances of retaining power in this election. There's been very little coverage of it at the sites where I usually hang out online, but I found it to be an interesting document. Unfortunately, since its importance is temporary, it's not quite FPP material IMO (though I had to talk myself out of tarting it up with secondary links so I could post it in the blue).

(See also: Rep. Davis Calls for Separation from "Radioactive" Bush.)
posted by Prospero at 11:43 AM on May 17, 2008


Then you're bluffing. Did the electoral college analysis take you by surprise?

Different EC analysis's show diffrent things, and many show obama winning. here's one from Survey USA showing McCain with 256 EC votes and Obama with 280.

Also, since you don't understand mathematics, so it's not surprise that you didn't get the Gödel reference.
posted by delmoi at 11:49 AM on May 17, 2008


face it Obama will not win. even if he does he will most likely trip on his helecopter
What color were the men on Easter Island?
a nice shade of thor heydral
posted by clavdivs at 11:49 AM on May 17, 2008


and the mancurian candidate shit will rears it's head.

Sir, I believe you are going to need a tinfoil hat.
posted by chiababe at 11:55 AM on May 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


it has already been mentioned in the media, it will be raised again.

this hat, will it protect from the IDOICY of the election?
posted by clavdivs at 12:01 PM on May 17, 2008


face it Obama will not win. even if he does he will most likely trip on his helecopter

In a top-secret subterranean facility jointly owned and operated by the Templars and the Illuminati, Obama was made into the fleshy vessel for Gerald Ford's disembodied mind.

Everything's so clear now.
posted by CKmtl at 12:06 PM on May 17, 2008 [2 favorites]


Poor Teddy.
posted by matteo at 12:08 PM on May 17, 2008


IDOICY

Indeed.
posted by Sys Rq at 12:11 PM on May 17, 2008


the templars ride funny little cars for childrens hospital charities, the illuminati still can't get over P2 and Fords people are still running the country. the mind-body transference is simply not viable.
nothing is clear other then he will NOT be president, already been decided.
posted by clavdivs at 12:15 PM on May 17, 2008


What you need is a Mancunian candidate; Mark E Smith for President.
posted by Abiezer at 12:16 PM on May 17, 2008 [8 favorites]


mancurian HA.
(i miss spell checker)
posted by clavdivs at 12:22 PM on May 17, 2008


What we need is a Malthusian candidate. I'd settle for a Marcusian, though.
posted by box at 12:28 PM on May 17, 2008


Different EC analysis's show diffrent things, and many show obama winning. here's one from Survey USA showing McCain with 256 EC votes and Obama with 280.

Also, since you don't understand mathematics, so it's not surprise that you didn't get the Gödel reference.


The Survey USA poll is included in the analysis that anotherpanacea linked to. Both here, and here.

What, specifically, concerning the Gödel reference was I supposed to understand? Since you get it, then you can explain it. Please feel free to use any terms you feel comfortable with.
posted by Brian B. at 12:29 PM on May 17, 2008


if the most recent contests in April and May had been Idaho (Obama +62%, or 4.6-to-1), Hawaii (+52%), Alaska (+50%), Washington (+37%), Georgia (+36%), Colorado (+35%), and Minnesota (+34%)

Many of these are caucuses (Idaho, Alaska, Colorado, Minnesota, Washington) and not representative of primary votes. North Dakota was also a caucus. So many of these would be an apples to oranges comparison of a red-state low-turnout caucus victory vs. a high-turnout swing state primary (Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia). And the latter have happened after more press scrutiny of Obama which is only going to grow more intense and has certainly hurt him. Washington's actual primary results were much closer, and recently Obama only won Nebraska's primary vote by 2% whereas his caucus win about a month previous was by over 20 points, I believe. Buyer's remorse?

"My preferred candidate isn't nominated, so obviously my party doesn't want to win."
Please don't put words in my mouth. I put forward a theory, simply.. there was recently something on this in the Wall Street Journal but damned if I can find the citation.. probably just comments from unnamed operatives, granted. As for wanting to win.. the party is split and some of the damage can't be repaired any time soon IMHO. Superdelegates in Congress might well see the least bad option as following the current status quo & benefitting from Obama's fundraising strength, other superdelegates may not see enough political cover for moving in the other direction. The superD votes that count will be cast in August and they can change their minds at any time. I know it is not likely, but it remains possible that information on Obama will come out, or he will say something on the trail, that will cause them to change their mind before the convention.

Clinton's honesty/trustworthy poll numbers were not as high as Obama's in Ohio AFAIK and she still won the election handily. No thanks to David Axelrod who's been repeating since early last year that Clinton can't be trusted and would "literally do anything to get elected."

SassHat, I really like your post. I'm a strong feminist and was skeptical about voting for Hillary, because I think it's just my civic duty to vote for the best candidate & not based on identity, and then her brilliance in the debates last year won me over for good. I hear & see a number of friends of mine suddenly become instant racism-detectors and always pointing the finger at others.. and I've come to see my responsibility more as looking at my own assumptions and behaviors.. and trying to figure out how I can be an influence in favor of more diversity in the workplace as far as who gets hired, who gets promoted, what roles they're given and how their work is evaluated. I see how things play out - there's a comfortable "culture" of the office that people are expected to fit, and under those criteria it's mostly liberal white men steeped in geek culture who are going to get hired and get ahead.

So if [the media] didn't factor largely into the outcome, the only thing left is: were these sexist and predictable media invectives supposed to be the topic of the next OMG OUTRAGE thread?
Whaaaa? Where else do voters get their information on who to vote for? Even the debates are overseen by big media moderators throwing out loaded "gotcha" questions to try and take down the candidates so the questioner can try and be the star. If the media's heavily promoting one candidate and being incredibly harsh on the other, of course this is going to have an effect.

Yes, predictable sexism SHOULD be the target of outrage - why should it be OK to the point that it's predictable? Why let it go and say nothing? What happens if your daughter or niece or your friend's daughter grows up and runs for public office and someone like Chris Matthews goes on national television day in and day out with running commentary attacking her personally and comparing her to Nurse Ratched, the mother in law nobody likes, Evita, Marie Antoinette, Lady Macbeth, and on and on?
posted by citron at 12:31 PM on May 17, 2008


I would like a Manicurin' candidate because this thread is giving me hangnails.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:32 PM on May 17, 2008 [3 favorites]


It's a good thing we deleted that thread.
posted by Dave Faris at 12:34 PM on May 17, 2008


Will someone please explain the damn Gödel thing?

From what I understand, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem -- which has been unequivocally, mathematically proven -- is that no non-trivial formal mathematical system can be both complete and internally consistent. In general, these inconsistencies show up in self-referential statements, such as computer programs being asked to analyze themselves.

Is the electoral college a non-trivial formal mathematical system? Or is citing Gödel just a way of saying "Man, numbers lie" but trying to sound smarter about it by linking to a Wikipedia page?
posted by lore at 12:54 PM on May 17, 2008


USian political posts in an election year are held to a higher standard of "please make an effort if you want someone to care about and considerately discuss your content" quality which was not reached by your five word post.

why was "don't do this here" the proffered deletion reason if the real reason was "your post didn't quite reach my standard of quality political posting in an election year"?
posted by Hat Maui at 12:55 PM on May 17, 2008


What we need is a Malthusian candidate. I'd settle for a Marcusian, though.

how about the Methuselahian candidate? McCain is so old OMG.
posted by Hat Maui at 12:58 PM on May 17, 2008


I long for an relationship Askme thread with politics and religion involved.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:04 PM on May 17, 2008


mancurian HA.
(i miss spell checker)


He actually did mean Mancunian.
posted by Stylus Happenstance at 1:06 PM on May 17, 2008


Yeah, I know.
posted by Stylus Happenstance at 1:11 PM on May 17, 2008


This post was made exponentially more interesting by redirecting it to MeTa. Kudos to semmi for injecting new life into a short-lived post, although it was pretty self-righteous.

By the way, if you had made your MeFi post half as articulate as your MeTa post, it just may have remained- something to think about in the future.
posted by pedmands at 1:39 PM on May 17, 2008


This is the best electoral college analysis on the web, bar none. The guy who runs the site has been more accurate at predicting primaries than any of the polling outfits.

In any case, polling this far out isn't terribly useful. What we know is this: things aren't going to get any more favorable for McCain than they are right now. The Democrats are divided and no one's attacking him, and he still can't crack 45% in national head-to-head polling. The most reliable polls are showing him with a single digit lead in Texas, for God's sake. Republicans can't hold onto congressional seats they've held for thirty or forty years in Mississippi. Obama raises more money in a week than McCain does in a month. Every time Bush opens his mouth and attacks Obama, he makes it clear to the electorate that a vote for Obama is a vote against the least popular president in modern history.

My guess for the EC in November is that Obama holds the Kerry states and adds Iowa, Colorada, New Mexico, and Nevada. Ohio, Virginia, and North Carolina look like possible pickups, as well. The only Kerry states that look vulnerable to me are Pennsylvania and Michigan, and I think he'll hold them in the end. Despite the polling, I don't think Texas is in play, but he can probably force McCain to play defense there and expend a lot of resources in a state he ought to be able to take for granted.

I just don't see the electoral math being there for the Republicans this year. If they had a better candidate they might have a shot, but they're stuck with someone who depresses their base while the Democrats have an energized base, loads of new voters, and piles of cash. Here in North Carolina, we added 200,000 new Democrats before the primary, while the state GOP party actually shrank. It's just not a good time to be a Republican.
posted by EarBucket at 1:44 PM on May 17, 2008 [3 favorites]


Well, if it's a Methuselahan candidate you want, McCain's your man.
get it, get it? he's old you see and, well...
posted by dawson at 1:54 PM on May 17, 2008


What, specifically, concerning the Gödel reference was I supposed to understand? Since you get it, then you can explain it. Please feel free to use any terms you feel comfortable with.

Geez, you're the one who threw out Bayes' rule as a total non sequitur in another thread claiming that Hillary would win, as if it's mere existence proved your point (it didn't even apply). Live by the obscure mathematical reference, die by the obscure mathematical reference, I say.
posted by delmoi at 1:54 PM on May 17, 2008


I took math logic. I had to prove Godel's incompleteness theorem. I hardly understood it then, and my hold on the little I remember is tenuous at best. For the love of all things holy, someone please explain the reference to it in this thread so I don't get even more confused. Please.
posted by Ms. Saint at 2:04 PM on May 17, 2008


things aren't going to get any more favorable for McCain than they are right now.

I agree, generally -- Obama will get a big post nomination (or wrapping up nomination) bump, and with any luck all of the miffed Hillaryites telling pollsters they'd vote for McCain will wise up and come home.

UNLESS: 1) Big terrorist attack or ginned up war with Iran, or 2) big Obama scandal, by which I mean something big with drugs or cheating on his wife. I hope to hell he is faithful. Because, let's face it, has any man had more hot young women wanting to sleep with him since, I dunno, John Kennedy?
posted by msalt at 2:20 PM on May 17, 2008


What we need is a Malthusian candidate. I'd settle for a Marcusian, though.

how about a manchunian candidate?
posted by pyramid termite at 2:35 PM on May 17, 2008


I put up a post on the way Hillary was treated by Chris Matthews and other press back in January, and it stayed up. I think you could maybe give a little more background behind your links. Newsfilter is tricky on Mefi.

My coming to Meta wasn't out of concern for my fpp, I have dozens deleted without word from me, but out of concern for the outcome of this election, the future of the democratic party, the future of the political process, the unchecked power of the "media" to manipulate every aspect of our lives, and ultimately the future of this country

It's not the money, it's the principle of the thing!

I don't really understand the deletion reason ("don't do this here"), but everybody gets deletions. Don't let it turn into fuel for a flame-out. Re-write, and move on.

(Oh, and leave out the 'bros before hos' reference; it adds nothing to an intelligent debate on the issue.)
posted by misha at 2:36 PM on May 17, 2008


Geez, you're the one who threw out Bayes' rule as a total non sequitur in another thread claiming that Hillary would win,

No, I linked the definition of Bayesian analysis to someone who directly challenged my claim and belief that so-called swing states statistically mattered more for candidate selection, within my brief explanation that assuming their previous status as swing states was sufficient in order to make the best assumptions overall. Like this. Either way, my invitation still stands. Could you explain the relevance that you suggest for the incompleteness theorem, or was it something to do with Gödel himself? I am being taunted with it, so I figure I have a big lesson to learn here.
posted by Brian B. at 2:45 PM on May 17, 2008


Cassava chips are good.
posted by Burhanistan at 3:00 PM on May 17, 2008


Sorry about my on-point comment, I lost track of which derail I should be following.
posted by misha at 3:08 PM on May 17, 2008


misha: you can follow this fresh derail about McCain's psycho anti-Muslim preacher friend.
posted by Burhanistan at 3:10 PM on May 17, 2008






Thank GOD this unfair deletion gripe post turned into another dust-up about whether Obama or Clinton is, in fact, the superior candidate, and whether Clinton or Obama has, in fact, been treated more unfairly and/or prejudicially by his/her opponents and/or the evil The Mainstream Media, and whether Obama or Clinton has, in fact, a better or indeed any chance of beating John McCain in the national election. Because there is so little of that available online, and indeed on Metafilter. I have been pining to hear more of this fascinating discussion which is always extremely civil and open-minded and indicative of a political ideology which, at the end of the day, is held by a group of people who recognize that at the end of the day, they are all in fact on the same side, as well as being not in the least exactly and tediously the same every single time it occurs.

I miss MetaMan.
posted by nanojath at 3:37 PM on May 17, 2008 [3 favorites]


GOP prefers to face Obama rather than Hillary?

I'm sorry, but I can't finish reading that article unitl I've developed my immunity to iocaine powder.
posted by maudlin at 3:38 PM on May 17, 2008 [6 favorites]


I'm reading Tom Davis' memo to the GOP, and it's the first time I've read anyone in the GOP actually "getting it." His remedies aren't great, but he gets what's going on a lot better than either Cole or Boehner do.

I doubt they'll listen, though.

Many of these are caucuses (Idaho, Alaska, Colorado, Minnesota, Washington) and not representative of primary votes.

Not Washington. It's solidly blue, and Obama's ties to computing and the Internet has helped him here. In fact, if you go up to some of those election maps, you'll see that Washington is solidly blue Obama-McCain but barely blue Hillary-McCain.

The GOP here is struggling to hang onto its traditional home of Bellevue, where Dave Reichert is getting outraised by his challenger. They need serious traction in the Southwest (Chehalis/Centralia/Vancouver) to even make it a race.

In short, Washington's caucuses are pretty accurate in reflecting what's going to happen in the fall here.
posted by dw at 3:40 PM on May 17, 2008


HEY! EVERYBODY!

170 DAYS UNTIL THE GENERAL ELECTION!

repeat as necessary (until tomorrow when you can change it to 169)

So much can happen between now and then, and I'm still not convinced the current rulers will let it happen at all (WHY would they assemble ALL THAT POWER in the Executive branch only to hand it over to a liberal?)

For now, just stay upbeat; if Ted Kennedy is dying (AND I HAVEN'T HEARD THAT HE IS), let him pass on believing things are getting better.
posted by wendell at 3:40 PM on May 17, 2008


pyramid termite - Mancunian candidate?
posted by Artw at 3:40 PM on May 17, 2008


dial 911! someone's stapled nanojath to his laptop!!
posted by pyramid termite at 3:41 PM on May 17, 2008


Bollywood for Barack Obama
posted by homunculus at 3:53 PM on May 17, 2008


The post-Marcusean candidate would get my vote.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:06 PM on May 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


Is the electoral college a non-trivial formal mathematical system?

No; an electoral college is not even a mathematical system, let alone a formal or non-trivial mathematical system.

Or is citing Gödel just a way of saying "Man, numbers lie" but trying to sound smarter about it by linking to a Wikipedia page?

Yes; there is arguably a connection there -- something along the lines of Douglas Hofstadter's argument in Gödel, Escher, Bach -- but it doesn't apply here... and it's not really being argued in the first place...



More on-topic, this election year and the insane primary have led to surprisingly little PoliticsFilter so far. Encouraging. It won't last, I expect, but it is nice.
posted by spiderwire at 4:39 PM on May 17, 2008


What we need is a Malthusian candidate! nomnomnomnom.
posted by blue_beetle at 6:25 PM on May 17, 2008


What we need is some marzipan
posted by fourcheesemac at 6:29 PM on May 17, 2008


We need more mocha almond ice cream.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:34 PM on May 17, 2008


It's amazing, at a casual glance, how much "I do not currently have pie, but I do have a fucking awesome pork stirfry" looks like "I do not currently have pie, but I do have a fucking awesome pork stiffy".
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:39 PM on May 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


so that would be the manchurian stirfry plate

i win
posted by pyramid termite at 6:45 PM on May 17, 2008


Piggies are for eating, not riding.
posted by WalterMitty at 7:03 PM on May 17, 2008


You know, Ron Paul could still pull this off, but the pigs flying out of everyones collective butt would overshadow that.
posted by dawson at 7:52 PM on May 17, 2008


Not if we ate them
posted by fourcheesemac at 3:53 AM on May 18, 2008


That would be a shitty thing to do.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:45 AM on May 18, 2008


Sadly we've lost our chance for a Matthauian candidate. (A MattHaugheyian candidate, on the other hand...)
posted by Faint of Butt at 5:00 AM on May 18, 2008


An old joke told to me by an elderly African American farmer in Texas, suddenly seems appropriate:

Q. How do you cook chitlins?


[pause for dramatic effect]





A. You cook the shit out of them!
posted by fourcheesemac at 5:24 AM on May 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


You know, Ron Paul could still pull this off, but the pigs flying out of everyones collective butt would overshadow that.

There would be so many pigs aloft, it would block out the sun, thereby solving the global warming problem, but would have the unintended consequence of triggering porkular winter.
posted by psmealey at 5:37 AM on May 18, 2008


This hamfisted humor has to stop
posted by fourcheesemac at 5:41 AM on May 18, 2008


The tragedy here is that Hillary Clinton, for once, and it's clearly not a family tradition, told the truth -- there are people who just won't vote for a black person, period, not even if Jesus came back as a black guy, much less for Obama. It's a very impolite thing to say for anybody, and a terrible mistake for a politician, but it's the truth (truth is not politically correct).

Bullshit, it's not "the truth". It was a cynical attempt to run up the score in West Virginia and Kentucky in a last ditch effort to bolster her weakening claim that the superdelegates should run to her and that delegates from Michigan and Florida should be added to her tally. There was nothing about it that was motivated by telling a difficult or ugly truth: it was a self-serving ploy.

Goodness knows there are a certain number of people who are unwilling to vote for a black man under any circumstances, but it is not a high enough number to (thankfully) to prevent him from winning.
posted by psmealey at 5:46 AM on May 18, 2008


but would have the unintended consequence of triggering porkular winter.

in fact, studies have shown that our distance from bacon would drop from six to two degrees of separation
posted by pyramid termite at 7:03 AM on May 18, 2008


but it is not a high enough number to (thankfully) to prevent him from winning.

says who?
posted by matteo at 7:17 AM on May 18, 2008


It's an open question, I suppose; but then there is the expected huge surge in black voter turnout to consider, perhaps large enough in electoral college terms to negate the overt racist and Wilder-effect votes depending on how they are regionally distributed.

This is either going to be a walk in the park for Obama, or a tooth and nail dogfight to the finish, and none of us knows which yet. I see no way to predict a walk in the park for McCain, however, barring a totally awful swiftboat redux that goes well beyond the Wright nonsense against Obama. There are far too many variables that cannot be specified that could *each* be "game changing" in effect. 2004 and 200 are nearly worthless as models because there is no incumbent running and the economy and war are both in the tank, while Bush is a singularly unpopular president. And any number of foreseeably plausible world events could intervene in dramatic ways between now and November.

But my gut tells me the GOP will bleed out on the table on Nov. 5. I smell total victory for the dems.
posted by fourcheesemac at 7:34 AM on May 18, 2008


says who?

It's all theoretical at this point as the campaign against McCain has only just barely started in earnest, so the D vs R polling data is still sketchy. At least in the Democratic polling over the past month, other than in Appalachia, Obama is polling well with working-class white voters. At least by some accounts, well enough to be able to attain an electoral college victory without needing West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and possibly Pennsylvania and Ohio. Ultimately, I think he'll win Pennsylvania and Ohio, but he clearly has his work cut out for him, message-wise.
posted by psmealey at 7:53 AM on May 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


flarbuse: "Well, it seems to be unfolding now, but there seem to be a large amount of people who are essentially saying that the nominee should be chosen by who received the majority of the delegates, not whether someone was able to reach the magic number."

In practice, the nominee is chosen based on winning either a majority or plurality of pledged (i.e. elected) delegates. Since the start of the modern system of nominating contests, every single candidate in either party who wins in pledged delegates wins the nomination. The "magic number" used by the media is a majority of the pledged + unpledged (i.e. superdelegate) totals. It's somewhat moot, since superdelegates have never overturned a pledged delegate majority; that's not in their job description.

So why even bother having superdelegates at all? Two reasons:

1. To increase convention participation among party activists. Before superdelegates were introduced post-McGovern, delegates selected to the convention were largely party insiders: your typical county commisioners, state party officials, and so on. When it came time to select a state's delegate slate, these people simply have a huge systemic advantage over others and thus win the convention seats. Introducing superdelegates grants convention seating to these party elites regardless of whomever they'd supported during the nominating contest, thus freeing up convention seats for party activists who have participated in the delegate selection process solely out of support for their candidate and/or cause, rather than due to their ranking within the party. This is especially great for caucus states: some of those people you see on TV wearing their ridiculous hats at the convention are ordinary voters like you and me who have caucused for their candidate, then continued on participating in each step of the caucus process until at the end they were elected by their peers to represent them at the convention itself. It's an extraordinary opportunity for regular folks to have a direct say in their party's platform at the convention. Granting non-contested seats to party elites also eliminates truancy: prior to superdelegates, your state's own Senators might not bother to nominate themselves as a convention delegate and wade through the delegate selection process, and might not even be bothered to attend the convention at all. Seating them without contest ensures that the party's elected officials and emeriti are all present as a unified face for the party at the convention.

Disclaimer: The previous reasoning was put forth by DNC Vice Chair (and superdelegate) Susie Turnbull, but seems a bit too convenient for me to accept without some minor skepticism. Her reasoning is valid and is certainly one rationale for superdelegates, but I suspect that the party bosses are more concerned about not losing complete control of the process to the hoi polloi. Which leads into the next reason:

2. To avoid brokered conventions. The modern nominating process dictates that a brokered convention is an unrecoverable sign of division and weakness within the party, which always lead to its electoral defeat in the fall. To avoid this at all costs, it is thus imperative that nominees be chosen on the very first ballot. There are enough superdelegates (about 20%) at the convention to deal with possible contingencies. For instance, in the case that the leading candidate has only won a plurality of pledged delegates (say, if the results were split 40%-30%-30%), superdelegates can vote as a bloc to push the leading candidate over the top on the first ballot. Or in the case that the leading candidate has won a majority during the contests but became unelectable before the convention (say, due to death or a career-ending Eliot Spitzer style scandal, NOT because of Controversial Pastor Syndrome), superdelegates can likewise switch their allegiances to vote as a bloc for either the closest competitor or a widely-agreed upon compromise candidate in order to stymie any potential efforts by delegates of the original candidate to force a brokered convention out of spite and partisanship. Again, the idea is the party can use superdelegates as a tool to nominate someone on the first ballot no matter what the circumstances are.

This means that should something happen to Obama, leveraging superdelegates would allow the party to nominate Clinton even if Obama's mathematical majority of pledged delegates (as of May 20th) refused to change their affiliation, or tried to organize en masse to nominate Edwards (or Gore or whomever). What it does not mean is that superdelegates might collectively overturn a majority of pledged delegates out of sheer preference for one candidate over another. Certainly superdelegates can and will vote their individual preferences, but to the extent that they won't collectively determine the actual outcome of the nomination process itself. In fact, a number of superdelegates have already declared that superdelegates will not be the deciding factor in this year's nomination process, while others have stated that their role is to coalesce around the eventual nominee. A group of superdelegates have even gone so far as to formalize both of these thoughts into a single pledge that they with vote for the pledged delegate winner at the convention, period, thus ensuring they neither overturn a pledged delegate lead nor become an explicit partisan for any candidate -- it's simply winner takes all. This group is known as the Pelosi Club, and in fact a number of superdelegates outside of this club have already pre-emptively endorsed Obama under this exact rationale within the past couple of weeks. Their message is clear: the voters have decided, not us. And even where they haven't made their rationale explicit, superdelegates have broken overwhelmingly for Obama ever since he built his pledged delegate lead post Super Tuesday, and it's no coincidence why: it became more and more obvious that Obama would win the pledged delegate race. Despite Clinton's hand-waving about superdelegates being supposedly concerned about "who can win the biggest states" and "who can win states with working class voters", the shift in superdelegate support has largely followed Obama's movement in pledged delegate support, rather than breaking that trend as Clinton would have liked. So in the end, the issue of superdelegates comes back again to pledged delegates.

The reason why superdelegates as a group are so loathe to rock the boat and take center stage in the nomination process is that any scenario where superdelegates "win" a contested nomination for the losing candidate would be catastrophic, and it would make a mockery out of all the preceding nominating contests by effectively overruling them. The whole reason why individual state voting contests were instated to begin was as a reform against having nominees being decided by party bosses in a smoke-filled room. Thus, having superdelegates overrule the voting will of the party would plunge the party into deep and immediate crisis (especially when those who helped reform the superdelegate system like McGovern are still in the party), in addition to naturally losing the election itself at the end. And this is why it ultimately comes down to just the pledged delegates, and why Obama has been the de facto nominee ever since he built his insurmountable pledged delegate lead in February -- because superdelegates will not overturn a pledged delegate victory. When Obama clinches on May 20th and declares victory in his Iowa speech (even though he won't phrase it in such terms while Clinton is still campaigning), Clinton supporters will call his gesture arrogant and complain that they're being unfairly pushed out when it's not all over yet, but the process will have run its course: once Obama has the majority of pledged delegates the rest is inevitable, a formality. Clinton may talk about taking it all the way to the convention, but the superdelegate system is designed to prevent an actual contested convention. As Al Giordano writes of the 1980 convention fight, "mistakes were made" -- and many in the party will act to prevent the same mistakes from being made again.

So to summarize: in theory, a candidate needs a majority of pledged delegates + superdelegates to secure the nomination, and that's the "magic number." In practice though, the superdelegates predominately support the pledged delegate leader (even with just a plurality) out of party unity, so in effect whoever wins the pledged delegate race secures the nomination.
posted by DaShiv at 8:00 AM on May 18, 2008 [41 favorites]


Unreal insight, DaShiv; do you blog this stuff somewhere?
posted by fourcheesemac at 8:58 AM on May 18, 2008


Translation : "I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter."
posted by Dave Faris at 9:18 AM on May 18, 2008


Fuck'n A. DASHIV FOR PRESIDENT! I knew was a reason I came here today.
posted by tkchrist at 12:48 PM on May 18, 2008


Here's dumbass question of the day, but I don't understand it: Why do delegate scorecards disagree so much? Is there no such thing as an official count in this?
posted by middleclasstool at 2:59 PM on May 18, 2008


there are people who just won't vote for a black person, period

Sure, but most of those people just won't vote for a Democrat, either.
posted by Sys Rq at 4:04 PM on May 18, 2008


Sure, but most of those people just won't vote for a Democrat, either.

You belittle the importance of Zell Miller at your peril, buddy.
posted by spiderwire at 5:31 PM on May 18, 2008


The truth is, all the polling done since last year -- both independent and internal -- as well as all the voting since then have shown that Obama runs poorly in Appalachian districts in all states (among Democrats -- the general election has its own set of numbers) and, surprise surprise, West Virginia is the most Appalachian state of them all.

Late to the party, but this map at dailykos (dated May 13th, before the West Virginia primary) shows exactly what DaShiv is talking about. Look at where West Virginia and Kentucky lie and tell me with a straight face that Obama losing Kentucky will be about Wright or a populace losing faith in his empty rhetoric or whatever is the media manufactured controversy of the week.
posted by hindmost at 5:54 PM on May 18, 2008


This entire thread is nothing more than justification for the OP wanting to use the word "bloviation". It's a lot like theology, in a way.

("Bloviation" is a wicked sweet word btw and I'm all for getting it out there in the wild.)
posted by turgid dahlia at 10:45 PM on May 18, 2008


I assume a "bloviaton" - the word that actually appears in the post - is some sort of robotic blowhard, tirelessly pumping out its horseshit long into the night, redfaced, with unwavering conviction and a complete inability to tolerate or even hear dissent. The existence of such abominations would explain almost all of the internet. I kind of want one.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:27 AM on May 19, 2008


NY Times: Gender Issue Lives On as Clinton’s Hopes Dim.

Interesting article, but I think the charges of sexism against Obama are pretty weak. Citing the "likeable enough" remark (which was undeniably snarky, but not essentially linked to gender) and holding her chair for her at one of the debates (probably regrettable, but something that I might have reflexively done in that situation given my own upbringing), are hardly examples of playing the "gender card". As for challenging her experience as First Lady, I have difficulty seeing what's wrong or sexist with that. HRC repeatedly claimed that experience as an essential part of what made her "ready on Day One". If she's not to be taken to task for it, that seems like another example of her wanting to have her cake and eat it too, a theme which resonated time and again throughout her campaign.

As for the dogwhistle racism used consistently by Clinton's surrogates and the absurd charges of elitism, Clinton has a lot more to answer for than Obama does.
posted by psmealey at 8:33 AM on May 19, 2008


Here's an interesting article from the New Republic that has (anonymous) Clinton campaign insiders discussing where their election machine went off the rails.
posted by Dave Faris at 9:31 AM on May 19, 2008 [1 favorite]


As for challenging her experience as First Lady, I have difficulty seeing what's wrong or sexist with that.

nothing is - basically, she's using her husband's old position as her "experience" without having to stand on his record

i think that's disingenuous and the media should ask her directly what her role and "experience" in the clinton administration was, and does she stand on that record?
posted by pyramid termite at 9:38 AM on May 19, 2008


i think that's disingenuous and the media should ask her directly what her role and "experience" in the clinton administration was, and does she stand on that record?

I agree, but it's not likely to happen now. And, if she runs for the nomination in 2012, her bona fides from that period will be largely assumed. As for Bill's recent ruminations on how slanted the media coverage has been, I would say that he definitely has a point with respect to the casual sexism/misogyny coming from individual pundits. I think this has more to do with familiarity breeding contempt, that HRC has been in the limelight for so long, and is reputed for having something of a prickly personality than it indicates a systematic bias. Polling numbers, after all, showed that her gender was a positive for her.

On on matters of substance, media coverage overall has been much harsher on Obama (the Wright matter, Michelle's verbal missteps, Obama's inability to "close the deal", his problems with poor whites, etc.). Since Obama's people were intentionally refusing to feed the machine with the Clintons' past misdealings, Obama probably faced more scrutiny that he should have, however.
posted by psmealey at 9:55 AM on May 19, 2008


"Bloviation" feels like what someone should describe an animal noise as sounding like: "Damn those peacocks, their bloviations kept me up all night."
posted by quin at 10:36 AM on May 19, 2008


BUT ENOUGH ABOUT NBC'S NEWS TEAM

hoyooooo

posted by cortex (staff) at 10:54 AM on May 19, 2008 [1 favorite]


I assume a "bloviaton" - the word that actually appears in the post - is some sort of robotic blowhard, tirelessly pumping out its horseshit long into the night, redfaced, with unwavering conviction and a complete inability to tolerate or even hear dissent.

I thought it was some kind of yurt.
posted by turgid dahlia at 2:37 PM on May 19, 2008


matteo writes "See how easy is it? The tragedy here is that Hillary Clinton, for once, and it's clearly not a family tradition, told the truth -- there are people who just won't vote for a black person, period, not even if Jesus came back as a black guy, much less for Obama. It's a very impolite thing to say for anybody, and a terrible mistake for a politician, but it's the truth (truth is not politically correct). Of course she made a mistake because she should never ever say that -- I mean, it all has to be done using code words, just check out how the Republicans do it."

We know how the Republicans did it. It's called the Southern Strategy. It's using racism as a wedge. That's what Clinton did this time. It's not just impolite; it's shameful.

A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth, remember.

Depends on the politician. A politician trying to represent the party that claims to support minorities, using a strategy which stirs up racist elements in order to drive voters away from a non-white candidate in the same party is sleazy. We used to call them Republicans.
posted by krinklyfig at 5:57 PM on May 19, 2008


Evidently my question wasn't so dumbass after all.
posted by middleclasstool at 6:33 PM on May 19, 2008


I assume a "bloviaton" - the word that actually appears in the post - is some sort of robotic blowhard

I think it's what whales do when they are trying to expel water from their bronchial cavity.
posted by psmealey at 3:30 AM on May 20, 2008


blo·vi·a·ton [blō-vī'ə-tŭn] n.
1. A unit of weight equal to 14,893.47732 pounds (6754.19196462 metric tonnes), believed by theoretical physicists to be the minimum weight required to hold two and one half day-old refrigerated slices of an anchovy, pineapple, and butterscotch pizza with extra cheese (not including garnish) to the surface of Saturn's moon Epimethius at 4:13pm Greenwich Mean Time, 21 February 2872. Also called fat ton.
2. Any invisible but not imaginary hairpiece. Compare emperor's new plugs.
posted by Sys Rq at 10:38 AM on May 20, 2008 [1 favorite]


Looks like Obama has officially clinched the pledged delegates. Time will tell if DaShiv's predictions are correct, though I'll be shocked if the superdelegates overturn the will of the voters (and will welcome President McCain into office, as well).
posted by middleclasstool at 8:56 PM on May 20, 2008


Oh dear.
posted by Artw at 3:33 PM on May 21, 2008


Jesus fuck she has become a fucking loon.
posted by dersins at 3:36 PM on May 21, 2008


Zimbabwe Florida inflation now over 1 million percent? *
posted by desjardins at 3:39 PM on May 21, 2008


Zimbabwe Florida Hillary Clinton's ego inflation now over 1 million percent.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:03 PM on May 21, 2008


She wasn't crying about Florida when it was time for us to vote, nor did she care about us enough to go against the DNC and campaign here, so I'm inclined to think that she's just being a self-serving hypocrite with $11 million at stake.
posted by johnofjack at 6:18 PM on May 21, 2008


dear hillary

as a michigander who has complained loudly and frequently about michigan not being counted, i would like to say that none of us feel anything like your average zimbabwean and you can just shut the fuck up about that

thank you
posted by pyramid termite at 10:12 PM on May 21, 2008 [1 favorite]


Welcome to our blovation nation.
posted by caddis at 11:29 PM on May 21, 2008




Poll: McCain beats Obama in Ohio, but Hillary beats McCain. Same holds for Florida apparently. If Obama loses both Florida and Ohio, there is virtually no hope of being elected. The Democratic party has chosen their disadvantage by way of a populist fallacy. Every bandwagon diver that trumped Obama's popularity over Hillary stupidly cited national polls instead of the inevitable battleground states. It's Nader times five.
posted by Brian B. at 7:13 PM on May 22, 2008


Clinton's History-breaking Bid Stirs Debate Over Gender Bias

Hard to feel that sorry for a race baiter who has benefited so enormously from stoking prejudice via the media.
posted by Artw at 7:24 PM on May 22, 2008


Poll: McCain beats Obama in Ohio, but Hillary beats McCain. Same holds for Florida apparently. If Obama loses both Florida and Ohio, there is virtually no hope of being elected.

I'm doubtful of the relevance of a poll taken more than six months before the election and before the democratic nomination has been settled. You wouldn't look at polls from December, 2007 as a reliable way to gauge what would be going on in May, 2008. Not if you wanted to maintain any credibility, that is.
posted by oneirodynia at 12:38 AM on May 23, 2008


I'm doubtful of the relevance of a poll taken more than six months before the election and before the democratic nomination has been settled.

That would be double relevance. Obama loses Ohio and Hillary wins it in May. Either way, Ohio has a mysterious Republican voting advantage, as documented. But that's not Obama's fault. If we want to talk of Obama's faults, that would be removing his name from Michigan and then using that fact to whine about Michigan's later inclusion as a tiebreaker, especially considering that Michigan is a swing state and is very relevant to the national vote. I'm sure very few of his fan base will notice the lack of spine and character there, and his bad faith to the entire Democratic cause.
posted by Brian B. at 8:25 AM on May 23, 2008




pt, do you guys really call yourselves michiganders? i'd hadn't heard that one before.
posted by spiderwire at 11:51 AM on May 23, 2008


Only the men are Michiganders. The women are Michigeese.
posted by Sys Rq at 1:21 PM on May 23, 2008


Hillary today:

Hillary Clinton today brought up the assassination of Sen. Robert Kennedy while defending her decision to stay in the race against Barack Obama.

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it," she said, dismissing calls to drop out.

posted by EarBucket at 1:41 PM on May 23, 2008


Hillary Clinton today brought up the assassination of Sen. Robert Kennedy while defending her decision to stay in the race against Barack Obama.

And that's a super-classy twofer considering what the Kennedy family's gone through this week. Unreal.
posted by spiderwire at 1:43 PM on May 23, 2008 [2 favorites]


If we want to talk of Obama's faults, that would be removing his name from Michigan and then using that fact to whine about Michigan's later inclusion as a tiebreaker,

Cite, please. Of Obama whining.

BTW, tiebreaker? What tie is that? Obama is so far ahead now that when the MI and FL delegates are seated in full (and he will seat them, natch), that he wins a majority of pledged delegates anyway. Especially since this week 40 delegates (many from California) have informed Clinton that they are switching from her to Obama.
posted by oneirodynia at 1:47 PM on May 23, 2008


It's still a tie if you include some things and uninclude some others and basically try to game it as much as possible.
posted by Artw at 2:14 PM on May 23, 2008


The Democratic party has chosen their disadvantage by way of a populist fallacy. Every bandwagon diver that trumped Obama's popularity over Hillary stupidly cited national polls instead of the inevitable battleground states. It's Nader times five.

Honestly, what the fuck?? The dogfight between Obama and Hillary has only just ended, the campaign against McCain has barely begun and you're counting electoral votes already???

Listen, McCain has:
  • Zero fund raising ability without George W Bush (with Bush, he can raise money, but then he has the albatross around his neck).
  • No vision for the next four years other than some vague notion of permanent tax cuts and further reduced services.
  • Very sketchy command on the details of foreign policy.
  • A very erratic demeanor and given to outbursts and gaffes, and basically, he comes across as a cranky dick (don't want to have a beer with that guy!) most of the time.
  • A very, very wealthy wife stonewalling about her taxes (not going to play well in Peoria). In addition to this:
  • The economy is in the crapper.
  • Concerns about the war and national security (both Republican strengths... go figure) are at near all time lows.
Obama has advantages in every single one of these line items. As for the racist/Appalachia thing, a solid Veep choice could offset that.

Whatever numbers you've seen, until the campaign really does start in earnest, those data are basically from 2004, when this thing gets going, you are going to see all the numbers move in Obama's favor.

Either Hillary or Obama could beat McCain, but my money is on the less corrupt, less inside the beltway and up her own ass candidate.
posted by psmealey at 4:19 PM on May 24, 2008


Only the men are Michiganders. The women are Michigeese.

the farm animals are called ohioans
posted by pyramid termite at 4:38 PM on May 24, 2008 [2 favorites]


As for the racist/Appalachia thing

I don't even really buy the racism angle. It's a primary! WV Dems would prefer Hillary, sure, but would they really jump ship because of skin colour more than, say, policy? Did they vote for her solely because they are racist, or because Obama didn't campaign in their state, and Clinton did? Add to that the fact that it's just West Virginia, and, you know, big whoop.

Besides, does anyone believe that in a million years the Democratic party would choose Clinton over Obama based on her appeal to a small pocket of redneck hillbillies? Does the holler-dwelling racist vote really swing the nomination in her favour, or could it perhaps be detrimental to her campaign?
posted by Sys Rq at 5:15 PM on May 24, 2008


« Older Anyone running Bay to Breakers?   |   The foods on my plate canNOT touch one another. Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments