Obama must stop stalling MI/FL revotes for the good of the party

Great Debates
141

Maybe Elvis just got confused and thought this was the “Forked” thread … in which case the post was on subject. Otherwise Shayna is right: the subject here, putatively, is that Obama should somehow make Michigan and Florida “revotes” happen in order to demonstrate what Elvis defines as “leadership” and despite the fact leadership in both states say that the ideas of revotes are done, couldn’t happen as of weeks ago. My request for a cite of any major player who is currently saying that “revotes” could happen at this late date has been dutifully ignored as I just don’t get the point. The fact that the concept is dead dead dead is not relevant to “the frickin’ topic” of making the concept happen. I rarely use smilies but if anything deserves a :rolleyes: this is it.

And 9th floor has chosen to ignore my offer of a bet. At least have the courtesy to turn it down, man.

142

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Let’s have a look at where we are, pollwise, and what that implies for the fall campaign, shall we? The best compendium of poll numbers I know of, including a helpful weighted rolling-average plot, is at www.pollster.com. So what do they tell us?

As we know from the last 2 go-arounds, the election that matters will be settled by Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan - take 2 out of 3 and you win, fail to do so and you’re just an impotent loser. So where are we in the general-election matchups? As of today, the averaged poll results are:

Ohio - Clinton beats McCain by 5.4%, , Obama loses by 2.3
Pennsylvania - Clinton beats McCain by 3.1, Obama loses by 2.2
Florida - Clinton loses to McCain by 2.8, Obama loses by 11.4%

As if the voters of Florida have decided to punish him for his stalling, as I’ve been saying all along, huh?

<snip>

“Things that make you go Hmmm…”, as the commercial goes.

Yes, of course, there’s a long time left, and things can happen, yada yada … but who’s the stronger horse to bet on for those who recognize the importance of winning?
[/quote]
At times, Hillary’s been doing better in these polls, and at times, Obama has. Right now, Hillary’s doing better. BFD.

An argument that may not have been valid ten days ago, and may well not be valid ten days hence, is really kinda worthless when we’re talking about something 6 months away, IMHO. I guess YMMV, since you’re making the argument.

Not to mention, for Hillary to be the nominee, the supers would have to overrule the will of the primary voters, with a potentially serious downside in terms of Dem turnout.

Did any of these polls say, “If the Presidential election was today, the candidates for President were Hillary Clinton and John McCain, but Hillary was only able to win the nomination when the Democratic superdelegates overruled the delegates that the people voted for, then who would you vote for for President?”

I bet they didn’t. And since we know who’s going to be ahead at the end of the primaries, any polling question that doesn’t include that element is not going to get to the situation as it would be if Hillary managed to win the nomination.

If Hillary wins the nomination in a manner that many Dems regard as illegitimate, you can toss out all those polls with the fish-wrappings; none of them will mean diddly.

143

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
As we know from the last 2 go-arounds, the election that matters will be settled by Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan - take 2 out of 3 and you win, fail to do so and you’re just an impotent loser.
[/quote]

Do you mean FL (not MI)?

Unlikely, or you’d see some sort of inflection point in the trend starting after the primary there. But Obama has been trending down in a smooth fashion since Oct '07 in that state-- long before anyone was even talking about a revote (since the first vote hadn’t taken place).

I’m not sure why Obama has to do those things and Clinton doesn’t (assuming you were implying that she doesn’t). He seems to have more appeal to Republicans and independents than she does.

At any rate, I do agree with you that there is a plausible scenario for the supers to select Clinton.

144

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]

If Hillary wins the nomination in a manner that many Dems regard as illegitimate, you can toss out all those polls with the fish-wrappings; none of them will mean diddly.
[/QUOTE]
And absolutely none of them are relevant to his own OP. He’s just looking for a way to avoid the argument he can see he’s lost. Don’t let him get away with doing what he’s famous for – changing the subject so you get distracted onto another issue and he doesn’t have to admit he was wrong.

Look! OVER THERE!!!

145

[QUOTE=Shayna]
And absolutely none of them are relevant to his own OP. He’s just looking for a way to avoid the argument he can see he’s lost. Don’t let him get away with doing what he’s famous for – changing the subject so you get distracted onto another issue and he doesn’t have to admit he was wrong.

Look! OVER THERE!!!
[/QUOTE]
Hell, we’ll beat ALL his stinkin’ arguments, and then when he has to start repeating them because he’s run out of new ones, we’ll beat them a second time, just for funsies. :slight_smile:

Which reminds me: due to Hillary’s weakness in other parts of the country, she has to win PA, and at least one out of two of FL and OH - quite possibly both.

Maybe she can, maybe she can’t. But the maps I see, say that if she lost any one of them, she’d lose the election.

But Obama has quite plausible paths to victory that only need him winning one of those three states, since he’s got the upper midwest triad of MN-WI-IA more firmly nailed down, and has good prospects in CO, NM, and NV.

Kerry’s states, plus IA and two out of three of CO-NM-NV gets him there.

146

Shayna, it isn’t me changing the subject, it’s you starting to realize what it is - and choosing instead to attack the messenger.

[quote=RTFirefly}Right now Hillary’s doing better. BFD[/quote]
Reallu??? Well, now we know how seriously you want to be taken on the subject.

If instead you have any actual data, or evidence of any kind to the contrary, other than the cherry-picked individual poll data that you so lavishly festoon the Forkfest threads with, then stand and deliver, okay? If, that is, you’re interested in having your “contributions” taken seriously by anybody other than the cheeriing section, that is.

John, I corrected that error back on Page 1. As for why Obama needs to make a gesture now, it’s to avoid losing in November, if he even gets that far. I’ve been clear enough about that.

DSeid, if at any time you decide to address the subject on a non-Pit level, do let us all know, willya?
Denunciations are just *so * much fun, aren’t they? Responsible citizenship does require a bit more than that, though.

Sigh … cite?

147

Elvis, please let me know when you are ready to provide any evidence that the concept of a revote is any other than dead for weeks now? I am sorry that you think that requesting that evidence, after providing evidence that it is dead, is Pittish.

148

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]

Sigh … cite?
[/QUOTE]

Obviously no one has conducted a scientific poll on the intelligence and knowledge of SDMB posters. And I think that how much smarter we are than average may be a bit overstated by a lot of people. But it’s silly to say that the people participating in this thread aren’t more well informed than the average voter.

It’s amazing that this thread has reached 150 posts without any substantiation of the subject of the very discussion.

Hell, I thought there may have been some evidence, which we could then have debated. Maybe Obama’s lawyers object to specific proposals for specific reasons, and then we could debate whether or not it was stalling, whether the revote is a good idea in general, etc.

But there’s been nothing to substantiate your claims whatsoever.

I have a question for you - and I’m not trying to play gotcha but I’m honestly curious. Do you think that your advocacy of Hillary and the tactics you use here are winning over new recruits to support her? Honestly.

149

[QUOTE=SenorBeef]

Hell, I thought there may have been some evidence, which we could then have debated. Maybe Obama’s lawyers object to specific proposals for specific reasons, and then we could debate whether or not it was stalling, whether the revote is a good idea in general, etc.

[/QUOTE]

A revote in FL and MI is much more complicated than Clinton supporters want to admit.

Concerning Michigan, Obama’s attorney said:

Florida had other complications. Because the cost of another primary was prohibitive, the proposed solution was a mail in vote but it died due to Florida law. I don’t recall if a caucus was proposed, but I know HRC doesn’t like her outcome with caucuses. She likely nixed that idea immediately.

150

The first link is bad. Here is a working one

151

[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
ObBut there’s been nothing to substantiate your claims whatsoever.
[/quote]
Did you actually read the OP? :dubious: Or the post above where I pointed out the relevant current poll numbers doing exactly that?

In fact, given the growing number of posters here discussing doubts about Obama’s conduct and prospects, yes.

Now, do *you * think *your * misrepresentations, as this latest “contribution” of yours exemplifies, are helping *Obama * in any way? :dubious:
unconventional, nobody ever said there wouldn’t be problems. But leaders look for ways to overcome problems, not duck them.

152

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Did you actually read the OP? :dubious:

[/quote]

Yes. As has been covered many times, you have provided no evidence whatsoever of your claims.

The poll numbers in florida prove that Obama is taking proactive steps to stifle a revote? While that’s one possible explanation, there’s no actual evidence of the link unless I missed something.

Fair enough. I disagree, of course. But I was wondering if your primary interest here was advocating for Clinton or winning arguments.

I’m not an Obama advocate. If someone held a gun to my head and forced me to pick one of the three major candidates, it would be Obama. But I disagree with his politics. He interests me because of his life story and the way he’s conducted his campaign - he seems to be different than anyone I’ve witnessed who has had a legit shot at the presidency that interests me. I’m certainly intrigued by the possibility of something other than politics as usual, even if I disagree with most of his political views.

I also don’t think I’ve misrepresented anything. I have no dog in this fight (other than what I described above) and I’ve been merely trying to combat your disingenous arguments.

153

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]

unconventional, nobody ever said there wouldn’t be problems. But leaders look for ways to overcome problems, not duck them.
[/QUOTE]

Every presidential candidate had something to dodge in recent memory. Clinton dodged Ms.Flowers and every other president who has made it to the White House has had to dodge something. The list goes to every candidate who ever made it to the white house - they have all dodged something. I agree this will be a defining moment for Obama, but not something to cost him the nomination. No way.

154

[QUOTE=unconventional]
The first link is bad. Here is a working one
[/QUOTE]

My first post in this thread linked the actual memo from Robert Bauer

This was the Clinton camp response to those concerns

155

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]

Reallu??? Well, now we know how seriously you want to be taken on the subject.

If instead you have any actual data, or evidence of any kind to the contrary, other than the cherry-picked individual poll data that you so lavishly festoon the Forkfest threads with, then stand and deliver, okay? If, that is, you’re interested in having your “contributions” taken seriously by anybody other than the cheeriing section, that is.

[/quote]
OK, then - Hillary isn’t doing better right now. I concede the point.

156

Clearly, all Obama’s fault.

157

[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
Ah, so you’re arguing that he created the situation in which the proposed re-vote would be unfair? Maybe so. But the decision to withdraw his name was entirely legitimate. Everyone at the time, including Hillary herself, said the vote didn’t matter. All of the campaigns except Hillary’s decided that they would not campaign in MI and that this meant removing names from the ballot. It seems a little tenuous to argue that he’s blocking the re-vote because he withdrew his name from the original vote.

More importantly, opposing one unfair incarnation of a re-vote does not mean blocking them all, and it doesn’t prove that he is the but-for cause of the failure to hold it.
[/QUOTE]

I think Obama did inadvertently create the situation (revote unfair to his campaign) himself by removing his name from he ballot. It has been argued that his decision to remove his name was a coordinated one with the other candidates to leave Clinton alone on the ballot, and hurt her chances in Iowa.

Regardless of the motivation, it was a legimate decision as you point out and in line with honoring the four state pledge all the candidates signed.

If he had decided to support the revote proposal that met his earlier requirements, despite it’s disadvantage to his campaign, in order to guarantee that Michigan delegates are seated, it would have significantly improved my opinion of him.

Since his situation was such that he could avoid a MI re-vote by withholding support for it, that’s what he did. While I’m disappointed in it, I certainly understand why. Nothing in it for him.

158

[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]

[QUOTE=electoral-vote.com]

Four Michigan Democrats have launched a new proposal for seating the Michigan delegates. One of them is Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), who is almost single-handedly responsible for the problem in the first place since it was he who championed the idea of violating DNC rules and having Michigan vote on January 15. The group says Clinton wants to accept the election results, which favor her 73 to 55 and Obama wants to split it 64 to 64, so let’s compromise at 69 for Clinton and 59 for Obama. It is not clear if the DNC will buy this though. Many DNC members are very angry with Michigan for knowingly violating party rules.
[/QUOTE]

Clearly, all Obama’s fault.
[/QUOTE]

The results from the 55 were based on undecided votes so they probably wouldn’t even all be for Obama. At least a few people who initially were voting undecided (Edwards) would have made Clinton their second choice.

This confusion could have been avoided if Obama (and everyone else) hadn’t removed his name from the ballot.

It’s even had an effect on the MI delegate selection process itself.

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/1609

159

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
the cherry-picked individual poll data that you so lavishly festoon the Forkfest threads with
[/QUOTE]
Please do provide for-instances, OK? :smiley:

I’m looking forward to it. :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

160

[QUOTE=Keweenaw]

This confusion could have been avoided if Obama (and everyone else) hadn’t removed his name from the ballot.
[/QUOTE]

But that seems to me a good argument for having removed it. If you don’t plan to campaign in a state, and therefore believe the vote will not represent your true support because voting w/o campaigning is basically a name recognition contest, then you’d better get your name off otherwise your opponents will attempt to argue that the vote was entirely legitimate (as Hillary has done in FL).

I don’t think that’s why he removed his name. Nor do I believe the reasons given in the link you offered above. But as long as we’re adding up all of the positive and negative effects of doing so, it is worth noting.