Hillary needs to burn in political hell...

[Care4all]

We don't know what would have happened if Reverend Wright had shown up before Super Tuesday, so let's not count those votes either. We don't know what would have happened if Hillary Clinton dyed her her purple before the primaries, so let's not count any of the votes at all.

Do you see where this is going?

To throw out the votes simply because we don't know what could have happened is absolutely ridiculous. The point is: the delegates are being seated in Michigan and Florida based on the elections that took place. Thus, the votes cast are what count.

There's a million possible "what could have beens," and not a single one is worth a damn.

huh? the delegates ARE NOT BEING SEATED based on the certified votes in michigan but by polls and other shenanigans of the dnc, thus my outrage?

 

[ReillyT]

We don't know what would have happened if Reverend Wright had shown up before Super Tuesday, so let's not count those votes either. We don't know what would have happened if Hillary Clinton dyed her her purple before the primaries, so let's not count any of the votes at all.

Do you see where this is going?

To throw out the votes simply because we don't know what could have happened is absolutely ridiculous. The point is: the delegates are being seated in Michigan and Florida based on the elections that took place. Thus, the votes cast are what count.

There's a million possible "what could have beens," and not a single one is worth a damn.

Unfortunately, this "what could have been" relates directly to the incentives that people have to vote and the structure of the election process. It is a whole different thing.

How about this? I will be happy if you agree that there are plenty of others who disagree with you. You can think that any other approach to tabulating the popular vote is silly and stupid, but at least recognize that many, including Obamites, members of the media, pundits, etc. disagree with you. There is clearly a debate about the popular vote.

 

[Jon]

huh? the delegates ARE NOT BEING SEATED based on the certified votes in michigan but by polls and other shenanigans of the dnc, thus my outrage?

You are absolutely right. The Michigan delegates are not being seated fairly. But, they are being seated based on the results of the election. They just aren't interpretting those results fairly.

The truth is Obama did not receive anywhere near 40% of the votes that day. He would have received only around 25-30% (based on polls from before the election), yet he was given 44% of the delegates. It's absolutely not fair, but it's the hand we were dealt. It really has no bearing on the argument on who won the popular vote, that is unless someone wants to be delusional enough to say that Obama should get 40% or 44% of the votes cast that day. That argument is so absurd, it hurts me to think of someone actually considering it.

 

[Jon]

How about this? I will be happy if you agree that there are plenty of others who disagree with you. You can think that any other approach to tabulating the popular vote is silly and stupid, but at least recognize that many, including Obamites, members of the media, pundits, etc. disagree with you. There is clearly a debate about the popular vote.

There is a debate about everything. But in debates, reason wins over assumptions. All reasoning says Clinton won the popular vote. Any argument that awards Obama the entire amount of uncommitted votes cast that day is flawed. There is no evidence to support Obama would have received that much of the vote. In fact, all evidence says otherwise.

I was reasonable enough to count caucuses, because people DO vote in caucuses. They SHOULD count, just as should the results of Michigan and Florida, because people DID vote.

If you want to make this a real debate, provide evidence rather than hypotheticals. Based on the votes that were actually cast, who do YOU think won the popular vote?

 

[Shogun]

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. Would you enlighten me?

Ravi gets it...


don't you, Ravi?



I'm having a bout of stubbornness from her myself.

 

[Ravi]

Ravi gets it...


don't you, Ravi?



I'm having a bout of stubbornness from her myself.

No. What I get is you thought Reilly was talking to me when he was actually talking to jsanders.

Are you having a bad hair day or something? Your brain just isn't working.

 

[jillian]

Democrats threw a hissy fit when Gore lost after receiving the popular vote. Now Hillary supporters can throw the same hissy fit.

I'm not interested in throwing a hissy fit. I'm interested in making sure that John McCain can't appoint a single justice to the supreme court. And I'm less interested in someone who only wants to fuel those fires for his own reasons.

Priorities, love.

 

[ReillyT]

There is a debate about everything. But in debates, reason wins over assumptions. All reasoning says Clinton won the popular vote. Any argument that awards Obama the entire amount of uncommitted votes cast that day is flawed. There is no evidence to support Obama would have received that much of the vote. In fact, all evidence says otherwise.

I was reasonable enough to count caucuses, because people DO vote in caucuses. They SHOULD count, just as should the results of Michigan and Florida, because people DID vote.

If you want to make this a real debate, provide evidence rather than hypotheticals. Based on the votes that were actually cast, who do YOU think won the popular vote?

Based on counting all the votes cast, Clinton won the popular vote. However, since the elections in Florida and Michigan were flawed (and I think everyone agrees that they were at least somewhat flawed), there is (I believe) a good argument that these states shouldn't count at all. I know you don't buy this argument, but there is reason behind it and many people do think this way.

People actually vote in Zimbabwe, Nigeria, and Kenya as well. However, the act of voting doesn't mean that the process was fair or that the vote necessarily reflects the popular will. Just counting the votes cast doesn't get you very far.

 

[Shogun]

SHIT!

my bad..


I was just looking to extend my little happy dance now that we've come to terms with work eligability and driveway construction, Rav..

I apologize for my mistake.

 

[Ravi]

SHIT!

my bad..


I was just looking to extend my little happy dance now that we've come to terms with work eligability and driveway construction, Rav..

I apologize for my mistake.

No problem. You've apparently got Ravi on the brain.

 

[Shogun]

No problem. You've apparently got Ravi on the brain.

I guess thats better than the rash associated with Ravi on the genitals.


ZING!


Ok, again, I apologize. continue on.

 

[ReillyT]

There is a debate about everything. But in debates, reason wins over assumptions. All reasoning says Clinton won the popular vote. Any argument that awards Obama the entire amount of uncommitted votes cast that day is flawed. There is no evidence to support Obama would have received that much of the vote. In fact, all evidence says otherwise.

I was reasonable enough to count caucuses, because people DO vote in caucuses. They SHOULD count, just as should the results of Michigan and Florida, because people DID vote.

If you want to make this a real debate, provide evidence rather than hypotheticals. Based on the votes that were actually cast, who do YOU think won the popular vote?

Actually, I spoke to quick. Not that it matters, because the popular vote doesn't count, but if you use the exit polling to determine Obama's share of the vote in the Michigan primary (which is what the DNC used to allocate delegates), then you find that Clinton got 46%, Obama got 35% and Edwards got 12%. Based on this, the projection (which is better than the uncommitted vote) is that Clinton would gain 66,000 votes, in which case she still would not win the popular vote (using RCP info.). Thus, I guess even under your view of things, Obama won the popular vote (not that this matters). Once again, none of this matters.

Pollster.com: About That Michigan Exit Poll

http://ccpsblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/michigan-and-hillary-clintons-popular.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Did I forget to mention that none of this matters?

 

[Jon]

Based on counting all the votes cast, Clinton won the popular vote. However, since the elections in Florida and Michigan were flawed (and I think everyone agrees that they were at least somewhat flawed), there is (I believe) a good argument that these states shouldn't count at all. I know you don't buy this argument, but there is reason behind it and many people do think this way.

People actually vote in Zimbabwe, Nigeria, and Kenya as well. However, the act of voting doesn't mean that the process was fair or that the vote necessarily reflects the popular will. Just counting the votes cast doesn't get you very far.

You're comparing the election system in the US to that of Zimbabwe, Nigeria, and Kenya? Hilarious.

Elections in the United States are as fair as it can get. Every candidate has the same chance to have their name marked on a ballot. What do you not see fair about the elections in Florida and Michigan? Clinton was hurt by the lower turnout as a result of the voters being told their votes wouldn't count just as much as Obama was. I call that fair. Everyone was on equal playing ground.

The elections in Florida and Michigan may have been flawed (but fair), and all that could have changed were the number of people who actually voted had they not been discouraged to do so. The results of the elections were very close to all the polls in those states, so it's unreasonable to say Obama would have received a larger percent of the votes, only that he would have received MORE votes. If you want to claim the results flawed, fine. All that does is suggest that you think Clinton should have received MORE votes too, further increasing her lead in the popular vote.

Throwing out the results is not reasonable in any sense. I think the Texas Two-Step is flawed. I think caucuses in general are flawed. I think it's flawed to not have every state vote on the same day. But it's the system we have, so we must abide by it. And in accordance with that, the votes in Michigan and Florida are legitimate. Clinton argued to throw out caucus votes (something I was never in favor of), and Obama supporters were in uproar. Now the shoe's on the other foot, and you think it's okay to throw out votes that were cast. Hypocrite much?

 

[jillian]

You're comparing the election system in the US to that of Zimbabwe, Nigeria, and Kenya? Hilarious.

He wasn't. And you know he wasn't. He was pointing out that the act of voting doesn't make the vote fair.

Elections in the United States are as fair as it can get.

Really? Some might not agree with that asssessment.

Was the 2004 Election Stolen? : Rolling Stone

 

[Jon]

Actually, I spoke to quick. Not that it matters, because the popular vote doesn't count, but if you use the exit polling to determine Obama's share of the vote in the Michigan primary (which is what the DNC used to allocate delegates), then you find that Clinton got 46%, Obama got 35% and Edwards got 12%. Based on this, the projection (which is better than the uncommitted vote) is that Clinton would gain 66,000 votes, in which case she still would not win the popular vote (using RCP info.). Thus, I guess even under your view of things, Obama won the popular vote (not that this matters). Once again, none of this matters.

Pollster.com: About That Michigan Exit Poll

The problem with that exit poll is: it says Clinton got 46%, and she did not, she got 55%. The number of votes she received would not have been less had the other names been on the ballot. That's silly. Edwards AND Obama told their supporters to vote Uncommitted. So if someone supported those candidates, they would have voted Uncommitted, not for Hillary. So if their names had been on the ballot, the only thing that would have changed is that instead of 40% voting Uncommitted, that 40% would be split between all the candidates in some fashion. It's possible that the Uncommitted voters could have supported any of the candidates, but the argument that Clinton would have received FEWER votes had Edwards and Obama been on the ballot is just ridiculous.

And if you read that entire article, the poll you're alluding to is ONE exit poll conducted, not the average of all exit polls conducted. It further says that the weighted poll average was very close to the actual election results:

To be more specific about the weighting: Once the Associated Press reported a final count for Michigan on the evening of January 15, the exit poll analysts reweighted their tabulations so that the size of each poll region (labeled as "Geo Stratum Code") and the candidate vote shares within each of those regions matched the actual result. Thus, the "vote estimate" at the top of this final tabulation produced by Edison/Mitofsky (and posted online by ABC News) shows 56% for Clinton, 4% for Kucinich, less than 1% each for Dodd and Gravel and 39% supporting uncommitted.

The actual results were 55% for Clinton, 40% uncommitted. I'd say the exit poll was pretty accurate, if you read the right exit poll.

The question asked in the first poll was the wrong question to ask to gauge the results. They should have asked: "If you voted uncommitted, who do you support?" This would have given a better idea to the actual number of votes Obama would have received.

 

[Jon]

Really? Some might not agree with that asssessment.

Was the 2004 Election Stolen? : Rolling Stone

Point taken. But last I checked, no one was accusing Obama, Clinton, Edwards, or anyone else of foul play in this election.

 

[jillian]

Point taken. But last I checked, no one was accusing Obama, Clinton, Edwards, or anyone else of foul play in this election.

Well, if you believe there was an unfair or incorrect resolution to the delegate problem, then you do. If not, then perhaps it's time to move on from it.... unless one's goal is only to shake Obama's legitimacy.

Now... I'd have certainly preferred Hillary, but I think Barack was legitimately chosen.... albeit in a kind of convoluted way. I also think we have to do a cost benefit analysis. Do we gain more from keeping the controversy going, or more from letting it go.... again, depends what one's goal is.

 

[ReillyT]

You're comparing the election system in the US to that of Zimbabwe, Nigeria, and Kenya? Hilarious.

Elections in the United States are as fair as it can get. Every candidate has the same chance to have their name marked on a ballot. What do you not see fair about the elections in Florida and Michigan? Clinton was hurt by the lower turnout as a result of the voters being told their votes wouldn't count just as much as Obama was. I call that fair. Everyone was on equal playing ground.

The elections in Florida and Michigan may have been flawed (but fair), and all that could have changed were the number of people who actually voted had they not been discouraged to do so. The results of the elections were very close to all the polls in those states, so it's unreasonable to say Obama would have received a larger percent of the votes, only that he would have received MORE votes. If you want to claim the results flawed, fine. All that does is suggest that you think Clinton should have received MORE votes too, further increasing her lead in the popular vote.

Throwing out the results is not reasonable in any sense. I think the Texas Two-Step is flawed. I think caucuses in general are flawed. I think it's flawed to not have every state vote on the same day. But it's the system we have, so we must abide by it. And in accordance with that, the votes in Michigan and Florida are legitimate. Clinton argued to throw out caucus votes (something I was never in favor of), and Obama supporters were in uproar. Now the shoe's on the other foot, and you think it's okay to throw out votes that were cast. Hypocrite much?

I believe you are being unreasonable, but I will try one more time (briefly) and then leave you to your views.

One hypothetical way in which the knowledge that your vote will not count might affect the race disproportionately would be this. Suppose that blacks vote at a lower percentage in normal elections than whites (I believe that this is true in most states). If there were down-ballot issues at stake, and demographic groups went out to vote at their historical rates, whites would come out disproportionately heavier than blacks. Were the presidential primary counting, this imbalance might have changed as African-Americans came out in larger numbers to support the Obama (since he won the group generally). Thus, the belief that the primary wouldn't count would produce different results than voting under normal circumstances.

Finally, I am not asking you to believe that Obama won the popular vote (although as I noted above, under your standards he probably did). I am just asking you to recognize that other reasonable people disagree with you (including political pundits, political blogs, the candidates, etc.). There are several reasonable approaches one could adopt.

Your position thus far has been that, regardless of the many people that disagree with you, your view is the only rationale view and any other view is biased and illogical. Do you recognize how much hubris this demonstrates?

 

[ReillyT]

Well, if you believe there was an unfair or incorrect resolution to the delegate problem, then you do. If not, then perhaps it's time to move on from it.... unless one's goal is only to shake Obama's legitimacy.

Now... I'd have certainly preferred Hillary, but I think Barack was legitimately chosen.... albeit in a kind of convoluted way. I also think we have to do a cost benefit analysis. Do we gain more from keeping the controversy going, or more from letting it go.... again, depends what one's goal is.

Your point is well taken as always. I fell into the trap of arguing these things again after I set myself against it.

 

[jillian]

Your point is well taken as always. I fell into the trap of arguing these things again after I set myself against it.

It wasn't directed at you, you know. It was directed at jsanders who seems to have as his only mission, the delegitimizing of Barack Obama. So don't think I was in any way saying you shouldn't have responded as you wished.