brooksmarlin ([info]brooksmarlin) wrote,
@ 2008-03-05 11:16:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Current location:60610
Current mood: bitchy
Current music:Ol' Dirty Bastard - Shimmy Shimmy Ya

Hillary Clinton needs to drop out

In the interests of full disclosure, I hate Hillary Clinton's guts. I want to punch her in the face every time I see her. For some reasons why I hate her, see here, here and here. You don't pull that shit in a primary campaign unless you care about nobody but yourself.

Despite what the Clinton campaign is saying about the results last night, nothing has changed from where things were before Tuesday, which is disappointing given that I hoped Obama would have put her away. When all the Texas caucus delegates get allotted he's still gonna have the same lead he did before. Hillary has gained no ground even after the huge firewall states she was counting on have voted.

This race can't go to all the way to Pennsylvania next month. The campaigning will be weeks of a brutal slog, especially since Clinton has decided to go negative, and Obama can't help but retaliate (I hope...). All it will end up doing is weaken the eventual nominee. So DNC Chairman Howard Dean and the superdelegates have to step in and throw all their support to Obama. He has won more states. He leads in the popular vote (even including Michigan and Florida!). And most importantly, he has built an insurmountable pledged delegate lead. Let me show you some things:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pyeiG55fWSbrLGW9p6mNORQ&hl=en
After Super Tuesday, somebody from the Obama campaign "leaked" an internal spreadsheet outlining what they thought the results would be of all the rest of the primaries, and showing that Obama would enter the convention with a delegate lead. This sheet has proven to be remarkably accurate, in fact it has even consistently underrated his chances. I've been keeping it updated with the real delegate counts from all those races as they happened (columns H, I, J), and as you can see, Obama is 43 delegates ahead of his own early estimates (the OH and TX numbers are preliminary, of course). So this here is a roadmap of how things will likely go. Hillary is not going to catch up.

http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/
In fact, it is essentially impossible for her to catch up, even if she runs the table. Go ahead, plug in last night's numbers on Slate, then have Hillary get 55%'s for the rest of the states. Hell, give her 60% in Penn. and Puerto Rico. She still can't do it. She can't even do it if she wins every state with 60%.

Dean and the SD's have to make a choice. They can choose Barack Obama, or they can chose the candidate who has less delegates, less votes, raised less money, has less support among independents and wavering Republicans, and whom 40% of the country has said they will never vote for - Hillary Clinton.

Selecting Hillary Clinton would be a disaster, it would stink of a backroom deal that overrode (overrided?) the will of the voters. It would suck the oxygen out of the Democrats, depress voter turnout in November, and very likely lead to a McCain victory. It would instill (even more) in the minds of Americans that the Dems are a party of dumbass chickens who couldn't find their dick with two hands and a map. Her continued insistence on moving the goal posts and remaining in this race is not for the good of her party or the American people, but merely to serve her own bloated ego.




(18 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]timemachinego
2008-03-05 06:41 pm UTC (link)
Hear hear, on all counts, except maybe the facepunching.

(Reply to this)


[info]livinginfits
2008-03-05 07:13 pm UTC (link)
/signed

the thing that bothers me the most is that since 8 years ago, when the president hillary plan went into action, the assumption that we're just supposed to accept it. she wants to be president, so just fucking get on board, buddy! it has nothing to do with changing politics or doing something right for this country. it's a total ego trip.

i can't help but feel that the obama campaign is the exact opposite of that. he has been a candidate pushed up by the people. his message is also always about the people and not just him.

issues aside, this is what really factors into my feelings on the campaign. i would not put it past democrats to ensure their loss this year by trying to force hillary into the general election. that's fine. i like john mccain just enough to vote for him.

(Reply to this)


[info]roninspoon
2008-03-05 07:47 pm UTC (link)
And yet, I still fear that this is exactly what will happen. At some point during the convention, a smokey room of old white men will decided that no matter how progressive they are, a lady is more voteable than a black man.

And before you know it, we'll have that Manchurian candidate in the White House.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]orangejulius
2008-03-05 07:51 pm UTC (link)
Hillary Clinton is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life. Why don't you pass the time by playing a little solitaire, Roninspoon?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]roninspoon
2008-03-05 08:44 pm UTC (link)
It's a terrible thing to hate your mother. But I didn't always hate her. When I was a child, I only kind of disliked her.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]orangejulius
2008-03-05 07:49 pm UTC (link)
I am voting for John McCain if Hillary Clinton gets the Democratic nomination.

Yes, I would be voting for someone who I disagree with on almost every major issue.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]karmadebt
2008-03-05 08:09 pm UTC (link)
Funny, I was thinking about this yesterday because I feel the same way.

Actually, what I was thinking was what an amazing strategy it would be to make sure that McCain wins. Send your Republican loyals to vote in the Democratic primary for Hillary instead of Obama; ensuring a win for McCain come full election season.

If I thought of it, you know that others have. Not that I'm some sort of political paranoid, but seriously, think Karl Rove, think push-polls. I wouldn't put it past them.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]brooksmarlin
2008-03-05 08:14 pm UTC (link)
Actually Rush Limbaugh told his listeners to do that yesterday. Here's some data on that.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]livinginfits
2008-03-05 08:33 pm UTC (link)
yeah... and i thought that maybe all of his sheeple were responsible for what happened yesterday in ohio. the more i thought about it, though, his sheeple are also the crazy crispy christians in this state. they had to go out and vote for huckabee to drive in the point that they want jesus to be mccain's running mate.

overall, i'm betting it's a generational/in-touch kinda thing. as most rural-urban divides seem to be. these will be the same people who 8 years from now will be trying to figure out how they couldn't defeat a republican with the deck stacked in their favor.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]karmadebt
2008-03-06 01:38 am UTC (link)
We may be in Ohio, but we're not in Nebraska.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]livinginfits
2008-03-06 02:36 am UTC (link)
outside of the outerbelt, there's not much difference.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

NICK ZEDD OWNS YOUR SORRY ASS
(Anonymous)
2008-03-22 05:58 pm UTC (link)
what a fucking tool

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Irony
[info]horshoo
2008-03-05 09:55 pm UTC (link)
Here's a bit of irony:
http://horshoo.livejournal.com/155152.html

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Irony
[info]brooksmarlin
2008-03-05 10:23 pm UTC (link)
The problem with that plan was she would have had to wait until 2002 for one seat, which was already held by incumbent Democrat Dick Durbin. The other seat (which eventually became Obama's) was not up for election until 2004, and it was held by Republican Peter Fizgerald, who was one of the most clean and honest men in Illinois politics (shit, even I would have voted for him). So by no means was her victory guaranteed. And given the way she carpetbagged into New York, I doubt she was willing to wait 2-4 years to contend for an Illinois seat.

Little did she know that Peter Fitzgerald was so clean, the state and national Republicans forced him out and he didn't even run for reelection. Obama won the open seat.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Irony
[info]horshoo
2008-03-05 10:54 pm UTC (link)
Now I vaguely recall the timing, and you're no doubt right about her impatience. Thanks for the update on the details.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]sun_doth_burn
2008-03-05 11:55 pm UTC (link)
Dan Rather today made an unusual point. She can point to majorities in all the "major" states: New York, California, Texas, etc, where there are more national delegates. Obama, then, may have more democratic delegates, but Hillary is more likely to carry the national delegates in a general election.

I dunno that I buy it, but it's an interesting notion.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]brooksmarlin
2008-03-06 05:12 am UTC (link)
I never understood the end thesis of this arguement (which has been popping up a lot in the recent weeks). The Democratic nominee is going to win California, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, etc, no matter who it is. It's not like they're suddenly going to shift if Obama is nominated. Why are those more important than the others?

On the other hand, couldn't Obama make the argument that the record turnouts that he brings in the light red/purple states indicates that he might be able to win those states in November? Or at least make McCain expend time and money to make sure he holds on to them?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

This ties into two things that happened last night
(Anonymous)
2008-03-06 06:00 am UTC (link)
As expected, Este and I headed to caucus last night. We voted, then waited with the rest of our precinct for the last person to do the same so the caucus could start. During this hour and a half, we were surrounded by a bunch of Democrats - naturally, we started conversations with them. Some of them were keen on discussing what they believe and why, others clammed up when I asked even basic questions.

Once everyone signed the caucus sheets, we moved to different sides of the church kitchen to determine Obama and Clinton delegates. To nobody's surprise, all of those who knew and were willing to casually talk about why they were voting Democrat were on the Obama side.

The second surprise came when we called for nomination of delegates: Regardless of standing in a sweltering, tiny church kitchen for two hours, only three out of 39 wanted to be a Clinton delegate (and their side needed eight). He said he sees it all the time. There were more than enough willing to fill the seven spots on the Obama side. I ended up a delegate, and Este an alternate.

Stepping outside once the doors were allowed open, the poll worker mentioned to me and one of the other Obama supporters that he'd knew many of the Clinton side as republicans from previous caucuses here. We lamented that they could so easily poison our side of the fence.

At my sister's caucus location, the story was slightly different. I'm getting the full version of this over dinner on Tuesday, but her email to me this morning mentioned "There were only about 50 of us there, 2-3 of us under 60 years old. Go figure, all of the 60+ers were Hillary supporters, frankly and openly stated, because 'they can't vote for a black man'." I have no idea how pervasive this is down here.

At least Este and I walked away with the privilege of representing our precinct's Obama supporters to the district convention.

-- Katherine (i.e. "the noder formerly known as Dann")

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(18 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…