USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[roni]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Well that one from Idaho plus another from the governor of Hawaii have now come in.

Looks to me like even if Clinton ends up with a 40-point win in WV, she'll still be farther behind than she was after Tuesday night, the way Obama is picking up several superdelegates every day.

It is interesting in light of this to consider the heartfelt declarations of residents in such states that they want their state to count...

Steve

Interesting in what way

[mallen10]

On NBC's Hardball, a NBC political analyst has mentioned Republican senator Chuck Hagel as a VP choice for Obama.

[melliedee]

I can understand how states in upcoming primaries are excited to be counted in the vote; I too was stoked when the spotlight was on Ohio. But, it becomes more clear every day that this is just prolonging an outcome whose resolution is needed for party unity.

Clinton has her right to stay in it, but at this point why not bow out gracefully?

[mallen10]

Especially when your 20 million in debt.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by roni

Interesting in what way

Originally Posted by melliedee

I can understand how states in upcoming primaries are excited to be counted in the vote; I too was stoked when the spotlight was on Ohio. But, it becomes more clear every day that this is just prolonging an outcome whose resolution is needed for party unity.

Well in that way, basically.

For better or worse, there is no national single-day type of primary for the nomination, and though I don't know why, historically, WV is one of the states coming at the end of the months-long process of voting in stages (as is your state, of course, Roni). Thus in terms of making a difference in the final outcome, those states will much more rarely -- some might say just about never -- matter. They are the anti-Iowas and anti-New Hampshires.

Whether this should be so is another issue, but that is what they are, in the system as it is currently set up. And so even in this year of a closer and longer race than usual, they don't -- again in that sense -- matter. WV has 28 delegates. Obama's made up virtually that in superdelegates, I believe, since the voting this past Tuesday, such that even a clean sweep for Clinton would only balance that out. And in terms of pledged delegates or popular vote, well of course there's not much room to make up anything, either.

So I guess I mean it's interesting to consider those objective facts about the situation -- the calendar the way it's set up and these states' positions in it, the current situation of the race and the math, the proportional distribution system lingering in the background, the relatively small population of the states, etc -- and then to see that nevertheless, the residents of the states feel offended somehow and some are trying to exploit that irrationally by telling them they should be offended by those saying the voting should stop.

It is part of the manipulation of the truth at the expense of the people that has been going on for some time now, imo, undoubtedly aided by the tendency of a lot of people to take things personally and not want to deal with math and logic. People in these states who are offended by such talk have a beef only with the entire system, not with people saying (like Mel did there, or like I did) that their votes will not make a difference in the overall outcome. Otherwise they're like a backup running back who is offended by the idea of not bothering to put him in the game with little time left and his team down by 4 touchdowns because it won't matter. And telling these people that some are trying to silence them is like telling that running back that some are trying to sell him and his abilities short. That's not the case.

Steve

[roni]

The fact that these states have had, along with the earlier ones, tremendous increases in the numbers of voters registered and participating (in part because no one has the nomination in a lockbox - well, the lock isn't turned all the way anyway ) may well make a difference in the final outcome in November.

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Otherwise they're like a backup running back who is offended by the idea of not bothering to put him in the game with little time left and his team down by 4 touchdowns because it won't matter. And telling these people that some are trying to silence them is like telling that running back that some are trying to sell him and his abilities short. That's not the case.

Steve

The problem with sports analogies in this case is that the crowd lives for that teeny, tiny chance of the underdog: the final seconds on the scoreboard, the dark horse pulling out of the pack, the punch drunk champ swerving to his feet...I get it. It's a powerful image, and while the media may be to blame for prolonging it or misleading, the public goes there willingly. Give them some agency, it is, afterall, their contest.

It is the competitors themselves who need to blow the whistle, call a draw, ring the bell...

[ryberg]

Not denying them agency. I don't see their reactions as being so much like that, however, and worry about the tendency to exploit them and about their likely hard feelings later.

Really in many ways I think this campaign reveals a disturbing lack of numeracy and logical reasoning on the part of an awful lot of people, from the candidates to the press to the public. One simple but persistent example is the focus on victories -- the won-loss record -- state by state, as if all states were pretty much equal. The fact that NC is "only" the 10th biggest state in the nation and yet is worth more than 4 WVs is buried and lost in comments I heard today from I think it was Wolf Blitzer, to the effect that Clinton would benefit from a "big win" in WV. It is not possible in the context he was talking about -- should she continue? -- to get a big win in a state the size of WV with the lead Obama has now. It was equally misleading to talk about NC and IN as if they were roughly equal in this campaign when NC was significantly larger and more valuable than IN. And it just goes on and on and on.

Steve

[roni]

ABC News: No Rush for Clinton to Go, but it's Still Advantage Obama

includes this:

ANALYSIS by GARY LANGER
May 12, 2008

Pushing back against political punditry, more than six in 10 Democrats say there's no rush for Hillary Clinton to leave the presidential race – even as Barack Obama consolidates his support for the nomination and scores solidly in general-election tests.

The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that while a majority of likely Democratic voters want Sen. Barack Obama to be the nominee, most don't think Sen. Hillary Clinton should get out of the race.


Despite Obama's advantage in delegates and popular vote, 64 percent of Democrats in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll say Clinton should remain in the race. Even among Obama's supporters, 42 percent say so.

Click here for a PDF with charts and full questionnaire.

That's not a majority endorsement of Clinton's candidacy; Democrats by a 12-point margin would rather see Obama as the nominee, a lead that's held steadily in ABC News/Washington Post polls since early March. Instead it reflects a rejection of the notion that the drawn-out contest will hurt the party's prospects. Seventy-one percent think it'll either make no difference in November (56 percent) or actually help the party (15 percent).

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Not denying them agency. I don't see their reactions as being so much like that, however, and worry about the tendency to exploit them and about their likely hard feelings later.

Really in many ways I think this campaign reveals a disturbing lack of numeracy and logical reasoning on the part of an awful lot of people, from the candidates to the press to the public. One simple but persistent example is the focus on victories -- the won-loss record -- state by state, as if all states were pretty much equal. The fact that NC is "only" the 10th biggest state in the nation and yet is worth more than 4 WVs is buried and lost in comments I heard today from I think it was Wolf Blitzer, to the effect that Clinton would benefit from a "big win" in WV. It is not possible in the context he was talking about -- should she continue? -- to get a big win in a state the size of WV with the lead Obama has now. It was equally misleading to talk about NC and IN as if they were roughly equal in this campaign when NC was significantly larger and more valuable than IN. And it just goes on and on and on.

Steve

Only?

Then redeemed....

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Only?

Then redeemed....

Well I did put the scare quotes around that, to signal the unusual usage, given the context.

I bet that many, many more people could tell you, after tomorrow, that Obama won NC and Clinton won WV than could tell you that NC was worth more than 4 times what WV was worth. I bet a lot more could tell you that the two "split" (scare quotes, again!) NC and IN than could tell you that NC was worth over 50% more than IN. I bet relatively few out of those people could give you some idea of the loss/gain in delegates from those contests, compared to how many could tell you who won each contest.

I bet there are still many people who would either be surprised to hear that Bush lost the popular vote to Gore, or who would estimate the results as much closer in that regard than the 650,000 or whatever the FEC reported as Gore's lead.

I don't think many people like, or want to deal with, numbers or math or related types of logic, and this W/L mentality about each state helps them avoid that, but also confuses the whole process for them.

Steve

[MikeW]

Not sure the Lakers are going to make it through the primaries, they have a lot of finesse, not much brute force.




Bad sports analogy

[ryberg]

To wit: Terry McAuliffe is saying that Clinton will win the popular vote because of huge-margin victories in states like WV and KY, where he says there are 1.1 and 1.6 million Democrats, respectively. Now, how many people will understand that he's saying that about the same number of voters will participate in WV as participated in IN, even though IN is 3-4 times the size of WV? and that KY will see about the same number participating as NC, even though NC is more than double the size of KY? And remember, reports from both IN and NC were of turnout at record highs.

And THEN you have to remember that those are TOTAL figures, not how many would vote just for Clinton, even in a blowout victory.

It's lying to people. It's wrong even if they want to believe you. It's dishonest. It's theater. Just like Stewart said.

Steve

[ryberg]

This is kind of funny, especially if you think about the famed Republican attack machine salivating over Obama's connection with Wright!



Steve

[ryberg]

The funny math stuff really gets around: remember Clinton's big 10-point win in OH? As a recent entry on Ben Smith's blog points out, she actually won by just 8.7%, really not double digits at all. And I think we have heard a little about the 10-point win for her in PA, too, where she actually won by 9.2%. And that 2-point squeaker win in IN was a super squeaker at just +1.2% for her, it turns out.

Might be others but I can't remember far enough back as to how they margins were discussed.

There are an awful lot of students out there who would like to see their 92s and especially their 87s counted as 100s.

Steve