Don't know if you guys saw this. It kinda made my day. More on the nuts that comprise PUMA here. It gets ill. I'm talking Lyndon Larouche/"Exterminate Jew Power" ill. Hmm, my guess is that these guys aren't team players on the lam--but nuts filing into the asylum.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Question: Who are the PUMA's going to humiliate more at the convention, themselves or Hillary?
Discuss.
Who are the PUMA's going to humiliate more at the convention, themselves or Hillary?
From their repeated attempts to cast Hillary as the star of her own Three Stooges movie ("X was a slap in the face/poke in the eye/noogie in the noggin to HIllary Clinton") I'd guess they're aiming at Hillary; if she realizes that they're a tiny minority and the rest of the electorate doesn't want to watch admire them she can leave them embarrassing themselves as a sideshow--these are just the sort of people who would take abandonment by Hillary as yet one more blow from the great conspiracy that still won't cause them to waver.
Still, I must give credence to Al Giordano's assertion that all the "what will Hillary do? and Bill? and the PUMAs" stuff has lots of people eagerly anticipating watching the Democratic convention, which is more than one can say for the Republicans; just possibly that's deliberate.
Something went wrong with my html tag; "doesn't want to watch" was supposed to be struck out, because of course the schadenfreude to be had watching people who will stick giant tampons on their cars while getting Larry Sinclair's signature is immense.
These 2 are not great spokespeople for this. In my view, there are some issues to be dealt with in future years (such as stopping the expansion of caucuses to other states, where participation is much lower). For instance, in Washington state, about 1% of the population participated in the Dem. caucus this year; but the participation was substantially higher in the non-binding primary. Obama won both the caucus and the 'beauty contest' of the non-binding primary, but clearly any event in which more can participate is better for democracy. Why these 2 couldn't argue this is beyond me.
Shuster's interview style is a joke. He pretends like he is speaking for Hillary Clinton saying "She tell you to stop." Why not? Anyone watching Mr. "pimping out Chelsea" realizes he has no love for Hillary Clinton, and was one of the most biased reporters this year. He regularly cut off the woman on here without letting her finish her sentences. Shuster is just a poor journalist, and these 2 people are poor surrogates for their cause.
Thanks for the link, Ta-Nehisi.
these 2 people are poor surrogates for their cause
Unfortunately for you PUMAs, there's not an enormous pool of talent to work with when it comes to media spokespersons. Who do you propose would be better? SusanUnPC? TexasDarlin? Larry Sinclair?
Why is Shuster a poor journalist? This reminded me of O'Reilly. The guests were ill-prepared and not ready for the interview, and looked bad. But on the other hand, he simply badgered them.
And not to belabor past battles, but if I recall (and according to the real clear politics web site), Obama won the popular vote not including Michigan and Florida. Clinton won the popular vote when including Michigan and Florida (acco. I think Shuster was correct to say Obama won the popular vote, but I am not certain he won a "majority of the popular vote," which Shuster kept saying. I think it was just a plurality. Clearly, Shuster is not a careful journalist as he throws out 'facts' that are almost right, but not quite right.
Further, if you raise the full seating of FL and MI, then these 2 PUMA people could argue that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. Or, ergo, if they don't get to count for the popular vote - yet they get full delegate counts pulled out of thin air (given the people's votes aren't counting in a popular vote metric), there is in fact a problem with the democratic process and representation. No matter who you supported, I would hope all can agree that never again should 2 of our largest states (especially Florida as the GOP legislature moved the date of the primary) should be punished by making their 'votes' invalidated. If so, then we might as well just get rid of primaries altogether and just truly select at a convention. Not very democratic.
Anyway, it was fun to see these guys get shamed if you don't want their anti-Obama message getting out there. The real shame in my view is that they do have an important, though poorly presented, argument about reform of the party rules in the hopes that all 50 states get to have a vote in the future and to avoid the FL-MI fiasco. A secondary democratic goal for reform would certainly be to change caucuses to be more open to participation (less of a problem in Iowa, but more of a problem in states like Washington and Nebraska, which don't go first).
Finally, the fact these PUMA folks gave past donations in 2000 to McCain is much more damaging to them than anything that Shuster factually got wrong regarding a "majority of the popular vote" and he should have focused on this. Shuster is, at best, a mediocre journalist.
Personally I found the PUMA fund-raising to be the most amusing moment - $50,000! By the standards of modern politics, than doesn't even qualify as chump change. If you assumed an average donation of $100, which might be generous, then the might and majesty of PUMA consists of a grand national total of 500 people! Assume an average of $500, and the ranks shrink to.... well, gee, 100 enraged individuals, possibly including rightwing crazies. Is Denver ready for the storm?
Chris,
I have no problem with looking at the primary process and making it more Democratic. I like proportional allocation, but I'm not a big fan of caucuses. But the point about "primary reform" needs to be decoupled from any notion of "We wuz robbed."
Interesting detail.
I troll those PUMA sites because I am fascinated by this trainwreck.
Those same PUMA people who argue pickign Sebelius as VP would be a tremendous insult to Hillary because she is a woman that did not support another woman for President and that would be tokenism had a poll to decide who should be Hillary's VP (yeah, they think she will win the roll call. Don't ask).
Michael Nutter.
If that doesn't tell you what it needs to tell you about the double standard, I don't know what will.
Just astounding. From the "inevitability" meme to this . . . It reminds me of one of Steve Martin's titles for books he said he had written: How I Turned a Million Dollars in Real Estate into $25 in Cash.
oh noes!!! teh pumas were robbed!!! dont support obama because we need a real prezident who is 1337 and knows about the secret border between iraq and pakistan!!!
Don't have cable, so this was my first chance to see this Shuster character. Not impressed. First thought that came to my mind is that he's a liberal O'Reilly and I'm not sure that's a model to applaud. A well informed host could've taken the PUMA people appart without the "gotcha" nonsense. All he had to do was say "Hillary agreed to the rules, in fact, Hillary's people set the rules. What are you complaining about?"
michellekabbott: It's fascinating that the PUMA people picked Nutter as Hillary's "VP Choice". I volunteered for Nutter in early 2007 back when he was in last place of Philly's Mayoral Democratic primary. To see his national status skyrocket to the point that he is in the conversation for VP (even if the conversation is being held but crazy Hillary deadenders) fills my heart with joy. He's been a terrific mayor, and a truly post racial figure in what is quite clearly still a very racialized country.
If these people are so willing to vote against their self interest then they deserve a McCain presidency filled with lobbyist induced wars...
The one thing I have yet to hear asked any of these maniacs is simply, "what is the one issue on which Hilary Clinton is so right, and Barak Obama so wrong that a McCain presidency would be preferable?" I have yet to hear even an insane response and until I do I will continue to regard these folk's barely restrained mania as symptoms of something far deeper than mere political differences. They clearly don't mind the prospect of McCain appointing a few more members of Opus Dei on the Supreme Court, so long as they scream and pout long enough to get their way, so I'm going to go out on a limb and say this goes a bit deeper than a dispute over delegates. And they say Obama supporters are "Cult-like."
Oh and another thing, there are no "reasonable" or "sensible" advocates for the PUMA position than there are reasonable, sensible or well-spoke advocates for the 9/11 truth movement.
By any and every objective measure, Hilary lost. Obama won. Were the tables turned I sincerely doubt any Obama supporter would have that difficult a time pulling the lever for Hilary. If you can't get past this simple fact and move on, then chances are "politics" are just about the furthest thing from your concerns.
I'm reminded of the Japanese pilots they found on Pacific islands years after the war who had no idea Japan had surrendered.
What I'm saying is that these guys belong on Gilligan's Island.
To dearleader nyc, "Were the tables turned I sincerely doubt any Obama supporter would have that difficult a time pulling the lever for Hilary."
I just don't agree with this statement. If the inverse counterfactual were true, there would be Obama folks doing the same thing, albeit a minority of them. If it was this close, but with Clinton having slightly more pledged delegates, Clinton going over the magic number due to superdelegate endorsements, her losing the last few primaries handily to Obama, and say South Carolina and Wisconsin (for instance, for the sake of argument) were the states punished had they moved their primaries earlier instead of Florida and Michigan, there would be some hard feelings. Add on top of that over 2 months of white commentators bloviating on 'when will Obama drop out?' even though he was only behind by 100 to 200 delegates. I think there would be some hard feelings, as there is likely to be in this sort of extremely close situation that got personal.
In fact, the Obama campaign made this argument effectively to push supers toward him just after Super Tuesday when it wasn't obvious for certain who would win the most delegates, though Obama was building momentum with his string of wins after Super Tuesday. Doug Wilder said there would be 'riots in the streets in Denver' if Obama had the nomination stolen if Clinton was put over the top by supers. This could be interpreted as a correct statement, or alternatively as Wilder's strategy to scare supers with something akin to 1972 all over again in order to get people on board with Obama to shut the thing down and build momentum for Obama.
"He simply badgered them."
The deserved to be "badgered." They were engaged in irrational double-talk. What was he supposed to do ? Pat them on the head for being disingenuous and moronic ?
I don't believe for a minute that had Hillary prevailed under the DNC rules - which everyone expected -that a single on of these folks who are upset about caucuses (I happen to think that having some caucuses in states where that's the tradition serves democracy well) or enraged at the DNC ruliing in Fla or MI,which Hillary, Ickes, et al supported, would be rattling on about "democracy" or demanding that the rules be changed in the future or that Obama was screwed.
This festering Hillary thing is shameless, utterly dishonest and, in some folks, borderline psychotic.
God I'm glad we're done with the Clintonphiles...Mark Penn, Wolfson, Lanny Davis and the rest of the dirtbags. A couple of them seem to be on the Dick Morris path to stabbing mainstream Democrats in the back as hack cable commentators.
Personally I found the PUMA fund-raising to be the most amusing moment - $50,000! By the standards of modern politics, than doesn't even qualify as chump change. If you assumed an average donation of $100, which might be generous, then the might and majesty of PUMA consists of a grand national total of 500 people! Assume an average of $500, and the ranks shrink to.... well, gee, 100 enraged individuals, possibly including rightwing crazies. Is Denver ready for the storm?
Chris, you forget that Clinton had a significant superdelegate lead before the voting even began. She must've been using some argument in order to secure their commitments. It's unfair to begrudge Obama for using the arguments available to him to secure commitments from unaffiliated superdelegates.
The primary process needs reform. The superdelegates need to go, the caucuses are archaic and what the hell makes New Hampshire and Iowa so special anyway? However, these discussions have nothing to do with the race that just ended. Everyone was faced with the same rules and the same goofy system. For Hillary supporters to want to change the rules halfway through the game, just because it would suit their interests was/is highly hypocritical.
Matt J FTW.
I work with one of these lunatics -- it's not even possible to talk to her anymore. I will say, though, if my coworker is a fair exemplar of the PUMA phenomenon, the particular confection of personal issues, unexamined biases, irrational reactions and just straight-out pathologies that appears to have given rise to her position is so massively strange that it's hard to imagine it occurring with any great frequency in the population as a whole. Even the Naderites seem saner.
Chris said: "For instance, in Washington state, about 1% of the population participated in the Dem. caucus this year; but the participation was substantially higher in the non-binding primary."
Well, no. Nearly 10% of the population participated in the dem caucus in Washington (518k people or so). Only a few more participated in the (mail-in) primary: about 557,000. In any case, much more than 1% turnout for the caucus.
Chris,
Bad feelings to be sure, it was a tight passionate race with some bad blood, especially considering how dirty Clinton got as soon as she started losing....but voting for John McCain? yeah right.
I have not once heard or read, online, or in person, from a single Obama supporter that should he not get the nomination they would vote for McCain. Whereas I've heard nothing but that from Hilary supporters, and even a few who might actually mean it. Maybe you've heard otherwise. Too bad we'll never know, and we're stuck with these seriously deluded clowns.
That being said, I think the Puma phenom is vastly overrated, and should not have any real effect on the outcome of the race, outside amusement.
"If these people are so willing to vote against their self interest then they deserve a McCain presidency filled with lobbyist induced wars..."
Like they'd care. They're not the sort of people who fight in those wars anyway.
I participated in the Washington State Caucus.
The caucus occured *before* the primaries; everyone understood that the primaries were non-binding for the presidential nomination process.
Turnout was extremely high; Queen Anne Middle School was completely packed (on the Democrat side). The Republicans had a much smaller contingent (the race was more or less decided by then). Oh, and the caucuses were held on a Saturday (the primaries were on a tuesday).
The estimates on WaPo and other media sites were pulled from someone's ass, because the NY Times itself reports the following, "The party says a record 250,000 people turned out for the caucuses, which Senator Barack Obama won by 36 percentage points."
Also; Clinton lost the primary (but not by a comparable margin).
Lastly, however; the rules were set long before the race began. Clinton's campaign presumably understood this (although the leaked memos suggest otherwise) and they failed to take advantage. This isn't even a beef with some legitimacy, like the Florida recounts. This is just whinging.
I don't believe all the PUMA people are nuts like the ones shown above, but I don't see much worth considering in their stance. Clinton lost, the world moves on. Get over yourselves (because that's what its really about, innit?)
C-R-A-Z-Y. I'm hearing two voices in my head. One is Patsy Cline and the other is Andy Warhol. Fifteen minutes of fame wasted on that!?
Ed said: "Well, no. Nearly 10% of the population participated in the dem caucus in Washington (518k people or so). Only a few more participated in the (mail-in) primary: about 557,000. In any case, much more than 1% turnout for the caucus."
Ed, well, no. You are simply mistaken and have pulled your 518k number out of nowhere. I'll cite my statistics and show you are mistaken. Without question, many more people participated in Washington state's non-binding, meaningless primary than participated in their quite meaningful, delegate-allocating caucus.
The facts:
Initial estimate of participation in Washington caucus(source: Seattle King5 NBC news, WA Dem. party official, Feb. 9): 200,000*
Turnout in non-binding WA primary (source: George Mason Univ. voter turnout figures): 557,435 **
Population of Washington(source: census '06 population estimates): 6,395,798
WA Dem. caucus turnout was thus 3.1% of the state's population. WA Dem. primary turnout was 8.7% of the state's population. Washington is a Dem-leaning state, so let's estimate that about 55% of the population would potentially be interested in voting in the Democratic primary or caucus. With this assumption, 5.6% of Democrats voted in the caucus, while 15.8% of Democrats participated in the meaningless primary. If we considered only voting-age population, the participation rates would go higher obviously too.
But the point is clear. Few people participated in either the caucus or the primary. But double the number of voters took part in a meaningless primary than took part in the Washington caucus. This is because caucuses are tough to participate in. As one who does not think we need barriers to voting, but access, these caucuses should be scaled back or eliminated. I mistakenly said 1% of WA's population took part in the caucus, but it was actually 3%, a paltry sad number for choosing our next president. Sad for democracy and voting rights.
In sum, we must get rid of caucuses if you care about democracy in the nomination process. It doesn't matter who you supported this year or past years. I've been against caucuses for awhile now, because I value participation. And I don't have a problem with this election spurring some Clinton supporters against caucuses. It wasn't going to change without some sort of controversy. How many voters thought the Electoral College was a bad thing (or thought about it at all) until the 2000 general? The DNC should re-consider EXPANDING the number of caucus states in the future, which is something they did this year. The more caucuses there are, the fewer Democrats there are participating as voters, and the fewer people participating, the less democratic.
*Source on 200k figure: http://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/
NW_020908POB_washington_caucus_TP.a6546093.html. Because turnout data are not made public by the Dem. party, this is the estimate used most frequently in news coverage immediately following the caucus. A Dem. party official in Washington later upgraded the estimate to 250,000 in the caucus, but this was done after the caucus turnout numbers were being criticized as being quite low, so it is hard to know. Either way 200k or 250k is a miniscule turnout in a large state like Washington's choosing a presidential nominee.
**Source: from George Mason, http://elections.gmu.edu/
Voter_Turnout_2008_Primaries.htm
C-R-A-Z-Y. I'm hearing two voices in my head. One is Patsy Cline and the other is Andy Warhol. Fifteen minutes of fame wasted on that!?
To Joel, my point in comparing primary figures to caucus figures is not to argue that Obama shouldn't have won or re-litigate the results (Obama won both the meaningless primary and the meaningful caucus).
My point in bringing up the turnout figures in the primary is to show how caucuses substantially reduce political participation and harm voting rights.
Even though (as you stated) "everyone understood that the primaries were non-binding for the presidential nomination process," double the amount of people took part in the primary than took part in the caucus. It was just to compare turnout to show that caucuses have very low turnout. This is normatively alarming if you care about increasing voting participation and providing access to the polls to all.
More comparisons. In the Montana primary over 700k participated even though it was obvious Obama would be the nominee. And Montana is tiny in population compared to Washington. The caucuses are simply undemocratic from the perspective of voting rights.
And, while I know a number of caucus precincts were quite crowded, as it sounds like yours was, that does not mean a lot of people participated in the aggregate. Imagine if everyone who voted in a high-profile election primary that shows up throughout the day all crammed into that room in the school your caucus was held in. There wouldn't have been enough room because if we actually had turnout in caucuses resembling primary turnout, they'd be unmanageable.
This is my last thought on this, as I need to get back to work. But Obama is faced with a choice regarding caucuses after he is elected president. While they helped him win, will he retain them because of that? Or will the professor of voting rights at the Univ. of Chicago, who probably would never have argued for an electoral system like the Dem. caucuses (not one person, one vote; biased against urban populations as rural precincts count more per capita, etc.) put an end to these undemocratic election mechanisms? I hope the latter.
Chris, why don't you answer dearleader NYC's main question, the only really important one on this entire issue:
"what is the one issue on which Hilary Clinton is so right, and Barak Obama so wrong that a McCain presidency would be preferable?"
Unless you are voting for Obama and not McCain. Which is it? How sour are the grapes?
. But Obama is faced with a choice regarding caucuses after he is elected president. While they helped him win, will he retain them because of that?
President of USA is not the same job as Chairman of the DNC.
in other words: you need to take it up with Howard Dean and the Party leadership of each individual state. they are the people who decide the primary / caucus systems.
Phoebe said: "Chris, why don't you answer dearleader NYC's main question, the only really important one on this entire issue: "what is the one issue on which Hilary Clinton is so right, and Barak Obama so wrong that a McCain presidency would be preferable?""
When did I ever say I wasn't voting for Obama?
Chris: "When did I ever say I wasn't voting for Obama?"
That seems to be the PUMA position. So: Are you voting for Obama?
I am planning on voting for Obama in the general, and I'm not associated with PUMA. I don't see why acknowledging that there are a lot of hard feelings and that Obama barely won the nomination makes someone part of PUMA. There is a sense by me and by others who were Clinton supporters that they are being taken for granted or even dismissed (we don't need them, we have 'new' young voters).
I also get a sense that the Obama base voters on blogs really don't care much that Clinton's voters were silenced in caucuses. I attended a caucus in Iowa (as an outside observer as I was visiting friends in town and don't live there), and upon its end went to watch the results of the caucus at a bar in town (the bar happened to be in the hotel where some reporters and Obama staffers were staying).
I asked the waitress and bartender if they caucused and who they supported. Their answer was incredulous, as they noted they were working then. They told me that if they could have voted, one would have supported Clinton and the other Edwards. After this conversation, they went and took the orders of some of the Obama staff and reporters staying at the hotel.
The fact that Democrats are expanding caucuses (e.g., Nebraska held a caucus this year for the first time instead of a primary) instead of contracting them is alarming if you care about voting rights and if you care about this bartender and waitress having the right to vote (regardless of who they voted for). I can't believe that the Democratic party, of all parties, is purposely excluding lower income workers from voting. Look at the Iowa exit poll, as about 1/4 of the participants in the Dem. caucus made over $100k a year. And this is in Iowa, where most people (let alone Democrats) don't make this much money.
I also think that a very close loss by Clinton does shine a light onto the undemocratic nature of caucuses and other parts of the presidential nomination system. That is a good thing. The status quo doesn't change until something goes wrong in some people's eyes.
I also think the caucus system easily could have hurt a candidate like Obama in a different year and perhaps had he not been from neighboring Illinois. Why should an overwhelmingly white and upper income system that is not one person, one vote be used to select the presidential nominee?
Do you not support one person, one vote principles in the Democratic party? Would you not favor getting rid of any system that discourages voter turnout.
This argument against caucuses is nutty. We're talking about a political party choosing it's candidate - not a general election. If state parties want to hold open caucuses as the route to that, so be it. I've not heard any of this bullshit until Missus Inevitable lost by running a totally fucked campaign against a candiate who ran a very smart and well-managed one. The last thing in the world I would want is someone as strategically inept - despite huge advantages going in - and so prone to narcissitic drama as the Clinton camp back in the White House.
This argument against caucuses is nutty. We're talking about a political party choosing it's candidate - not a general election. If state parties want to hold open caucuses as the route to that, so be it. I've not heard any of this bullshit until Missus Inevitable lost by running a totally fucked campaign against a candiate who ran a very smart and well-managed one. The last thing in the world I would want is someone as strategically inept - despite huge advantages going in - and so prone to narcissitic drama as the Clinton camp back in the White House.
Incidentally, caucuses are "one person, one vote." Which is more than can be said for elections with only one person's name on the ballot...which the Clinton cult considered somehow "legitimate." This is just disingenuous horseshit from sore losers.
To brucds:
Before you post, you ought to do some research. Seriously. Many people have criticize the caucus before for its undemocratic nature. And it is not one person, one vote. The number of delegates per precinct is allocated based on participation in the past election. So all the new voters Obama brought to vote who had never participated before in the urban areas like Iowa City and Des Moines actually counted less than the rural precincts (which went for Edwards heavily, and to a lesser extent, Clinton). They are far from one person, one vote.
And while the Supreme Court has ruled that election mechanisms run by state parties are relatively immune to lawsuits on voting rights grounds, there are major democratic problems with caucuses. Given that the primaries/caucuses have a major role in selecting the nominee and given the extreme bias against urban areas and thus racial and ethnic minorities (in states like Nevada), there is grounds for a voting rights lawsuit against caucuses. The white primary was adopted by state Democratic parties during Jim Crow, but I for one, think it was worth fighting. I also think it is worth fighting 'elections' that are not one person, one vote.
For more on the extreme lack of one person, one vote, written BEFORE a single vote was cast in the 2008 election, see here. It will hopefully make you re-think your position. Don't support undemocratic electoral systems just because your preferred candidate won under those undemocratic electoral systems. Obama clearly knew the delegate rules and the caucus math. If there weren't caucuses, his savvy electoral team would have made different strategic decisions and very well might have won under primary-only systems too.
See here for the bias against urban areas embedded in the caucus and the lack of a one person, one vote standard:
http://geekbuffet.wordpress.com/2007/11/04/grinnells-special-role-in-iowas-quadrennial-farce/
Finally, the fact these PUMA folks gave past donations in 2000 to McCain is much more damaging to them than anything that Shuster factually got wrong regarding a "majority of the popular vote" and he should have focused on this.
Hardly. I know a lot of centrist Democrats who donated to McCain in the primary. In fact, I reregistered as a Republican to vote for him in California. I still intended to--and did--vote for Gore in the general, but I would much rather have had McCain than Bush.
I've voted for a Democrat every presidential election of my adult life--until this one. I may have voted for Dukakis and Kerry, but shallow nonentities whose sole accomplishment in life is getting other people to pay him for doing nothing will have to look elsewhere.
I'm not a member of PUMA, but there's a reason Obama's doing so badly compared to expectations. Some percentage of Democrats would much rather McCain than an empty suit with a teleprompter habit leading a Democrat majority in Congress.
"Some percentage of Democrats"
Great use of non-speak. I could just as accurately say "Some percentage of Democrats are have won Olympic Gold Medals" and "Some percentage of Democrats have been in space," but this doesn't tell us anything significant. Polls at this time of year, especially before the conventions and VP picks while the Olympics are going on, don't really tell us anything (and even then, they still show Obama winning, especially in the Electoral College).
The truth of the matter is that Obama won and Clinton lost because more people liked Obama than Clinton as their top choice. Clinton, meanwhile, is someone who lost what should have been an easy primary campaign and has shown both bad political and policy judgment. If you are still sore about this after Clinton has started campaigning for Obama, that says a lot more about you than Obama.
To Reality Man: Even if you don't agree with Cal, the polls are currently showing about 20% of Democrats and 30% of Clinton supporters not supporting Obama (some for McCain, others undecided). This is a problem for Obama, and he's gotta fix it. You are right, polls don't matter now as the only one that matters is in November. But polls do give us an indication of where the race is now. And as a (admittedly) weak Obama supporter, I'm very nervous about the polls. Obama should be doing better, and given that I would drop 2-3% of Obama's margin in the poll due to racial bias, I'm really nervous.
But for some voters, it isn't about being "sore" losers. There are probably 10% of Dems or so in the electorate that are Scoop Jackson Democrats - more hawkish on national security than Obama and more in line with McCain on that issue - but liberal on other domestic issues. Especially a number of lower-to-middle income suburban women with children, who were the swing voters in '04 view 'safety' and 'security' as important issues (who do you want to answer the phone at 3am?), yet are also concerned about their families' finances. They are the swing voters, and i they participated in the primaries, many of them supported Clinton and have yet to be wooed.
It will depend on what matters most to these voters in November. If it is national security, they'll vote McCain. If it domestic issues, they'll vote Obama. There are also some anti-tax independents that are moving toward McCain now due to his attack ads against Obama. This is putting aside the change (Obama) v. experience (McCain) decision calculus in some voters' minds and the competence calculus (both can make an argument here, in different ways).
But to suggest that non-PUMA Dems or independents are voting for McCain out of spite or "sore" loser-ness is wrong for the bulk of the American populace. Many are closer to McCain on some issues, while closer to Obama on other issues.
The truth of the matter is that Obama won and Clinton lost because more people liked Obama than Clinton as their top choice.
This is incorrect. Obama won because 90% of blacks supported him in the South and several hundred thousand liberals supported him in caucuses. That's a perfectly legit way to win, alas, but it's simply untrue to say that more people liked him.
And you should pay attention to what Chris is saying. I am not adamantly pro-Clinton. I am deeply, deeply anti-Obama because he has no achievements, no personality, and no depth. Moreover, to the extent that he does appear to have beliefs, he will govern far to the left of Clinton, who is more of a pragmatist. I usually support Democrats, but I am not and will never be "progressive". Clinton was the only Democrat I would trust to lead a Democratic congress, because she's experienced the punishment of going too far to the left.
Bizarre, really, to point out what Clinton is doing, as if that is supposed to matter. She's a politician who wants to be in good position to run again. So naturally she's supporting Obama. What do I care? The best thing for me, a moderate Democrat, is for Obama to be beaten so badly that Democrats learn again for the next 30 years how moronic it is to put up leftists--much left leftists who haven't accomplished a thing. If he must win, then I'd rather he--rather, his handlers, or whoever writes his speeches for the teleprompters--be well aware that he didn't win over the moderates. It might serve to make them more cautious.
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. And you're no "moderate" - you're a wack-job in the mold of Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman.
Chris - before you tell me to do more research, maybe you should do some. The District allocation of delegates according to a pre-determined formula held true in my own state of California, meaning that no matter how many folks we turned out compared to another district, there was a ceiling on our delegate representation. So your argument is bullshit. It's special pleading after the fact.
Your candidate ran a campaign that sucked. It was run by some very creepy people. The Democratic Party needed to get past the Cult of Clinton. Good goddam riddance. Time to grow up and move on...
Cal, you do realize that Obama and Clinton had nearly identical policy positions, and that where they differed, Obama was to the right of Clinton? Do you recall the way Paul Krugman bashed Obama over and over during the primaries for this very reason?
BK - it doesn't matter. These are not rational types. Obama freaks them out, for reasons that they aren't likely to fully disclose. Also, the reference above to "Scoop Jackson Democrats" is rich. Those would be Richard Perle, William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Eliot Abrans, James Woolsey, Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman, etc. etc. The Democratic Party didn't leave these people, as they are wont to whine - they left the Democratic Party to promote an essentially crackpot "national security" agenda that, ironically, has weakened the U.S. globally to a degree that's unprecedented.
All this hoopla about how undemocratic caucuses are should be taken up with the parties, not the candidates. Parties promote caucuses because they are a valuable tool in building party apparatus.
States that traditionally vote Rep would be natural targets for caucuses on the Dem side as they need to build the ground network to build support for their party.
Good grief...don't like the caucus system, run for a party office and change it. Complaining after the fact about it being undemocratic (caucuses have been in place for decades) is unproductive and only makes the losing candidate seem a sore loser.
Take all that energy and run for a position where you can advocate for change. Take some advice from Obama and get organized locally to advocate for your view.
But that requires work and positive action rather than depending on someone else to do it for you.
"This is incorrect. Obama won because 90% of blacks supported him in the South and several hundred thousand liberals supported him in caucuses. That's a perfectly legit way to win, alas, but it's simply untrue to say that more people liked him."
So blacks like him better, but that doesn't count? You should have re-read this before posting it. Black people aren't drones who just vote for who has black skin, otherwise Steele would be in the US Senate instead of Cardin and Cohen would have lost to Tinker or whatever who name is.
Gary D. said: "Parties promote caucuses because they are a valuable tool in building party apparatus."
Caucuses don't really build a party any more than a competitive presidential primary. Pennsylvania's primaries increased the Democratic registration there by a few % points, possibly moving it from a very swing state to a lean Dem. state. That is because of closed registration.
Caucuses don't build parties. There is a reason the only states with caucuses have moribund Democratic parties. The caucuses certainly aren't brining many voters in. Parties in red states like them because they are cheap to run. A pretty lame reason to hold an undemocratic process.
And finally, presidential candidates do in fact have a major role in determining who runs the DNC. Hell, the DNC has literally been moved to Chicago this summer. And since when is posting on blogs not one venue for social commentary and action? I've made by views clear to others too, but the response has been "Hillary lost." Not exactly a response to the undemocratic nature of the caucus.
The issue of democratic/undemocratic is ridiculous. These are party nominating events, not democratic elections. The parties could well get rid of them if they chose and select their candidates separately. It is the party's prerogative to choose how it will choose its nominee. Don't like it? Run as an Independent or start a party with different nominating procedures. If the public cares enough or feels otherwise like their voting rights are being restricted, they'll join. If not, then whining about "democracy" when we have a) an electoral college b) a United States Senate c) term limits in a number of states and for president and d) when only 50% of the people (at best) vote is a bit silly in the context of a party nominating process.
I should also add that in Nebraska (where I am at), the caucus was created because the Republican party refused to move the primary up from May. At the time, the Democrats wanted a chance to influence the process and wanted to move the primary to February. That was impossible without the Republican governor, so they created a caucus. It was ABSOLUTELY the right decision in terms of enthusiasm and creating a forum for Democrats, who are usually in hiding, to come together for a bit. It also brought Barack Obama to the state and will at least make one of our congressional districts competitive in the general (which could net one electoral vote since we split ours). This caucus did build the party and increased the activity of people who otherwise were Democrats but who were stuck in the woodwork. That, frankly, is better for the Democratic party in this state than if more people had participated - and that's unquestionable.
The rules were agreed to, the elections happened, and the parties will continue to make their own choices relative to how they choose their standard bearers. There are much more significant and important issues in American democracy, elections or otherwise, that should be our focus, not the nominating process which works pretty well.
Cal, you do realize that Obama and Clinton had nearly identical policy positions, and that where they differed, Obama was to the right of Clinton?
This always makes me laugh. As if policy positions matter a damn. Anyone who thinks we're getting universal health care (or anything close to it) in a Democratic presidency is delusional.
Policy positions don't matter to me. I care about approach to leadership, pragmatism, and demonstrated ability to take a punch. Obama doesn't only lack a political history. He lacks any history at all. He can parrot whatever positions the teleprompter puts up, but that doesn't mean anyone should take him at his word--because his word clearly has no value.
That said, Obama was far to the left of Clinton on the war, on illegal immigration, on DOMA, and a host of other issues.
So blacks like him better, but that doesn't count? You should have re-read this before posting it.
You should have reread it--or better yet, understood it. The claim was that Obama won more votes. He didn't. Clinton won registered Democrats by a good 4-6 points. She won the overall vote count as well. And if you take Obama's enormous (and questionable) margin in Cook County, she comes close to winning even without Michigan and Florida.
Obama won more delegates, which is what he needed to do. But he didn't win more voters.
Ed said: "The issue of democratic/undemocratic is ridiculous. These are party nominating events, not democratic elections. The parties could well get rid of them if they chose and select their candidates separately. It is the party's prerogative to choose how it will choose its nominee."
Sure, parties do have the prerogative - within limits - of selecting how their nominee is chosen. But the U.S. also has the 14th amendment, that all citizens should have equal protection under the law. Electoral laws apply to primaries and nomination systems as well as to general elections, though the laws are more precise about general elections.
But your argument was the same one used by white supremacist Democrats during Jim Crow days. When black citizens were allowed to vote due to the 14th and 15th amendments, the Democratic party in the South just simply said, 'Sure, you can vote, but just not in the primary.' The alleged rationale was that parties can pick their nominees any way they see fit. But the courts have said this isn't the case, and these primaries are now illegal. Similarly, any primary selection process that weights the votes of whites more than minorities could be sued under the Voting Rights Act. But because caucuses weight the votes of rural areas than urban areas more given the delegate allocation system, and in many states, minorities are in larger numbers in urban areas, then the caucuses are not just undemocratic, but potentially racially discriminatory (in states like Texas, Alaska, Nevada, Washington, which all have caucuses).
THE PUMAS ARE TOTALLY JUSTIFIED ...
1. Contrary to what Obamabots say ...
Obama and Hillary were in a dead heat,
when the DNC pressured Hillary into not
only conceding, but campaigning for Obama.
2. Obama is once again in a dead heat, but now
with McCain, even though Obamabots act like
Obama has already won (like they did in the
primaries against Hillary). So, this means that
half of the Democrats, and all the Republicans
(3/4 of America) dIdn't want Obama. Plus, he
didn't even win the popular vote, and refused a
revote in Michigan and Florida.
3. Obama has the thinnest resume in politics, and
he won state legislature and Senator by
disqualifications of his opponents, not by earned
experience, or votes.
4. Obama's one claim to fame is being a community
organizer, where he boasts of registering voters.
Then he took their votes away from them, by
disqualifying his opponents on technicalities, prior
to the election.
5. Obama's mentor of 20 years, was an anti-American
racist ... not to mention other unsavory associations.
6. Obama is simply buying the election, since he's
good at fund raising ... hardly a qualification to be
President of the United States.
7. The media never vetted Obama, and they are
giving him a free ride, plus more than twice the
print and air time as McCain, as they did against
Hillary.
8. 90% of blacks are voting for Obama, because he is
black, while the campaign gained ground by
accusing most opponents of racism.
9. Obamabots were, and are extremely nasty and sarcastic
towards Hillary supporters, as well as McCain supporters.
10. Pumas should be applauded for putting country before party ...
especially a party that did not represent them, and a party
which highjacked the nomination for Obama.
11. Obama added insult to injury, when he didn't even consider
Hillary for V.P. ... nor did he even call her ... even though she
got 18 million votes in the primary.
12. Obama and the DNC are now holding a gun to the heads of
Hillary and Bill Clinton, giving them an ultimatum ... either support
Obama, or kiss your future in the DNC and politics goodbye.
P.S. Michelle Obama subjected her two young children to anti-American racists ... Jeremiah Wright, Farrakahn, Pfleiger, and others
at the black liberation Trinity church in Chicago, for several years. Is this who you want for first lady ... I don't think so !!