insomnia: Death of the Do-over, Part Deux.

Insomnia (

insomnia) wrote,
@ 2008-03-18 12:21:00

Death of the Do-over, Part Deux.

No Michigan Primary either, it seems.

Senior Hillary adviser Harold Ickes claims that the Obama campaign is trying to prevent a revote, but Michigan's former governor, a Hillary supporter, says that a revote probably wouldn't make much of a difference anyway, as the delegates would be split very evenly in that state.

Given that Hillary's supporters were saying that they needed Florida and Michigan to come into the convention only slightly behind, but with clear momentum enough to sway superdelegates to their side to possibly win, well...

As an interesting side note, Hillary supporter Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania tried to hit George Soros up for the money for a Michigan do-over.

His reply?

"George Soros does not support holding another primary in Michigan because he believes doing so will further delay the selection of a Democratic candidate in November."

I could've told 'em that. They're barkin' up the wrong billionaire. Besides, Soros is one of the few decent billionaires out there, as witnessed by the causes he supports.

(Post a new comment)

	tadziu 2008-03-18 09:35 pm UTC (link)
	If the party is smart, they should tell Hilary...win Penn or else. We don't want to drag this out. McCain has already enough of a head start. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	robby 2008-03-18 09:44 pm UTC (link)
	Hillary probably will win Pennsylvania. It might look bad for the Democratic party to further subvert the democratic system, especially since they came up with the superdelegate scam 20 years ago so the voters wouldn't have as much control of the process of choosing a candidate. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

insomnia
2008-03-18 10:04 pm UTC (link)

I agree that she probably will win Pennsylvania... and Obama will probably win North Carolina and Guam decisively, quite possibly making up any lost delegates. That will leave just a few 60ish delegate states left, with Kentucky probably a Hillary state, Oregon an Obama state, and any possible gains for her in Puerto Rico canceled out by likely large Obama victories in Montana and South Dakota.

The way I see it, the only people who can help Hillary significantly in the upcoming races are Rush Limbaugh supporters, who could help her by as many as 8% in several of the Red states... but that still wouldn't be enough.

The longer this thing goes on, the more it will become clear that Hillary Clinton apparently has no grasp of basic arithmetic.

Edited at 2008-03-18 10:07 pm UTC

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	robby 2008-03-18 10:12 pm UTC (link)
	It would be a terrible mistake for the Democratic party to interfere in the process and try to annoint a early nominee. This thing must be allowed play out so not to alienate any potential Democratic voters in the general election. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	insomnia 2008-03-18 11:18 pm UTC (link)
	I don't really think it would be a big problem. It's perfectly legitimate for superdelegates to back whoever they want, whenever they want. They have so far, and will continue to do so. If Gore, Edwards, Dean, Richardson, etc. want to come forward and support a candidate, they should certainly have that right. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	robby 2008-03-18 11:29 pm UTC (link)
	That's not the issue. Of course any prominent Democrat has the right to publicly support their candidate of choice. An earlier comment by someone suggested that the Democratic primary should come to a quick conclusion now, for the good of the party. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

insomnia
2008-03-19 02:14 am UTC (link)

"An earlier comment by someone suggested that the Democratic primary should come to a quick conclusion now, for the good of the party."

I think that it would be okay for blocs of the superdels to act as a group and back a candidate. That wouldn't necessarily end things, but it could certainly make the final outcome clear, thereby ending things effectively.

Ultimately, this doesn't end until Barack Obama has another 403 delegates or Hillary bows out. I can't really see it ending any other way, short of gunfire.

Edited at 2008-03-19 02:17 am UTC

(Reply to this)(Parent)

insomnia
2008-03-18 09:56 pm UTC (link)

That's silly though, because she almost certainly will win Pennsylvania, as it's an ideal state for her.

The issue isn't whether she wins Pennsylvania or not... it's whether she wins it in an absolutely decisive manner or not, and then manages to not lose all her gains there with losses in Guam, Indiana, and North Carolina. Frankly, I see signs of Guam and North Carolina as being bigger Obama victories than Hillary is likely to obtain in Pennsylvania.

Really, it's hard to look at the remaining contests and not reach the conclusion that they are likely to be a tie for Hillary, at best. She needs to somehow gain around 80 delegates to make any kind of argument about electability... and even then, she'd be hobbled.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	Wicker Man jackgreen60 2008-03-18 11:15 pm UTC (link)
	I'm searching across the universe for burn friendly folk to invite to the Wicker Man which is an event in Pennsylvania during Memorial Day weekend. If by chance you might be interested, you can find information about the burn at this website. http://www.wickermanburning.org Jack in the Green (Reply to this)

untasted
2008-03-20 04:57 am UTC (link)

I guess it makes sense that the Obama campaign would not want to do a revote, because they're in the lead right now, but I actually live in Michigan and think that a revote would do him good. The only big name on the ballot was hers, and she still just got a little over 50%. The only other real choice was "uncommitted." I think that it is likely that he could win Michigan. But hey, it does make sense for him to not want a revote. Who are you supporting, by the way? I've looked through your posts, but it's hard to say for certain.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	insomnia 2008-03-20 10:28 am UTC (link)
	I definitely support Obama. The idea that we should choose Clinton, who has a record of failure, and who was wrong about Iraq AND Iran just doens't make sense. She completely embraces corporate and military-industrial interests, at the expense of ordinary people. (Reply to this)(Parent)

Mini Sitemap:

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…