See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Why the two key spins “can’t close the deal” and “Only the popular vote” are breathtakingly stupid
Source:
DU Blog
URL Source: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/grantcart/63
Published: Apr 23, 2008
Author: grantcart
Post Date: 2008-04-23 19:32:10 by nolu_chan
Keywords: None
Views: 191
Comments: 11
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/grantcart/63 Why the two key spins “can’t close the deal” and “Only the popular vote” are breathtakingly stupid Posted by grantcart in General Discussion: Primaries (DU) CURSING YOUR HIGH SCHOOL GUIDANCE COUNSELOR. Listening to the talking heads repeat these two idiotic spin memes over and over makes you wonder why your guidance counselor didn’t tell you to become a talking head and make millions making more common sense than these idiots who download their emails from the Clinton campaign and then say, “well the Clinton campaign will argue”. I know that you all know why they are stupid but for the record (and by the way I hate the pretentiousness of people who say ‘by the record’) and for convenient future cutting and pasting for future idiotic threads that try and repeat these palpable idiot spins the following: HE CANNOT CLOSE THE DEAL 1) ‘He cannot close the deal’ or ‘he cannot shut the gate’ or any other stupid analogy that indicates the closing of a container or other mechanical device: a) Reason One: It’s a near mathematical impossibility. He would have to get 71% of the delegates/ It would be enough to simply say in a competitive two person race where proportional distribution of delegates in a race where elected delegates constitute only 80% of the total it is virtually impossible to win the nomination with just pledged delegates, let alone when only 80% of the pledged delegates have been chosen. To have won enough delegates at this point in time Obama would have had to win 71% of the delegates. To get 71% of the delegates you would have to consistently get 75% of the vote. b) Reason Two: It clearly is a contradiction and therefore and argument against itself. On the one hand the Clinton campaign is arguing that they should be elected because they are the tough campaign professionals that can win the general election. When you then turn around and say “why can’t he close the door?” the question automatically undermines the first premise. If you are saying that he is weak because he can’t beat Hillary you are also saying that Hillary is an even weaker campaigner than he is. If she is the greatest campaigner with the greatest campaign juggernaut then of course its going to take time – but you have indeed beat the best campaigner –except Obama was better. The ‘why can’t he close the door?’ meme only makes sense if you are also conceding that Hillary is a weak and ineffectual candidate. SHE WILL HAVE THE POPULAR VOTE – EVENTUALLY – WE THINK 2) “She will have the popular vote” a) She doesn’t have the popular vote b) We don’t have a system of popular vote. We have a mixed system c) It is dependent on the lie that somehow we can count either Michigan or Florida It also requires the completely intellectually dishonest step of including the uncontested primaries of Florida and Michigan. If uncontested primaries are an accurate representation of popular will then why do we even bother with campaigns? d) But this is not the main reason it is an inane argument. The main reason is that it simply is not true – its based on a flawed premise that those that have voted for Clinton in the primary at that point in time still in fact support her. It is premised on the idea that Clinton has retained the support that voted for her. Read today’s New York Times. Does anybody believe that she would have gotten the endorsement after that excoriating criticism? Does anybody believe that she would have gotten the support of the following: - the African American vote she got on Super Tuesday if they knew what was going to happen after South Carolina or her cheap comments on Rev. Wright? If the vote was held today nationally she would have fewer popular votes not more. The fact is that before she campaigns in a particular place she panders to it and afterwards it is simply another candidate to be thrown under the bus. The fact is that she is making the case for the popular vote when a) she doesn’t have it and b) when her popularity is tanking nationwide.
Wed Apr 23rd 2008, 11:40 AM
Why the two key spins “He can’t close the deal” and “She will have the popular vote” are breathtakingly stupid
Of course this is a particularly stupid device to argue when in fact you do not even have the popular vote.
It also disregards the 12 states who decide not by popular vote but by state convention (no delegates are selected by caucus – the estimates of delegates based on caucus resorts are just that wild estimates – in the case of Iowa where Obama originally appeared to have 38% of the caucus delegates but will end up with 70% of the delegates there is no number of popular votes that can be added that will reflect the outcome of the state conventions).
- the same percent of vote in California once she trashed ‘closed door meetings’ and slimed Californians as being elitist?
- the activist branch of the party after she slammed MoveOn.Org?
- the same level of support after it became known that she wants to extend the threat of thermonuclear war?
- the same level of support when it became clear that her campaign and husband are working the other side of the street on NAFTA?
- the same level of support after her penchant for resume embellishment became exposed?
- the same level of support when people like the NYT had a chance to evaluate her negative campaign tactics.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 4.
#1. To: nolu_chan (#0)
Sorry, but I'll have to offset that DU stuff with Limbaugh stuff.
I have to hand it to the Repukes. They ARE masters of creating chaos. Look what they did to Iraq. It's like they used to say about our military before it was enlisted to try (not successfully) to nation-build. It's there to "break things and kill people." That pretty well sums up the last seven years of Chimp/GOPer rule over America as well.
Hold accountable those who swore an oath. That should clear some minds.
There are no replies to Comment # 4. End Trace Mode for Comment # 4.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: Jethro Tull (#1)
#4. To: Sam Houston (#2)
(Edited)
Replies to Comment # 4.