Bring It On!

New Election Math

May 14th, 2008 | by Cranky Liberal |

Folks, based on Hillary’s historic victory in the pivotal West Virgina primary yesterday, I have gone back to the drawing board to figure out who our next President should be. The results might surprise you.

Using Senator Clinton’s oft-repeated mantra that no Democrat has won the White House without winning West Virgina as our starting point - we realize that Senator Obama obviously is not cut out to be President. After all, it doesn’t matter that he has an unassailable lead  in pledged-delegates, states won or super-delegates he has failed to win the 37th largest state. Obviously he is unelectable.

But let’s take the logic further. If no Democrat has ever won the White House without winning West Virginia, it means no Republican can afford to loose West Virgina. When Republican’s win West Virgina, they too win the White House.  John McCain lost West Virginia. Therefore he is no longer worthy of running as the Republican nominee.

That leaves us folks, with this Novembers match-up for Commander-in-Chief: Hillary Clinton vs Mike Huckabee. Yes that’s right - Mike “I won West Virigina” Huckabee. He clearly trounced McCain in the first WVa election (I do not count the primary results because McCain ran unopposed - the nerve of Huckabee quitting a race he can’t win before he ruined the presumptive nominee’s chances!) He is, therefore, the better candidate. I expect McCain to concede at any time now.

If you think that sounds silly, then explain that to Hillary. It’s no dumber that her still running.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • e-mail
  • YahooMyWeb
Sphere: Related Content

  1. 26 Responses to “New Election Math”

  2. By Dusty on May 14, 2008 | Reply

    LMAO!

    That’s all I got…sorry ;)

  3. By Craig R. Harmon on May 14, 2008 | Reply

    Okay…pretty silly argument, I agree, but…

    Hey, when Obama sews up the number of delegates required by the Democrats’ own rules to win the nomination, Hillary should drop out. Till then, there’s always the chance that superdelegates will decide to back her. I don’t believe that that will happen but anything’s possible. Until then, I think of something that Al Gore once said: “Let every vote count!” For the first time in a long time, primaries in the later voting states has meaning for people. Good!

    Democrats are for democracy, right? One-person-one-vote, let-none-be-disenfranchised, vote-early-vote-often,
    let-the-voice-of-the-dead-be-heard (er, well, as popular as those last two were with Mayor-for-life Richard J. Daley, I guess they’re not really the same thing as the others) — do these ring any bells?

    In my opinion, nominating races shouldn’t be over, for all practical purposes by the end of Super Tuesday. They should be over when all the votes are cast and counted.

    I read a recent poll directed at Democrat voters (I’ll try to find it). Apparently a large majority of Democratic voters don’t want the primary to end. Nor do they think the continued primary is harmful to a Democrat win in November so calls for Hillary to drop out even go against what the majority of Democrats in this country want.

    Elitist! ;-)

  4. By manapp99 on May 14, 2008 | Reply

    Craig this latest survey I have seen on this is here:

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/38_of_democrats_want_clinton_to_drop_out

    Among the interesting things here are that while 38% of Dems think Hillary should drop out, 25% of Dems think Obama should drop out.

  5. By Craig R. Harmon on May 14, 2008 | Reply

    Okay, I lied. It wasn’t one poll, it was two polls. By a wide margin, voters are satisfied to let the primaries to continue. ABC and USA Today polls both come to similar conclusions.

    So, apparently, Hillary is just giving the people what they, by a two to one margin, want.

  6. By Craig R. Harmon on May 14, 2008 | Reply

    Thanks, Manapp99. I put in a comment with links to two different polls, one by ABC and one by USA Today, both showing a large majority wanting the primaries to continue and not wanting Hillary to drop out. It’s awaiting moderation.

  7. By Dusty on May 14, 2008 | Reply

    Good afternoon Gents. I personally think polls are bullshit. People will say anything on a phone, plus there is the way the question is asked and the whole order in which questions are asked that effect the responses.

    But I do agree that ol Hill should stay in until the last vote has been cast..I just have a problem with her tossing Obama under the bus every chance she gets. She seems to approve of McCain as the Pres over Obama, judging by many of her juicy quotes the MSM has seen fit to feed us.

  8. By Craig R. Harmon on May 14, 2008 | Reply

    Good afternoon, Dusty! I really do think that what is driving these polls is the sense that the primary system makes votes in the later primaries null and void because the race is over by the time they cast their votes and they’re sick of it. For example, primary voting in my state, Indiana, hasn’t meant a blasted thing in most primary races.

    Here’s an idea: have a lottery before each primary season. All 60 states go into a hat and the order in which they are drawn is the order in which those states vote in the primary. No more of this crap where one state is always the first state to vote or where the same states are virtually useless to the process. The lottery to be watched over by leaders of the major parties and the slips of paper with the states’ names on them chosen by Ralph Nader. ;-)

  9. By Dusty on May 14, 2008 | Reply

    I would like to have a national primary Craig..all states on the same day.

    The states that vote later have always been inconsequential. Whats new there?

    What is driving these polls in my mind is that this is the most important Presidential election in our recent history.

  10. By Craig R. Harmon on May 15, 2008 | Reply

    Well, that would address the problem but I think I like the drawn out process better. It requires the candidates to give some attention to all the states. I just don’t see why some states should always be early voters, and consequently, always the most important for the nominating process while the rest are irrelevant. At least if the sequence of primaries were varied from primary to primary, the states that were most important would be distributed fairly because selected randomly.

    But a system where all states voted at the same time would be preferable to what we’ve got now, at least for the purposes of equalizing the votes throughout all the states.

  11. By Dusty on May 15, 2008 | Reply

    My only goal is to equalize the votes for all states. I really don’t care about the vanity part of it. Perhaps they would quit pandering and just do TV stuff in order to reach the largest audience since it would be near impossible to hit all places/states.

    Truth is, they don’t hit all states equally now.

  12. By Craig R. Harmon on May 15, 2008 | Reply

    No they don’t hit all states equally but this format does force them to pay attention to all the states.

    There’s one sure way, though, to turn the so-called “flyover states” solidly and permanently resentful and ever more radical libertarians who view their government as illegitimate and that’s by allowing candidates to focus only on the highest-population centers. This is the raison d’etre of the electoral college system in the national elections: it forces candidates to take the smaller states and rural areas into consideration if they hope to win. I think that any system that encourages candidates to focus exclusively on the support of the barest majority from the fewest states, such as I think eliminating the electoral system in favor for a system that elected Presidents on the basis of purely a majority of the nationwide vote would do, would inevitably marginalize vast swaths of Americans. That can’t be what democracy, at least within the republican union established by the Constitution, means and it cannot be good for fostering a broad sense of validity of government: that the government rules by the consent of the governed.

    No President whose electorate derived strictly or mostly from the coasts or just from the highest-population centers, for example, could possibly pretend to represent the interests of all Americans since he or she would have no need to do so. And because he or she would have no need to do so, you can be sure that he or she will not do so. Politicians represent the people who elect them, not those who voted for the other candidate.

  13. By Dusty on May 15, 2008 | Reply

    I am just enough of a curmudgeonly bitch to think they pretty much ignore most of America anyway Craig.

  14. By rube cretin on May 15, 2008 | Reply

    my advice to Hillary at this point is to drop out and refuse to discuss the next presidential election matter in any context or venue until after the November election. My candidate John Edwards is about to endorce Obama and that will be enough to carry him over the top. Hillary, you are no longer relevant and those who have supported you to date will find some other candidate and you and Bill should just go away, because you have nothing to contribute. Been nice knowing you.

  15. By Cranky Liberal on May 15, 2008 | Reply

    Thanks for all the great comments folks. Craig while I agree she has every right to campaign, there is a point when you have no realistic chance to win. Like every other politician on both sides of the race you make the choice to bow out not because you have to, but because it is the best thing for your party - remember party? Putting it and the agenda of the broad base of supporters above your own vain-glorious attempt at winning.

    Dusty is right in that she can campaign and not attack the presumptive nominee. The “hard-working white people” comment is just wrong. The spiel about no Democrat has won without winning WVa is desperate. I could just as easily say no Democrat has ever won the Presidency without having testicles. It’s true but not relevant.

    Rube, Edwards was and is my candidate. I truly like Obama and think he has a great chance at being a transformational leader but I was a huge Edwards or Richardson fan. Obama is my 3rd choice (what an embarrassment of riches this time). Unlike certain candidates supporters - i let it go when they could not win. HIllary’s fans (hell and Hillary) need to do the same.

  16. By rube cretin on May 15, 2008 | Reply

    I thought the Andrea Mitchell, wife of Alan Greenspan, a criminal, was too old to have an actual orgasm but this endorsement did the job. The establishment is now behind obama. All the boys are now going to support obama for the kentucky primary and general election. Even NARAL has had enough and is endorsing obama. Hillary you are dead! Damn i am glad this is over. Andrea and Pat Buck think this is great, therefore this must be great. We are saved!

  17. By Dusty on May 15, 2008 | Reply

    Rube….you cracked me the hell up. That is a great scrub of the situation if I evah read one.

    Long live MSNBC..they inform AND entertain ;)

  18. By Jet Netwal on May 15, 2008 | Reply

    FWIW Dusty, I think dividing the 50 states up into 3 roughly equal groups in terms of number of states and geographic locations and then rotating them into the first primary slot every four years would do it. That gives every state a shot at being first, candidates can spend and reload between the three primaries, and voters get more involved at least every 12 years in governing their democracy. It makes so much sense that it will never happen. :-)

  19. By Dusty on May 15, 2008 | Reply

    Jet, that is good too..I could get behind it too..and lol…yes it makes too much sense to happen.

    wtf is FWIW? ;)

  20. By Jet Netwal on May 15, 2008 | Reply

    FWIW = For what it’s worth
    :-D

  21. By Dusty on May 15, 2008 | Reply

    Isn’t that a Buffalo Springfield tune? ;)

    Gracias senorita!

  22. By Craig R. Harmon on May 15, 2008 | Reply

    Cranky,

    Sure, I’m familiar with the concept of Party but I’m not sure why your idea of what’s best for the party should trump what the vast majority of Democratic voters think is best. In fact, I don’t think your idea of what’s best for the party SHOULD trump what the vast majority (in one poll, it was over two thirds of those polled) of Democrats think. Their thoughts on the subject are what count, and what should count for Hillary.

  23. By Craig R. Harmon on May 15, 2008 | Reply

    Error correction: in one poll it was ALMOST (not over) two thirds of those polled)

  24. By Cranky Liberal on May 15, 2008 | Reply

    OK Craig im not sure about the poll or how it was worded but of course nearly 1/2 (but NOT half) want her to continue because they are Clinton supporters. Then there are the ones that don’t want to say yes quit because it sounds Unamerican. Like every politician that has said “oh i dont think she should quit” when really YES they want her to quit.

    Also Craig, its not about what a poll of people want. If you had asked people if JOhn Edwards should stay in the race, I bet you would have had over 1/2 the people say yes to that. He didn’t because he realized HE CANT WIN! To stay in the race was not going to help either himself or the party win in November. If you try care about having a Democrat in the office then you quit sabotaging the guy who is going to win and you start campaigning for him not against him.

    She knows she can’t win in any legitimate way. Now its not about the democratic process - there is zero way she can catch him in any of he democratic categories (pledged delegates, states won and popular vote) and the undemocratic way (the super-delegates) are now flocking to his ship. Even if you make the argument we should let America speak, they have and she came up short. Close, but short. What she is hoping for is not democracy, but an overthrow. Can you truly say her staying in now is about letting a majority of democrats decide and not just the gratuitous stroking her ego?

  25. By Chris Radulich on May 15, 2008 | Reply

    I’m not realy sure why she is staying in. Especially since she has loaned the campaign so much money. Maybe she thinks that is the best way to recoup some of it.

    I do believe that having it go on this long has been good for the party. More voters were registered because of it. More excitement was built because of it. The party and the nominee got more experience. Hopefully all the skeletons are out of the closet. Hell, it probably helped the economy because of all the money spent.

  26. By Craig R. Harmon on May 15, 2008 | Reply

    Cranky,

    I’m not sure of the whys or wherefores of Clinton staying in the race. What I know is, it isn’t just Clinton supporters saying she should stay in the race, which means that at least a fair number of others also are saying so. My own thinking, which has, of course, no particular connection to what either Clinton is thinking or what the nearly two thirds of Democrats are thinking, is this: people, including Democrats, are sick and tired of the traditional primary rules where the same state votes first in every primary and the same states’ find their primary votes being completely irrelevant every year because the nomination has been decided before the primary in their state comes around. This year they find that their votes have some meaning because Hillary is still in the race because Obama has not racked up the required number of votes and, damnit, they want their votes in this year’s primary to mean something. There’s also the fact that a fairly large percentage of Democrats are not comfortable with Obamesiah and, in opposition to what elites in the media and in the party are saying, the race is not over and they don’t want it to be.

    I can’t clime into other peoples’ heads to understand fully the motives for people saying what they are saying. I can only say what people are saying and try to make sense of it. This isn’t a corronation, Cranky, it’s a primary race and, in my opinion, people are sick and tired of being left out. They shouldn’t be. They aren’t this year and they’re not about to have the importance of their votes yanked out from under them by a bunch of elitist power-brokers. THEY are supposed to be the power-brokers and they aren’t looking kindly on people who want to take that power away from them, in my humble opinion. No one else, of course, must agree with me but this is my opinion. Those saying they don’t want Hillary to drop out are right. She shouldn’t. Whatever Hillary’s “real” motives, she’s giving the people what they want. Good for her!

  1. 1 Trackback(s)

  2. May 14, 2008: Bring It On! » Blog Archive » About Those Lazy Blacks…

Post a Comment

Fish.Travel