US Presidential Primaries, 2008

[BobG]

http://www.progressivepunch.org/members.jsp?search=selectScore&chamber=Senate&scoreSort=current_congress

Ranking of Senators from most to least "progressive": play around with different areas of legislation to zoom in on fields of interest.

"Lifetime" Scores - going back until 1991 (all issues):

#1. Sheldon Whitehouse
#20. Hillary Clinton
#25. Barack Obama
#60. John McCain
#100. Jim DeMint


Votes cast during 2007-2008 (all issues):

#1. Frank Lautenberg
#29. Hillary Clinton
#41. Barack Obama
#82. John McCain
#100. Jim DeMint

Note: Clinton and Obama appear to have swung towards the center lately, while McCain has swung a lot to the Right.

PS: Can we have the former McCain back...please?

Interesting list, but slightly misleading.

Clinton has barely shifted at all.

The rest of the Senate has become more progressive - some shockingly so on the Republican side:
Gordon Smith (18.75 to 41.89), Olympia Snowe (35.52 to 56.18), George Voinovich (15.9 to 32.25), Susan Collins (33.49 to 48.82), and Specter, Coleman, Lugar, Murkowski, Stevens, Hagel, Domenici, and Warner all over a 10 point change.

Both Obama and McCain are among only 5 Senators of either party to become less progressive by more than 5 points.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Bill was always a rock-star on the "vision" thing, while helping multi-nationals and Wal-Mart export jobs to places where people earn a lot less and there are no pesky benefits like overtime, health coverage, retirement, etc. He's a creep, and I had to hold my nose to vote for the creep because the Republican creeps looked worse. The US has to get beyond a 2-party system that can be gamed and twisted by the party heavies. We are being screwed by leeches and the press is in on it and is unwilling to buck the trend because they have given up on investigating and reporting and are falling back on printing the crap being fed to them by their patrons.

If the 'need' is to get Nadar elected then yes that need is unachievable.

No Art, it seems like you came into the middle of a conversation. Turbo's need is to get beyond a 2-party system. i proposed that he vote for someone outside of the two parties. Nader agrees with turbo on multi-nationals, Wal-Mart, exporting jobs, and pesky benefits. This proposal has met with considerable resistance. This, of course, comes as no surprise. But I would be surprised to learn that turbo is more moved by the argument that his need is unachievable, by someone not even knowing what need was being discussed, than by the argument that if he won't lift a finger to supply his own need then he can't expect anyone else to either. And yet other people will be voting for Nader. Where does that leave turbo?

Does anyone else have a better idea how turbo can achieve his goal?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

There has to be a grass-roots movement for reforms that take some of the "600lb gorilla" influence away from the major parties to allow Libertarians, Greens, Independents, and other smaller parties to consolidate and grow. I'm not sure how that can be accomplished apart from supplying public financing for all national elections and banning contributions from all other sources. As for the costs of running campaigns, TV stations, radio stations, etc have to be licensed and they are for the most part getting public bandwidth dirt-cheap, and should be expected to air debates free of charge.

We can't afford to finance every yahoo and ostritch that wants to run for office. Television and radio networks can't afford to give away that much air time free either. That's why people get money from outside sources, too show they have support enough to put forward a campaign. The problem is it goes the other way too. People don't want to invest in a candidate who can't win so they can't get more money unless people VOTE FOR THEM.

 

[quadraphonics]

When one looks at Italy with it's proportional representation resulting in about a zillion gov'ts since WW2 each one lasting for what seems like 5 minutes then yes there is a major problem with a myriad of small parties.

Even with 3 main parties one can end up with very undemocratic results. A few years ago in Ireland there was a situation where no party had an overall majority so the biggest party went into coalition with one of the smallest fringe parties who in payment had many of their policies pushed through as part of the gov't program despite having only won 1% of the popular vote at the polls. In fact they only had 2 elected members and both of them were given front bench ministerial positions.

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of either proportional representation, or parliamentary systems for that matter. They seem to amount to ways of entrenching the power of larger numbers of parties, which is not a huge improvement on a two-party system. The idea should be less of an inbuilt partisan stranglehold.

One of the upsides of instant runoff voting is that it provides more direct legitimacy, in that the final winner does get a majority of votes, even if they are second- or third-choice votes. The big question in my mind regarding changing the partisan structure in the US is how well it would work with the executive system we currently use. You could imagine problem scenarios where the president is of one party, but the legislature is controlled by two other parties, and the result might be gridlock. This is the sort of situation that parliamentary systems are designed to avoid, but I suppose it's the sort of issue that's best settled through experiment at the local level.

 

[chemisttree]

My pet proposal for disempowering the two-party system is instant-runoff voting. Rather than casting a vote for a single candidate, each voter would rank the candidates. Then, to decide the winner, you first check if any candidate received a majority of first-choice votes. If not, you eliminate the least-popular candidate and distribute his votes to their second-choice candidates, repeating this process until someone has a majority of non-eliminated candidates. This removes much of the incentive that the winner-take-all system provides for voters to cast in their lot with a big party (i.e., "don't throw your vote away."). It's also the kind of thing that's relatively straightforward to pitch and implement on the local level.

I don't think there's any need to mess with the executive structure of the overall republic in favor of parliamentarism, or at least any time soon. It could be that adjustments to the relationship between the executive and legislature are appropriate for a polity with less power concentrated in two parties, but we're a long way from that point, and in the meantime it's winner-take-all voting that is the main sustainer of the two-party system.

My main complaint with this system is that it gives some voters more than one vote. If I read your intent properly, those voters who voted for the least popular candidate as their first choice get their first choice votes rolled into their second choice candidate. The candidate effectively gets two first choice votes from the same voter. This could continue for several rounds, each round magnifying the injustice of multiple votes from these "fringe' voting groups.

It is a recipe for voting gamesmanship and greatly eggagerates the voting power of fringe groups. A revolution would soon follow...

 

[turbo]

My main complaint with this system is that it gives some voters more than one vote. If I read your intent properly, those voters who voted for the least popular candidate as their first choice get their first choice votes rolled into their second choice candidate. The candidate effectively gets two first choice votes from the same voter. This could continue for several rounds, each round magnifying the injustice of multiple votes from these "fringe' voting groups.

It is a recipe for voting gamesmanship and greatly eggagerates the voting power of fringe groups. A revolution would soon follow...

And can you imagine the confusion and jam-ups at the polls. Lots of people have trouble reading and properly marking their ballots as it is, especially if they are designed in a way that is confusing, like the butterfly ballot. Of course, requiring voters to choose and properly mark their first, second, and third choices might be one way to ensure that stupid peoples' votes don't count, because their ballots would be tossed after they screwed them up (like marking two 2nd-choice candidates or something similar).

 

[chemisttree]

And can you imagine the confusion and jam-ups at the polls. Lots of people have trouble reading and properly marking their ballots as it is, especially if they are designed in a way that is confusing, like the butterfly ballot. Of course, requiring voters to choose and properly mark their first, second, and third choices might be one way to ensure that stupid peoples' votes don't count, because their ballots would be tossed after they screwed them up (like marking two 2nd-choice candidates or something similar).

On an alphabetical ballot would candidates change their last names to "AAAMcCain"? VOTE AAAAAAAANADER, Turbo!

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Rather than casting a vote for a single candidate, each voter would rank the candidates. Then, to decide the winner, you first check if any candidate received a majority of first-choice votes. If not, you eliminate the least-popular candidate and distribute his votes to their second-choice candidates, repeating this process until someone has a majority of non-eliminated candidates.

This is neither criticism nor praise, but I merely point out the intersting fact that under this system, the winner need not be anyone's first choice, but merely everyone's second. Or not even second, but only third.

What happens if candidate A has the smallest number of first choices and so loses those votes. Then it turns out that A is third choice enough to make 50%, but only if you add back in the votes that you eliminated in the first step? This is more complicated than grandma's underwear.

 

[chemisttree]

This is neither criticism nor praise, but I merely point out the intersting fact that under this system, the winner need not be anyone's first choice, but merely everyone's second. Or not even second, but only third.

This would be Limbaugh's next operation, "Operation Magnify the Vote", and would give new meaning to the phrase, "Vote early and vote often."

 

[quadraphonics]

My main complaint with this system is that it gives some voters more than one vote. If I read your intent properly, those voters who voted for the least popular candidate as their first choice get their first choice votes rolled into their second choice candidate. The candidate effectively gets two first choice votes from the same voter.

I'm not sure where the second vote comes from? The first-choice votes for the least-popular candidate are not "rolled over," they're discarded, and the second-choice votes are then applied to the other candidates. In the final tally, each voter ends up with exactly one vote for exactly one candidate. It just might not be their first (or even second or third) choice of candidates.

 

[chemisttree]

I'm not sure where the second vote comes from?

I may have misunderstood but this sounds like you are distributing votes to second-choice candidates.

If not, you eliminate the least-popular candidate and distribute his votes to their second-choice candidates, repeating this process until someone has a majority of non-eliminated candidates. The first-choice votes for the least-popular candidate are not "rolled over," they're discarded, and the second-choice votes are then applied to the other candidates. In the final tally, each voter ends up with exactly one vote for exactly one candidate. It just might not be their first (or even second or third) choice of candidates.

Nevermind, I got it. You are proposing to segregate ballots based on first choices and then recount the last place candidate's ballots for the second choice. OK.

 

[quadraphonics]

This is neither criticism nor praise, but I merely point out the intersting fact that under this system, the winner need not be anyone's first choice, but merely everyone's second. Or not even second, but only third.

True, although the same criticism applies to our present system. At least with instant runoff voting you get to say who your first-choice candidate is, even if your third-choice candidate is the one who ends up winning. With winner-take all voting, you're forced to shelve your opinions and just vote for the third-choice candidate directly out of political expediency. So I'm not sure we'd be giving anything up in this department. When was the last time that your first-choice candidate in the early primary process ended up winning?

What happens if candidate A has the smallest number of first choices and so loses those votes. Then it turns out that A is third choice enough to make 50%, but only if you add back in the votes that you eliminated in the first step? This is more complicated than grandma's underwear.

In the standard methods for doing instant run-off voting, that candidate simply loses after the first round. I'm not sure whether this is really a problem or not, though. I'm trying to think through some examples to see if it results in problems... you need at least 4 candidates for such an example to be interesting, cause if there's only 3, getting a majority of third-choice votes basically means that everyone agrees that they do not want you to win, and so it's right that you should be eliminated at the outset. With 4 or more candidates, maybe you can construct a more interesting example? At any rate, there are numerous variants on instant-runoff voting, some of which presumably address cases like this.

This brings up the interesting issue of how the interpretations of the votes change as you go down through the levels of preference. Clearly, a first-choice vote is essentially the same as a regular vote in our present system, and a second-choice one is also similar. But as you get down to the n-th choice vote on a ballot of n candidates, it starts to look more like a vote against that candidate than a weak vote for him.

Another ramification to think through is the effect of such a system on party primaries. I.e., it removes much of the incentive to even hold party primaries, as there is no danger of splitting the vote and so losing to the opposing party. This is one of the key ways in which instant-runoff voting breaks the hold of parties. In addition to providing breathing space for third parties to make inroads, it also creates an incentive for the bigger parties to be more big-tent and less disciplined. In winner-take-all voting, elections are a zero-sum game, where less votes for one party is equivalent to more votes for the other one. This is not the case with instant-runoff voting, which would allow, for example, libertarians to vote their conscience without the fear that they'll simply end up empowering Democrats by doing so.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

True, although the same criticism applies to our present system.

No, under the current system, a candidate who is everybody's third choice and nobody's first choice could not win. But it wasn't a criticism, just an observation.

 

[quadraphonics]

Weren't they already applied to the other candidates in the first round?

No, the only votes considered in the first round are first-choice votes. If someone wins a majority of first-choice votes in the first round, then none of the second (or third or ...) choice votes are considered in any way, and the whole thing works exactly like a winner-take-all vote, with each voter's first-choice vote acting as their sole vote. It's only if nobody wins a majority in the first round that the differences arise. Then, you eliminate the candidate with the smallest number of first-choice votes, and distribute those votes to their second-choice candidates. All of the voters who did not vote for the eliminated candidate are left alone: you still only consider their first-choice votes. This process is then repeated until some candidate has a majority.

Are you saying that the percentage of votes for the first and second place candidates will be changed (by removing votes on the bottom of the ticket) until they achieve a greater than 50% number. That wouldn't change the ranking at all. The first place candidate in the first round would take it all.

No, votes are not removed, their simply reassigned onto smaller and smaller sets of candidates until one becomes the winner. The guy who is ahead in the first round is not guaranteed a win.

Hopefully that clarifies the process. The wikipedia page probably has a better description than I've come up with... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

 

[chemisttree]

Hopefully that clarifies the process. The wikipedia page probably has a better description than I've come up with...

OK, I got it. I was thrown off by the phrase "distribute his votes to their second choice candidates" in the first post.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

In the first round, candidates A, B, C, D, and E receive about 20% of the votes each, in the order A < B < C < D < E. A is eliminated and the second choices turn out to be equally divided among B, C, D, and E.

In the second round candidates B, C, D and E now are in the order B < C < D < E. B is eliminated and the second choices turn out to be all for A. A now has close to 40% of the votes, however, half of those votes have been eliminated and the candidate has been eliminated too.

In the third round candidates A, C, D and E now are in the order A < C < D < E. A is eliminated and the second choices are distributed equally among C, D and E.

In the fourth round candidates C, D and E now are in the order C < D < E. C is eliminated and the second choices all go to A. A now has 60% of the votes, but only 20% count and the candidate has been eliminated twice. Now A, D, and E survive

In the fifth round A is eliminated for the third time all of the votes shared equally between D and E. E has more votes than D and wins with roughly 50% of the votes.

Stated more simply, 20% of the time A was first choice, 20% of the time A was second choice after B, and 20% of the time A was second choice after C.

 

[quadraphonics]

No, under the current system, a candidate who is everybody's third choice and nobody's first choice could not win. But it wasn't a criticism, just an observation.

Actually, I spoke too quickly earlier: instant run-off voting does not allow a candidate who is everybody's third choice and nobody's first choice to win. Such a candidate would be eliminated in the first round. Indeed, the elimination of such a candidate would be the very first thing that happens in an instant runoff.

 

[quadraphonics]

In the first round, candidates A, B, C, D, and E receive about 20% of the votes each, in the order A < B < C < D < E. A is eliminated and the second choices turn out to be equally divided among B, C, D, and E.

Okay.

In the second round candidates B, C, D and E now are in the order B < C < D < E. B is eliminated and the second choices turn out to be all for A. A now has close to 40% of the votes, however, half of those votes have been eliminated and the candidate has been eliminated too.

Right, so we reassign the B voter's votes to their third choices. In the regular instant run-off, candidates cannot be resurrected once eliminated, although I'm sure there are variants that allow this.

In the third round candidates A, C, D and E now are in the order A < C < D < E. A is eliminated and the second choices are distributed equally among C, D and E.

Err... there is no candidate A in the third round. We've already given the A votes to B, C, D and E (which affected the fact that B lost the second round). If you bring back A now, you'll be counting some votes twice. Without specifying rules for handling this stuff, it's difficult to make sense of this example.

Stated more simply, 20% of the time A was first choice, 20% of the time A was second choice after B, and 20% of the time A was second choice after C.

Okay. I'm not sure what the problem is here? These statements are also true (but with slightly higher percentages) of E, the ultimate winner, no?

 

[lisab]

Un-freaking-believable. Clinton just gave this reason for staying in the race:

Hillary Clinton's argument for staying in the race took a disturbing turn today. While meeting with the editorial board of South Dakota's Sioux Falls Argus-Leader, she raised the specter of assassination while discussing why she would stay in the race:

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it."

She's staying in, in case Obama gets assassinated?!?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/23/clinton-kennedy-assassina_n_103319.html

Wow. That's just sickening.

 

[turbo]

I just read that, too, lisab, and came back to this thread only to find that you had got to it first. She is a disgusting opportunist. She should bow out gracefully and support Obama whole-heartedly. Then if the unthinkable happens, she will be the nominee. She cannot be the nominee by any other metric - numerically, her campaign is dead.

 

[Art]

Sounds like wishful thinking by Clinton or perhaps even a Freudian hint to her racist supporters in the Appalachians.

If a blogger made a similar comment speculating about how the president might be assassinated there would be secret service agents at his door within minutes.

 

[chemisttree]

I just read that, too, lisab, and came back to this thread only to find that you had got to it first. She is a disgusting opportunist. She should bow out gracefully and support Obama whole-heartedly. Then if the unthinkable happens, she will be the nominee. She cannot be the nominee by any other metric - numerically, her campaign is dead.

Well, I was wrong. We haven't left the racist phase of the election behind us. There is no other explanation for it. If Ob-ma were assass-nated who would the party nominate in his place? This can't be the real reason she is staying in. I never thought she would get this obtuse! Like I said before, if Hillary is elected president she will not be known as the first black woman president.

Edit:

Hillary has just apologized for the remark.

"I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and in particular the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever," the former first lady said.

I guess no harm done, eh?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Err... there is no candidate A in the third round.

That's my issue. The candidate is gone, but the votes aren't.

Okay. I'm not sure what the problem is here? These statements are also true (but with slightly higher percentages) of E, the ultimate winner, no?

Yes, E is the winner with 50% of the votes. But A had 60% and lost. that is the problem.

Suppose 20% chose A first and the remaining 80% chose A second. A would still lose to E who only had 20% first choice votes and 30% third choice votes.

 

[quadraphonics]

That's my issue. The candidate is gone, but the votes aren't.

Yes, they are. When a candidate is eliminated, all of the votes for him (in any position, first, second, etc.) are also discarded.

The idea is to mimic a regular runoff election, which uses multiple rounds of voting. In a regular runoff, you start with a maximal list of candidates, and each voter casts a single vote for the candidate of their choice. Then, if no candidate gets a majority, the least popular candidate is eliminated from the list, and the process is repeated. The downside of this approach is that you have to do lots of rounds of voting, and the campaign process can become confusing and tortuous as the list changes. So, instant run-off voting attempts to mimic this process by having everyone vote only once, but also rank every candidate when doing so. Then, you use that data to conduct a "virtual" run-off, where instead of revoting at each stage, you use the listed preferences to infer what the votes would have been.

Yes, E is the winner with 50% of the votes. But A had 60% and lost. that is the problem.

No, you're double-counting votes (they add up to 110%). The order of elimination is important; note that, if you start counting unused votes, every candidate receives 100% of the total. There is only a problem if you can show that more people ranked A above E than vice-versa, which I guess is what you're getting at with the example that follows.

Suppose 20% chose A first and the remaining 80% chose A second. A would still lose to E who only had 20% first choice votes and 30% third choice votes.

So, let me see if I follow: there are 5 candidates (A, B, C, D and E), each of whom get ~20% of the first-choice votes. A is the second-choice of all of the voters who opted for B, C, D or E first. Suppose A loses round 1 and is eliminated, and that the A-voters' second choices are equally distributed among the remaining 4 candidates. Now, candidates B, C, D and E are left, each of whom has ~25% of the votes. Suppose B loses this round, and is eliminated. All of the second-choice votes for B were for A, but A is eliminated, so we use their third-choice votes. Suppose these are uniformly distributed amongst C, D and E, leaving each of them with ~33% of the vote. Now, C is eliminated, and we again throw out the second-choice votes for A. Likewise, we throw out any third-choice votes for B, and suppose that the resulting votes are split between D and E. This leaves D and E with ~50% of the vote each. Suppose D loses, and E wins. Is this what you had in mind? The question, then, is whether more voters ranked A (or B or C or D) above E than vice-versa. Looking at the assumptions, we see that all of the A, B, C and D voters ranked A above E, while only the E voters ranked E above A, which is to say that 80% of the voters would have rather seen A win than E, the ultimate winner.

So, yeah, that is a potential quirk. However, it depends on the very unlikely scenario where everyone wants to see candidate A as their first- or second-choice, and yet candidate A still loses the first round. If any other candidate loses the first round in this example, the result is that A will win. However, there is probably a way to modify the elimination/voting procedure to avoid this kind of outcome...

 

[BobG]

If you watch the video, it's pretty clear Clinton was saying June isn't an unusually late date to still have a primary election undecided. Staying in the race in case Obama is assassinated is an absurd interpretation of that video. Seriously, what relation does Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign have to Kennedy's 1968 assassination?

I think Kennedy was on her mind because of Teddy Kennedy's brain tumor, so Robert Kennedy's assassination in June was a pretty memorable example of a campaign still being vigorously contested in June.

She's right about June not being late, historically, but...

Recent campaigns have started earlier and finished earlier, with primaries from running from the beginning of Feb (at least until 2004 and 2008) until about a week into June. In other words, June is the end of the campaign and you won't have another campaign like '68 where the campaign starts at the end of Feb and you're still in the middle come June.

Bill Clinton wrapped up the '92 nomination in April for all intents and purposes - not June. There were still primaries going on in June, but the opposing campaigns had dwindled to a formality.

On the other hand, the Carter-Kennedy primary in 1980 wasn't decided until June and Kennedy refused to concede until the convention. Of course, Carter lost the general election.

And the Ford-Reagan primary contest in 1976 was still undecided when the Republican convention began, with Ford winning by just 117 delegates. Of course, Ford lost the general election.

 

[Art]

That's my issue. The candidate is gone, but the votes aren't.Yes, E is the winner with 50% of the votes. But A had 60% and lost. that is the problem.

Suppose 20% chose A first and the remaining 80% chose A second. A would still lose to E who only had 20% first choice votes and 30% third choice votes.

To complicate things further in multi-seat constituencies there is a quota set based on the size of the electorate and the number of seats and so before any candidate is eliminated and his/her votes redistributed they first redistribute the second choice excess votes from any candidate who reaches the quota in each round of counting. Recounts are great fun!

 

[Art]

If you watch the video, it's pretty clear Clinton was saying June isn't an unusually late date to still have a primary election undecided.

One would be more inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt if the comments about assassination hadn't already been raised as an issue.

Today, in Dover, Francine Torge, a former John Edwards supporter, said this while introducing Mrs. Clinton: “Some people compare one of the other candidates to John F. Kennedy. But he was assassinated. And Lyndon Baines Johnson was the one who actually” passed the civil rights legislation.
The comment, an apparent reference to Senator Barack Obama, is particularly striking given documented fears among blacks that Mr. Obama will be assassinated if elected.

Phil Singer, a Clinton spokesman said: “We were not aware that this person was going to make those comments and disapprove of them completely. They were totally inappropriate.”

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/civilrights/

The reference to assassination here was even more oblique than Clinton's yet was described by her spokesperson as totally inappropriate so what does that say about her comments.

Because of the perceived threat the secret service have been providing protection for Obama for the past year, the earliest ever for a presidential candidate and so any mention of assassination is a big deal and Clinton knows that full well.

As she already knew it was a very sensitive subject then she either doesn't care or is too stupid to realize the impact of her words. Either way the Democratic party should disown her.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

So, yeah, that is a potential quirk.

Thank you. All of my other examples were variations of this last one. I am glad we don't use this system.

 

[BobG]

I'd go even further than give her the benefit of the doubt.

I no longer think it's fair to criticize Kevin James for appearing on Hardball seemingly completely ignorant of the history leading up to World War II.

James may be a hack for other reasons, but when Eugene Robinson is ignorant of past primary elections, then it's clear that an ignorance of history has become par for the course for today's news "analysts". (I only single out Robinson because I normally have more respect for him than most of the other hacks that get trotted out on news talk shows - to the point that I don't bother to remember most of their names.)

That night was a key moment in the 1968 campaign - first for a victory that could have tipped the nomination Kennedy's direction; then for his assassination. Mind you, Kennedy's victory in the California primary didn't give him the delegate lead - he was still in second place. The victory was one that seemed sure to give him the momentum needed to beat Humphrey and McCarthy.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

By means of such inconsequential things we decide who will be our leaders. No wonder the aliens never ask to be taken to them. Anyway, her candidacy is one straw short of a broken back. It may as well be this one.

 

[Gokul43201]

It would be easier to hand out more benefit of doubt if the speaker weren't Hillary Clinton.

What did she mean anyway by her statements? In '92 the primary started in the middle of February and Bill had essentially won it on Super Tuesday, a month later. In '68 the primary didn't start until the middle of March. How disingenuous do you have to be to bring up those examples to make a historical argument?

 

[BobG]

It would be easier to hand out more benefit of doubt if the speaker weren't Hillary Clinton.

What did she mean anyway by her statements? In '92 the primary started in the middle of February and Bill had essentially won it on Super Tuesday, a month later. In '68 the primary didn't start until the middle of March. How disingenuous do you have to be to bring up those examples to make a historical argument?

Technically, the California primary in June officially put Clinton over the top in delegates. Being personally involved in that campaign, I can understand they might not have the same impression of that event as the general public.

But, yes, by that time, reaching the magic number was a mere formality.

I still find it hard to believe how badly this was covered by the news media. Jonathan Alter is probably the only person that showed any intelligence, whatsoever. The worst had to be the historian Olbermann had on Countdown. Why did he have a historian on the show to psychoanalyze Hillary Clinton? Wouldn't a psychologist or psychiatrist been better qualified? Asking the historian questions about history probably would have provided more insightful answers.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Un-freaking-believable. Clinton just gave this reason for staying in the race:



She's staying in, in case Obama gets assassinated?!?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/23/clinton-kennedy-assassina_n_103319.html

Wow. That's just sickening.

Not sure if anyone else has mentioned it but what I have heard is that she is staying into try to make up some of the debt her campaign has run up. About 31 million. Since the rest of the primaries are less cost intensive she may be able to make money on the funds raised and erase some of the debt.

 

[lisab]

If you watch the video, it's pretty clear Clinton was saying June isn't an unusually late date to still have a primary election undecided. Staying in the race in case Obama is assassinated is an absurd interpretation of that video. Seriously, what relation does Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign have to Kennedy's 1968 assassination?

• "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right?"
• "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."

My interpretation: "These races have gone into June in the past, and maybe Obama will be assassinated, so I should stay in." Other than this interpretation, the two comments are a perfect non sequitur to me. Am I missing something?

She has to drop out - and now!

 

[Poop-Loops]

The assassination bit was pushing it somehow. It wasn't natural, like you pointed out lisab. But I still think she simply meant the two races went on a long time.

Which is a crock, because Clinton was the nominee weeks before California, it's only that he didn't officially have enough delegates yet.