Reply With Quote
I can just got a mental image of him doing that.
Oh damn....I bow before Franks greatness...
That's right, BasketballDan and the rest of those who support Obama's mission to change America.
If Hillary manages to steal this nomination, you remember all the mean nastiness that came from her camp. Remember how Hitler-y threw Rev. Wright and Ayers and meeting with foreign leaders at your man. And remember everything she did to prevent change from happening.
Remember all this on election day.
Me too. Frightening.
Even the bias at ABC News can't put humpty-dumpty back together again...
Clinton’s New Favorite Metric
By Christopher Beam
The Clinton campaign has always had its own way of doing things. When Clinton realized she couldn’t win the pledged-delegate count, it became about the popular vote. When that gap widened, it became about “big states.” Now it’s back to being about the popular vote—only the Clinton campaign isn’t counting like the rest of us. As predicted, they’re including Florida and Michigan.
There are so many problems with this, it’s hard to know where to begin.
First, the obvious: Florida and Michigan don’t count. If you’re talking about the overall tally, Obama still leads by about 500,000 votes. If you include Florida and Michigan, though, Clinton is ahead by 120,000. Nevermind that neither candidate campaigned in Florida (Clinton will tell you that Obama violated this agreement by airing an ad on CNN ad that appeared across the country, including Florida) and that Obama wasn’t even on the ballot in Michigan. That’s why none of the networks—not NBC, not ABC, not CNN—are including those states in their popular-vote tallies without caveats.
Next, there’s the Clinton camp’s duplicity when it comes to reporting these numbers. ABC’s Jake Tapper reports this morning that Clinton’s Fact Hub twisted an ABC report on the popular vote. ABC News’ Rick Klein had written, "By one (rightly disputed) metric -- the popular vote, including Florida and Michigan -- Clinton has pulled ahead of Obama. But without the rogue states, Obama is still up by 500,000 -- and if you can find another objective measurement by which she’s in the lead, let us know.” Based on that report, the Fact Hub claimed that “ABC News reported this morning that ‘Clinton has pulled ahead of Obama’ in the popular vote.” That Tapper bothered to report the misrepresentation makes it pretty clear that the Clinton camp is going to get resistance on this one. If they want to twist the numbers, they’ll have to do it without the media’s help.
Lastly, there’s the fundamental problem with the popular vote: It’s wrong. As we’ve pointed out before, the popular-vote tally includes only the roughest estimates of caucus turnout, since many caucus states only report delegates, not individuals. Moreover, because caucus turnout is low relative to primaries, the popular vote ends up underestimating the candidates’ popularity in those states. So whoever does better in caucuses—in this case, Obama—ends up getting underrepresented. (You could argue that this is divine retribution for Obama’s skewed performance in caucuses, but hey, that’s the system the states chose—and the candidates agreed to.) So the “popular vote”—an authoritative-sounding phrase—is really just a shoddy estimate that underrepresents Obama’s caucus performance and therefore favors Clinton.
That’s not to say Clinton’s magical popular-vote math won’t sway a few superdelegates. No doubt it will. New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine said last month that he would reconsider his support for Clinton if Obama won the popular vote. If he’s looking for an excuse to stick with Clinton, this could be it. But most supers are likely to be extremely squeamish about disregarding the pledged-delegate count. No modern presidential candidate has won the Democratic nomination without winning pledged delegates, and no superdelegate wants to facilitate a historical first like that when it means potentially undermining the first black president. On the other hand, if that’s true, you wonder why they’re waiting so long to decide.
Wonder if the Democrats not counting Florida and Michigan will affect those states in the general?
Two BIG SWING STATES, and they simply "don't count". What a screwed up party.
As I've written before, only the Democratic party could get a Republican elected this year.
Yeah, because if Hillary or Obama don't win the nomination Democrats are gonna turn to McCain....your an idiot...
We need to put this post in a special place so we can bring it
back up at a later date.......and make dan very angry.
it will be eternally quoted in my sig when McCain wins.
- Mars
On Fox news last night they brought up the fact that the dimms
convention would have only 48 states at their convention for the
first time since I think they said 1956.
I just cant see it happening. I still think Michigan and Florida will
be seated somehow, someway.
Maybe they eventually seat half the delegates in Michigan.....so what? Doesn't change anything....
Real shallow.
Ironic. Liberals devouring one of their own (ABC News)!
Big Media isn't conservative or liberal. It's just Big Media. It loves entertainment, and it will up anything to make a buck. If it means repeating the same nauseating gossip (and as long as the general public bites), than so be it. And the public loves them some juicy gossip.
A nice montage of ABC News whoring for HIllary...
ABC News has apparently decided to drop all pretense and be a 24-7 for Hillary...
Breaking: Clinton to hold town hall on ABC's 'This Week'
PoliticoHillary Clinton will hold a live town hall meeting Sunday on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," according to a source.
Just two days before the primaries, Clinton's town hall will be broadcast live from Indiana, and include viewer questions from North Carolina.
who needs money when ABC News is willing to be your primary campaign source for free..
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
