HILLARY RULES
No, this is not some idiotic post by Gotalife, wherein I shout over and over again in capital letters: HILLARY RULES, OBAMA DROOLS!! Nor is it an Idiotic post made in irony. It’s a headline for this great article I just read in Politico this morning:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9994.html
I love reminding folks that it’s not the popular vote that matters.
Advertisement
That's a great article. Thanks for the link.
May 1, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm, I just noticed something. The Politico article makes a reference to an article by “Steve Kornacki” of the New York Observer. Yet one “Mort Kondracke” has an article about the impossible popular vote math in Real Clear Politics:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/clinton_cant_win_popular_vote.html
May 1, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, for some the popular vote is real unpopular!
May 1, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
How to Manufacture a Popular-Vote Victory
by Steve Kornacki
Apr. 25th, 2008 New York Observer:
http://www.observer.com/2008/how-manufacture-popular-vote-victory
The more recent articles by Kornacki are interesting, too, he's a very good political columnist:
http://www.observer.com/node/36049
May 1, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read the article people!. Thanks Liz.
May 1, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very funny. Kind of reminds me of how Bushies were talking about not being "reality based"{ but creating their own reality.
May 1, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Under Allsburg Rules, I am the new Emperor of the United States!
May 1, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
God help us all
May 1, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
A ha! Mystery solved.
There's a Kornacki and a Kondracke and they both pretty much have the same thing to say today. Here's the Kornacki article from the New York Observer:
http://origin.observer.com/2008/how-manufacture-popular-vote-victory
Happy reading!
May 1, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Keep bringing the Info. Thanks.
May 1, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great link. Highly recommended.
May 1, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
It better not be the popular vote that counts, because there's no way to know what that means in the primary.
That's been one of the most successful one of Hillary's lie campaigns.
May 1, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I SEE you!!!
Great pic.
May 1, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
O good - I was worried.
thanks. another computer picture I took the other night. I used the pencil drawing effect on it.
May 1, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
No there isn't.
He's been hit with everything including the kitchen sink, the bread box, the toaster, the Cuisinart, the blender, the Sub-Z, the Wolf Range - you name it - and he's still standing. And he's still ahead.
May 1, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love how camp Clinton argues that the popular vote should determine the nominee as part of a strategy to get superDELEGATE votes. A truly dizzying rate of spin!
May 1, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
You had me at HILLARY
PS Good article
May 1, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
You had me with the shirt.
May 1, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and by the way? I kissed you in an earlier post.
May 1, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know. I'm walking on sunshine. (Woooah, and don't it feel good!)
May 1, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
O. My. God.
First the shirt, then Katrina and the Waves?
am I having an 80s flashback? I stopped doing psychedelics in 69.
o wait - no I didn't. It's an X flashback!
May 1, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
It turns out that Katrina and The Waves had an unfortunately prescient moniker.
Meheheheh.
May 1, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm, Persimmon!
Tasty!
Meheheheh.
May 1, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you trying to make me crazier?
O my god - that shirt is the ultimate in bad taste now that it changes. In fact it's so far over the line it may go all the way to really chic based on it's utter tastelessness.
LOL!
;)
May 1, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah yes, it's from the collection of that enfant terrible of the fashion world, DF. The colors obviously reflect the many facets of the human condition: our yellow optimism, our blue cynicism, our vermilion egotism, and some other profound isms that I can't be bothered to come up with, and really, they'd be beyond your proletarian comprehension in any case.
May 1, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed - you're already way over my head.
May 1, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
You do realize how much otherwise priceless bandwidth that shirt is eating up, don't you?
As Obama says, enough with the distractions!
May 1, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm just glad you switched to the slower animation.
May 1, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oooh, Genghis, you're just the bees knees!
May 1, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
(blink)
NOT!
May 1, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
What, you're not using them if you're passed out on the table!
May 1, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh no, certainly it can't be about the popular vote. I mean why would we want to give the nomination to the candidate who got the most votes? That would be way too democratic.
I mean look at the facts. Gore got more votes than Bush, but Bush got to be President. With precedent like that, why go any other way.
I don't even think we should count the votes. I think we should give the nomination to the congressman from Ohio who sees UFOs. He only got like three votes, but votes don't matter, voters don't matter.
May 1, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Caucuses. Florida. Michigan.
Read articles before responding.
May 1, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lis, Genghis, et al
OT, but i just read something on Tom Wrights blog that I think people should know about.
A comment from Andrew:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/blogs-become-tv.php#comment-2771466
What do you guys think about TPM going subscription?
May 1, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I'd pay a subscription fee--TPM costs me far more in lost hours than a subscription could possibly cost--but I can't really see it generating much revenue. I may be way off, but I figure that there are perhaps several hundred registered members who contribute or comment regularly. Few of those who don't would pay. A good chunk of those who do wouldn't pay. And there will likely be a lot of hemorrhage after the election no matter what.
So unless the fee were massive, the revenue from a few hundred users wouldn't amount to much. At the same time, it could shrink the number of existing members and would certainly slow member growth. Also, there's something a bit funny about charging the people are who creating content for you. It would be like charging people who write Amazon reviews.
The reading audience is much larger, but of course, they won't pay a subscription fee. It's a tough business problem, and I empathize with TPM.
May 1, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I pretty much agree with you. I questioned Andrew on what kind of subscription it would be.
There's pay to play subscriptions (like Atlantics), elitist subscriptions (like the late NYT premium), and then there's the kind that merely allow you to read and post without the ads...(Bill the rich that can afford it subscriptions)
I'd hope TPM wouldn't restrict any content from the masses (we NEED them), but I'd understand if they did so. I'd wonder why they don't try an annual fundraiser of something along the lines of PBS and NPR first. I'd bet the response would be overwhelming.
:)
May 1, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good idea. I'dd happily donate like I would to PBS....or to Obama...or to a relief org, etc. if TPM had a fundraiser.
May 1, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/contribute.php
I seem to recall that Josh does an annual fundraiser as well.
May 1, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Awesome. Now that I think of it, I do remember bumping into a "contribute" section here at TPM one day when I was broke. Thanks for the link, I'll contribute this evening when I get home.
(Looks below)
Hi, Billy :)
May 1, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yay!!!!
This, and Lis making the recommended list has made my day!
Yay! Yay! Yay!
May 1, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reading about money sources for TPM reminded me of this NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/technology/06sweat.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Certainly makes me more appreciative of the work these guys do. Maybe I should contribute something...
May 1, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like TPM a lot and so I would certainly consider paying for it. However, I would echo clearthinker's concerns about this causing a loss of readership and narrowing the community. Additionally, I think it's worth considering that NYT took down their paywall because it wasn't working for them. This may not be an apples to apples comparison, but it's worth nothing that it didn't work out for them.
May 1, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Worth noting, I meant to say. Maybe it's worth nothing, too.
May 1, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently, and thank goodness for that.
I didn't mean to alarm anyone, but, well, I was alarmed.
:(
May 1, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're just thinging about giving you the option not to see ads.
May 1, 2008 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps TPM could be financed by a troll tax. If you want to post offensive things, you'd have to pay for the privilege. Just think--our use of TPM could be completely subsidized by gotalife and Matthew Weaver. And Josh Marshall could become a millionaire!! (You know some trolls would pay whatever it costs.)
May 1, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
You people keep it clean in here. No attacking Hillary, or I'll be back.
Hi, Lis. :)
May 1, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good cop, bad cop. Or maybe bad cop, worse cop. "Coming back to fuck you up." I'll do my best Harvey Keitel impersonation.
May 1, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look out!
Seriously, who cares?
May 1, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
In some kind of fog last night I think I saw in my tape of Tuesday night's Jon Stewart an interview of Gingrich. Whatever it was, someone pointed out that the Democratic Party is a private entity and has the right to choose its candidates however it chooses. I think that's correct. Very, very strange, and possibly bad, but correct. In that system, the party really can consider more than what the majority of plain ol' run of the mill Democrats think; the Party itself does what it thinks is best.
I've never bothered to read up on the history of how the parties came to be. I mean, do other democracies hold primaries? I feel so completely stupid and uninformed.
The same is legally true of the GE electoral system. It's specifically designed to allow the states to decide how they're going to allocate delegates, which is why some do it differently. Even though we have the technology to hold a nationwide popular vote, we'd have to change our whole legal framework to do so.
Sigh.
May 1, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and despite my grumblings, the system good for Obama, which works for me right now. I'd have to ponder some more to see if I can really swallow these weird political processes whole.
May 1, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude - please do me a favor - go read up on the various government of Holland. The system they had in the 18th century makes this look eminently sane.
This ain't nothin'. Ever read Tolstoy? The whole political caucus/district election that Vronsky takes part in - that's another eye opener.
Politics is a weird business. In Texas it is indeed a very weird business.
But that's the it is.
and why would it bother you that a political party is private? Think about it. Do you want parties to be governmental entities? I don't.
They are private entities and rightly, for many many legal reasons, too, that I'm not going start posting and boring people with.
May 1, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for confirming my vague memories of what passed for civics when I was a kid. I frankly couldn't remember any system aside from ours that does national primaries.
I'm not sure I'm troubled at all. I've simply been so swept up in my Obamaphilia that I lost track of what's actually going on. In the past I've skipped most primaries. I still vote in the GE, but vote in the Utah GE truly is bupkes.
So the reality of what the party is brought me up short. I think the vast majority of Americans would also be surprised at the thought that our input into the nomination simply isn't important. Hillary attacks caucuses as "undemocratic" because it suits her, not acknowledging that the states have the right elect their delegates based on whether they could roll their tongues if they want to. We think thatwe're the Democratic Party and get pissed that the DNC could even think of overriding our 'vote.' Frankly, it's nice of them to even ask us what we think. At least I think it's nice. Not feeling very decisive today.
And by the way, it's chicky-babe, not dude. I just checked.
May 1, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
um...my Democratic vote.
Time to go home.
May 1, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Democratic Party certainly has the right to select its candidate any way it chooses... but it has to live with the consequences, which drastically reduces the number of available options.
So that's kind of like saying anyone can go and punch their boss in the face anytime they like. While technically true, remarkably few people choose to do that.
In Europe, I am not aware of any country which holds US style primaries. Parties inevitable have some sort of candidate selection process, and voting is nearly always involved, but parties tend to have relatively few members (they have to pay dues you know) and the primaries are typically low-key affairs, in some cases conducted behind closed doors.
May 1, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
A Canadian federal party keeps the same leader (its de-facto candidate for prime minister) from election to election, unless the party's annual convention votes no-confidence in him/her or he/she decides to step down.
When a vacancy occurs at the top, it usually gets filled at a national leadership convention.
Selection of delegates to such a gathering varies by party, but there's no province-wide vote of members on a specific day; instead it's usually an accumulation of meetings at the grass-roots riding-association (constituency) level.
Then all the delegates show up in some central city, and vote for their preferred candidate.
Almost always, there are way more than two to choose from, and delegates are not committed to anyone past the first ballot.
The current Liberal leader, for example, won as sort of a dark-horse compromise.
Other federal parties have experimented with nationwide electronic votes by all their registered, paid-up members. The physical conventions are more costly, but also more fun.
Hey, you asked.
May 1, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. That's because in the UK, Canada, Oz, NZ etc., we have a parliamentary system. In a parliamentary system, people don't vote directly for the prime minister -- they vote for their local parliamentary representative, and whichever party wins the most parliamentary seats gets to choose the prime minister (in practice, that's the head of the party). Any party can replace its leader (and the party in power can replace the prime minister) any time it feels like it, by calling a convention at which party members vote as acanuck describes. The entire leadership campaign usually takes about 6-8 weeks (as I recall).
It's a lot more sensible, but because the American Constitution separates the legislative and executive functions, and chooses the President via elections controlled by state governments (not to mention the crazy electoral college setup), it isn't possible for Americans to use the parliamentary method for selecting a political leader.
One change that Americans could adopt from the UK/Canada etc. would be strict nonpartisanship in the administration of elections. Then we'd avoid all these partisan vote-suppression, registration, and "anti-voter-fraud" shlmazels.
May 1, 2008 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's been hit with everything....
Thought this was so funny! I love the new avatar.
May 1, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. :)
May 1, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Baby, you scare me. You were so cute once. I loved hearing intelligent comments coming from such an adorable little baby. It yelled "FUTURE" to me, somehow.
Now all I'm picking up is "Chucky's Offspring VI".
Please reconsider your avatar, for me if no one else.
May 1, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dammit! I meant to reply to Allsburg. The once very beautiful little baby with intelligence.
May 1, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Baby's suck out their parents brains and energy while they sleep.
It happens...
You grow them back after a while.
May 1, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink