Political Notes on the Day of West Virginia Primary

Email Print posted by yturks 05/13/2008 01:15:36 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!
I've watched a decent amount of cable TV coverage of today's West Virginia Primary. There's plenty of talk about coal, jobs, the economy, unions, and recent political trends in the state.  There has been a small amount of talk about the environment. One subject about which I have not heard a peep is the Sago Mine Disaster, or mine safety in general. Why is that?  Why aren't Clinton and Obama putting that issue on the media's radar screen?

On another note, a pledged delegate - PLEDGED, not SUPER - switched today from Clinton to Obama. (You can read about it at http://www.demconwatch.blog spot.com)

This is great. When Hillary suggested she could win if pledged delegates switched to her, the Obamabots lead by Cenk Uygur went ape shit.  Now a pledged delegate switched to Obama. I denounce and reject that switched delegate!

David

< So much for Einstein the believer | Darth Vader crushes Jedi >
 Display:
Political Notes on the Day of West Virginia Primary | 29 comments (29 topical, 0 hidden)
It's all about context (none / 0)
It IS strange that the pledged delegate said he's switching. Politically speaking I'm not sure how I feel about that.

But to be fair, you have to keep this in context. Hillary's context was that she was going to push pledged delegates to override the will of the people against a fellow Dem leading in pledged delegates, states won and the popular vote.

That fellow Dem (Obama) still has all of those things AND he also has the super-delegate lead AND a new poll shows that Americans trust Obama more than McCain on Iraq, Health-care and The Economy.

Finally, another new poll shows Obama ahead of Hillary nationally outside the margin of error.  In that context saying "ok, let's end this thing, the people have clearly spoken" is not so outrageous, although again I have mixed feelings.

Obviously it's not the same situation Dave.

by ihavenobias on 05/13/2008 01:36:28 PM EST

different situation doesn't matter to me (none / 0)
Bias, (I love how your nickname "ihavenobias" is shortened to "bias" which is the complete opposite of your intention. Think about that next time you chose a nickname.)

It' s not the same situation, but I don't think that matters. It's a principle we are talking about. In YOUR OPINION, it may be OK or make sense for a pledged delegate to switch from Clinton to Obama now, based on your view of the race.  But in somebody else's opinion, it may make sense for a pledged delegate to switch from Obama to Clinton, based on that person's perspective.  All you are doing is reiterating that you support Obama (as do I, if I need to remind you), giving some reasons, and then ascribing those reasons to the delegate who switched.  I believe the switch validates Hillary's proposed argument from a few weeks ago, and allows her to renew it today.

David

by yturks on 05/13/2008 01:48:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I think that's a fault of the person shortening, (none / 0)
Personally, I've used "nobias" as the nick for the nick

by Weapon X on 05/13/2008 01:53:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
And I largely agree with Dave (none / 0)
I do find the pledged delegate's reasoning persuasive, but not ultimately so. This does legitimize Hillary's attempts, not to mention sets bad precedent. If it was the entire state's delegation acting as a whole, or maybe even a majority, perhaps I could be persuaded.

And I didn't realize you were supporting Obama, Dave, or I would have realized you were being facetious and wouldn't have made the comment below. Your cynicism can be confusing, after all.

by Weapon X on 05/13/2008 01:57:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Weapon X is right (none / 0)
You could just as easily say "nobias".  I reject and denounce you.

Also, notice I said I had mixed feelings about this.  I didn't say "yeah, it's totally cool cuz Obama's doin' it!!!"

My point is that I think it's a wrong move politically, but *less wrong* because the argument behind it is more persuasive, regardless of who you support.

If Hillary had the lead pledged and super delegates and in popular vote and states won (etc.), the argument becomes far less offensive.  Is it still questionable?  Yes, hence the mixed feelings.  And I don't like the move because it could unnecessarily stir up some negative feelings.

Obama is WAY ahead at this point, so there's no reason to rock the boat. The primary objection to this as an Obama supporter is that the campaign and supporters should just be on cruise control when it comes to Clinton. As for McCain, it's time to step on the gas.

by ihavenobias on 05/13/2008 02:03:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I no longer care (none / 0)

Let her keep running.  The MSM declared him the winner.  No one cares anymore.

Every day she stays in the more she becomes like Huckabee after Super Tuesday.  Pretty soon she won't even really be covered anymore by the MSM.  After June 3rd she can campaign all she wants.  No one will listen.  Kinda stupid that is the way it works, but it is what it is. 

by ProfRich on 05/13/2008 02:37:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I, an "Obamabot," was disgusted by this (none / 0)
But after reading the story I calmed down a little. But only a little. I then came to TYT to post a few thoughts regarding this whole situation. I didn't reference this switch much more than just mentioning it at the beginning, but his reasons and the voting in his state and district do make a compelling argument. Nonetheless, it shouldn't happen. The fact that it is even a possibility is disheartening. Pledged delegates should only be able to switch if released by a candidate or at a brokered convention, imo.


On an somewhat unrelated note, I'm disappointed that you buy into the "obamabot" label, Dave. As if we're all a bunch of delusional morons who don't think.

by Weapon X on 05/13/2008 01:52:33 PM EST

Agree (none / 0)
Weapon, I'm with you. I don't like the term Obamabot, but a) I think it's a funny word and b)
I like to needle the Cenkbots who so fervently support Obama and start to teeter on the edge of sanity when addressing this subject of Clinton trying to wrestle the nomination in other ways. (Is it ok to use the word Cenkbot?)

I don't know why this subject gets my goat up so much.  I don't support Clinton. I don't think people should vote for her. But I think it's perfectly reasonable for her to try to win the nomination within the rules, whatever those are. And one way, is to try to get pledged delegates to switch.

David

by yturks on 05/13/2008 02:11:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Anyone can be a "bot" (none / 0)
It is a funny word, I'll grant you that, and I didn't realize at first that you were using it in jest. But the problem with this type of labelling is that it attacks people personally instead of their viewpoint. It's not that derogatory, but it does essentially say "you are a brainless fool" without refuting or offering any substantive points. I can just as easily say (and probably have, in the past) that Hillary supporters are "Hillbots" because of their wide-eyed fanatical belief in whatever message Hillary puts out. "Obama.is.unelectable. You.don't.understand.White. people.will.not.vote.for.hi m.Republicans.are.demi-Gods .and.can.subvert.any.messag e.Do.not.fight.them.Give.in ."

And so on.


p.s.- Cenkbots, on the other hand, do exist. This term is acceptable ;)

by Weapon X on 05/13/2008 02:20:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The bottom line is that (none / 0)
just because something is "within the rules" doesn't make it a good idea, practically or politically speaking.

Just because Jayar might be right that he can ask the owner of the dog he ran over for $1,000 for car damage doesn't make it a good idea, or an idea that we should embrace simply because it's technically "within the rules".

I get just as annoyed when someone goes too far in the *other* direction, and for example says that jaywalking should ALWAYS be enforced. Yeah, I get it, it's *technically* against the law, but give me a break.  We're humans and have some critical thinking ability.

If there are no cars within a mile of an intersection and some pedestrian cross the street (and a cop on foot sees him), don't give him a ticket. Would you be wrong to give him one, legally speaking?  No, but it's a bad idea.

Politically speaking, it would have been incredibly stupid for Clinton to try to this movie, in the context of her losing in just about every measure. Would it be technically within the rules?  Yes, but (fill in the blank).

by ihavenobias on 05/13/2008 02:41:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"it's a bad idea"? (none / 1)
Did I fill-in-the-blank correctly? lol, seriously, nobias, what are you doing with your logic and nuance?

Not to start a whole thing again with the Clinton supporters, but this is probably the overriding reason I support Obama. He generally gives context and acknowledges the nuance of each issue. I appreciate that our candidate won't run from the reality that things are rarely black & white (no racial puns, please). This used to be why I supported Clinton; Bill showed he was flexible while in the White House and while taking many measures I didn't agree with, he did seem to genuinely consider all ramifications and points of view.

by Weapon X on 05/13/2008 02:48:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Pledged delegates (none / 0)
Hillary said today she doesn't want any more pledges; only credit cards please.

by gatekeeper50 on 05/13/2008 01:55:27 PM EST

some horse race stuff (none / 0)
I heard the point made on one of the networks this morning that it's good for Hillary to stay in 'til after may 20, because she's going to clean Obama's clock in WV and KY regardless of her status, and it would look a little uncomfortable for him to lose that badly to someone who is no longer in the race. I think that's probably true.

by hazmat on 05/13/2008 01:59:46 PM EST

While that's completely true imo (none / 0)
Why make the incendiary and now useless argument of "but white people won't vote for him?"

I don't really want her to drop out before these two primaries since it would look bad, no matter the reality that he's won. But the alternative isn't for her to keep kicking him in the groin, so to speak. She could do a lot before dropping out to damage McCain, or repair rifts, or simply make her points without labelling him an out of touch left-wing loon.

by Weapon X on 05/13/2008 02:13:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Could it be (none / 0)
that her sense of entitlement (and inability to accept reality) and enormous ego are preventing her from doing the right thing?

by ihavenobias on 05/13/2008 02:14:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
As a Obama supporter (by default) (none / 0)
This does offend me.  That delegate was elected by citizens to do their will which was vote for Hillary.  They should not be allowed to switch.  They can resign if they want and let another Clinton delegate go but not switch.  And this is different from a Rep not supporting his home district.  Reps are elected to excercise their judgement in a way that supports and reflects their districts.  Delegates are elected to say one word: Obama or Clinton (in this case).  To refuse to say the right word is a complete abandonment of the job you agreed to do.

by ProfRich on 05/13/2008 02:48:34 PM EST

Well said (none / 0)

by Weapon X on 05/13/2008 02:50:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
why we laugh at liberals (none / 1)
"There has been a small amount of talk about the environment. Why is that?"  

Most environmentalists do not have the first clue on the subject of energy technology. This forum has its share of Marxists who attack oil, and socialists who attack coal, and communists who attack nuclear energy.

Without having taken a single course in engineering or science, they insist that America can meet our energy needs with “renewable alternatives” like biofuels. They deny that America can become completely self sufficient with a combination of nuclear, liquefied/gasified coal, and home-made oil that is produced in the Americas.

It is unwise to take this kind of whacky environmental evangelical religion into energy producing states like WV, KY, PA, UT, TX, LA, AK, OK, ND, SD, WY, CO, NM. It doesn't play well.

by KenTX on 05/13/2008 03:03:59 PM EST

KenTX and delegates switching (none / 0)
KenTX, what?  And where did Viva Obama go?  You confuse me. Please explain.

And on the subject of switching, I don't agree with ProfRich's well-worded post.  The rules explicitly allow the pledged delegates to switch, so how can you say it's unacceptable? In fact, it is 100% perfectly acceptable and allowable.

David

by yturks on 05/13/2008 03:10:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It depends on how you define it... (none / 0)
Shame on you Dave, for not reading my well-worded post on how something can be "within the rules" but still be a bad idea.

Maybe this is a squabble of semantics.

by ihavenobias on 05/13/2008 03:17:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Dave is correct. Rich is wrong. (none / 0)
Super Delegates can switch allegiance with every floor vote, and so can pledged delegates. There's a very good reason for this. The Democrat Party needs to maintain flexibility up to the last minute.

The reason is because some enterprising researcher will find Barack Obama in one of these tapes, jumping up and down and cheering wildly. Then all of the delegates will need to change their votes.

The GOP already has the smoking gun, but it won't be released until the weekend before the election. We want to return the favor for Democrats Bush DUI Bomb in the 2000 election. Your trick almost worked, but it came up 537 votes short. Too bad.

I am hardly supporting Hillary Clinton, but I would like for her to take the fight to the floor of the convention in Denver. Then I want her to storm out and form a third party candidacy.

I like excitement.

by KenTX on 05/13/2008 05:27:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Rich was not wrong (none / 0)

Because he never said the pledged delegates can't switch, he said they shouldn't.  Not in this case anyway.  Totally unjustified.  We could invent thousands of scenario where it would be justified.

Like imagine if a candidate won the nomination and then exposed himself to legal action that could land him in federal prison for five years for violating the campaign finance law the candidate himself wrote.

I could see jumping ship on that kinda deal.

Not cause you just changed your mind. 

by ProfRich on 05/13/2008 06:29:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Here is my decision. *gavel* (none / 0)
This election has ceased to be about politics for you.

Instead, you have chosen to support whatever outcome would be the most entertaining.

by jarett on 05/14/2008 02:07:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Jarett is correct. (none / 0)
Politics is entertaining to me. No matter the outcome.

I never see network television. I have never seen an episode of American Idol, Dancing With The Stars, Survivor, or any other reality show. I have hundreds of channels, but I only watch DVR rebroadcast of PBS, MSNBC, FoxNews, History Channel.

I listen to a lot of political talk radio. Young Turks is the best liberal talk radio ever. If more conservative talk radio fans learned about the Young Turks, listenership would explode. 

I would like for McCain to win the White House, but its not a tragedy if he fails. The GOP can't win every election, and 2008 is simply not a GOP year.

I would much rather have Obama win than Hillary, but I would love to see a floor fight at the Denver Convention. This hasn't happened in my lifetime. It's more rare than Haley's Comet.

by KenTX on 05/14/2008 05:22:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken's Age? (none / 0)

You are less than 40 years old?

I never would have guessed. 

by ProfRich on 05/14/2008 09:48:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
This is why we laugh at conservatives (none / 0)
"Unrelated comment, nonsennse nonsense, attack attack, misrepresentation of other side's views, blah blah blah"

Perhaps the points he was making had some substance, as did a surprising amount of earlier commenting, but this type of posting obscures all of that. That and the name calling. Although... there really are a lot Klingons who attack oil, fascists who attack coal, nazis who attack nuclear energy and garflabattas who attack gobbledygook.

by Weapon X on 05/13/2008 03:33:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Biofuels (none / 0)
It's not like we CAN'T meet our energy needs with biofuels.  It's just that we can't use biofuels alone (yet).  Nuclear, clean coal and domestic petroleum are all part of the equation, but renewables in general -- especially renewables like thermal solar which is RIDICULOUSLY efficient and enormously powerful in places like the American Southwest -- are definitely a big part and must become a bigger one.

by jarett on 05/14/2008 02:09:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I've explained this before. (none / 0)
Biofuels is an energy sink. You have to put more energy into the process than you get out of it. It makes the energy situation worse.

It is a boondoggle, designed to reward red state republicans, and make it look like Bush cares about the environment, which he doesn't.

by KenTX on 05/14/2008 05:50:51 AM EST

[ Parent ]
C'mon now (none / 0)
It's not always an energy sink.  Just because corn-fed ethanol is a bad idea doesn't mean the equation always works out so badly.

This is a fairly conservative (in the sense of being pessimistic with respect to efficiency) estimation of how we might make them work well.  Biology can be tremendously efficient at using the sun to knock together enough CO2 and water to create high-energy hydrocarbons.  You just have to play to its strengths.

http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodi esel/article_alge.html

by jarett on 05/14/2008 04:23:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Political Notes on the Day of West Virginia Primary | 29 comments (29 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: