Home

About
- Who We Are
- Community Guidelines
- Right to Respond

Advertising on BOR
- Advertise on BOR
- Buy on all Texas Blogs

Advertisements

Search




Advanced Search


Commentary: OMG, Plz stop w/ teh stupid!!1


by: Karl-Thomas Musselman

Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:54 PM CDT


Let me take the moment to make a humorous editorial aside on the presidential race. As the debate seems to continue in the comments of BOR (understanding that we're going to try to shift back over to Texas specific reporting as best we can), let's address a simple request if we're going to get into such debates: OMG Plz stop w/ teh stupid!!1

  1. If we're going to debate who won what (which is tedious in its own right), let's be really anal-retentive about it.

    A) You're right, the final national delegates from the Texas caucuses won't be determined until the state convention in June. But if you are a Clinton supporter and wish to use that line of reasoning, you'd better ask your candidate to remove similar statements about winning the Nevada caucuses from her website and not count those delegates before they've hatched either. Seeing as that hasn't happened, Barack Obama has, yes, won the Texas caucuses. No one is going to make up a 10-12 point loss by niggling over delegates here and there, and there is no guarantee that niggling would even fall in your favor.

    B) If we're going to insist on not calling anything until last possible binding date, then we need to rescind calling Texas for Clinton as the vote has not yet been legally canvassed. And on election night, when claiming victory, were you not considerate of the overseas military ballots that could still be received up to 5 days after the election? Clearly, it is too early to call the state's primary, not to mention the fact that provisional ballots at the time of it having been called, had not been reviewed by each county's ballot boards. The final determination of the delegates awarded from the primary thusly should not have been claimed by Clinton.


  2. If you are going to claim that your opponent is conspiring to defeat you- you're right! But be warned, that it looks really silly when you stoop to former Rep. Jack Stick levels in claiming that registering voters and turning them out is "gaming the system"... Well if that's the case, then game on I say. I really hope a lot more of this type of scandalous activity takes place before the election is over. There is nothing quite so undemocratic, as getting people to register to vote...as Democrats!. The horror!

  3. On a whole new, and much higher level of "teh stupid" is the concept that if you don't win a state's primary/caucus you can't win that state in the general election. OMG, is anyone actually believing this? Like seriously- did you think this through? Would you read it again to see how incredibly insane this argument sounds?

    Ickes, speaking of states Obama won or is likely to win,  said:

    "Most of those states haven't voted Democratic in a presidential since the Johnson landslide over Goldwater in 1964, and we don't see that changing. They're great states, but Idaho, Nebraska and the Carolinas are not going to be in the Democratic column in November. He's winning the Democratic process, but that is virtually irrelevant to the general election."

    This would be funny if it was coming from random bloggers, but slightly shocking (and degrading) if it was coming from people who could be credibly called "speaking for the campaign".  Thankfully, Harold Ickes is simply an advisor to Clinton's campaign, so like Geraldine Ferraro, his comments can be written off as not being official.

    Hillary spokesperson Phil Singer responds:

    The path to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue goes through Pennsylvania so if Barack Obama can't win there, how will he win the general election?

    Well, hell, I tried. I guess it is an official message being pushed by a campaign after all so we better deal with it.

    Yes, Clinton winning the Texas primary (wait, we can't say that yet) means she will win the state in November! Of course, polling says otherwise and suggests that Obama currently has the state in a tie with McCain while Clinton trails. But maybe that's just because Obama won Texas by the delegates that decide the nomination (wait, sorry, keep forgetting we can't talk about that).

    But ok, let's accept that measure of reasoning seeing how history has shown it to be true (insert eye roll). Let's count numbers based upon the states that have been won (without debate or contest, which takes NV & TX (which each claim) and MI & FL off the table for now).

    Hillary Clinton Electoral Votes: 180
    Barack Obama Electoral Votes: 195

    Please be aware that John McCain faces some problems winning the general election because Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee have now made it impossible for him to win 18 states this November by winning their primaries. His only saving grace is that he won most of the big states in the Republican primary (which does seem to raise a bit of a problem because it is my understanding that those are guaranteed Clinton states in November since she won them in the Democratic primary). Hmm. This seems to be a problem! How can both nominees win the state in the general if they won them in the primary?


  4. It's simply absurd to suggest that your campaign may have already raised in the first 12 days of March more than your opponent raised in all of February. It would be even more absurd to make this assumption based upon simple mathematics.

    At the current rate of donations received, Barack Obama will surpass 1,250,000 donations during the month of March. Assuming he has an average donation at the end of the month of $50, that would be $62,500,000. If the average donation size remains at $75, that would be $93,750,000.

    Barack Obama raised $55 million in February which is more than John McCain has raised for his entire campaign to date. Breaking that record a month later will be useful to compete in all the states that Obama has not won like California, New York, New Jersey, and Ohio that McCain and Clinton have both won in their respective primaries and will both win in November.

Thank you. That is all.  

ADVERTISEMENT
Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The difference (0.00 / 0)
Last I heard there was 41% reporting on the caucus and nearly every county that had not reported went to Clinton in the popular vote.

Of course, just because it went to her during the day does not mean she carried it at the caucus.

But there is a difference in calling Clinton the winner of the popular vote and calling Obama the winner of the caucus.

Why? Last time I heard, there was still nearly 60% of the caucus results to come. Anyone have any news on new results?


Does this help? (3.00 / 1)
http://www.victoriaadvocate.co...

and our local:
http://www.victoriaadvocate.co...

apparently Harris county is missing about 75 of 875 precincts.

My county has reported all but five. It went heavily Clinton, the caucuses were split evenly. Harris County was heavily Obama and it is missing data.

I think I would diagnose this as clusterforkitis.


[ Parent ]
She won 90% of the counties in the primary (0.00 / 0)
So you would expect that 'nearly every county that had not reported went to Clinton in the popular vote.'

[ Parent ]
OMG, Plz stop w/ teh stupid!!1 (0.00 / 0)
I can't handle it.

Partial caucus results, representing 41 percent of all caucus precincts, showed Obama last week with 56 percent of the county-level delegates chosen at the caucuses to 44 percent for Clinton. The state party says it will not be able to provide a further breakdown of the caucus results from March 4.

After a comprehensive review of these results, CNN estimates that Obama won more support from Texas caucus-goers than Clinton. Based on the state party's tally, Obama's caucus victory translates into 38 national convention delegates, compared to 29 for Clinton.

And though Clinton won more delegates than Obama in the primary, 65 to 61, Obama's wider delegate margin in the caucuses gives him the overall statewide delegate lead, 99 to 94 - or once superdelegate endorsements are factored in, 109 to 106.

CNN's estimate is based on a statistical review, which combined the county-level results provided by the state party with data from the U.S. Census, exit polls and telephone surveys.

That analysis showed that the counties that reported data to the state party last week appear to be a representative cross-section of the Texas population. The analysis also indicates that areas that were won by Obama reported results at essentially the same rate as areas that were won by Clinton.

Every procedure used to statistically model the outcome of the caucuses indicated that Obama had more support than Clinton.

And as the New York Times chart shows plenty of counties whose primaries may have gone to Clinton by Obama won the caucuses. In fact, of the empty counties, they are in East Texas where Obama did well in the caucuses or in the panhandle where A) there are like no delegates and B) they may not have even had them. Regardless of that, I'll cede to the CNN analysis above.  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.


[ Parent ]
Trust me, KT (0.00 / 0)
I really do want to stop with the stupid.

I don't know how much the remaining 59% will change the results but hundreds of thousands of people who attended their caucus are not represented in the current numbers.


[ Parent ]
it won't matter much after March 29th (0.00 / 0)
Then we'll have new numbers anyways.  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

[ Parent ]
OMG, Plz stop w/ teh stupid!!1 (0.00 / 0)
Thanks! I am relieved that the art of satire is not dead!

Jim


In honor of it... (3.50 / 4)
The "1" rating has been changed. This could be the beginning of an entire OMG, Plz stop w/ teh stupid!!1 Campaign for Blog Betterment.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

[ Parent ]
You make be laugh, K-T (0.00 / 0)
Thank you.

[ Parent ]
The new and improved 1 rating is too funny (0.00 / 0)
Now it will be hard to resist giving 1 ratings left and right because they are so funny. This will likely cause ratings to plummet across the board.

What would Karl Rove do to exploit BOR's declining ratings?  Or even worse, what would "Republican Jaun Garcia" do? We had better look out, or the joke will be on us!


[ Parent ]
I debated making it the 2 rating (0.00 / 0)
Too bad I can make decimal ratings.  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

[ Parent ]
omg, can all of the ratings be translated into lolcatspeak? (3.00 / 1)
please??

MAYBE DIS LINK WILL HALP.

I think it would really give this place some class.


[ Parent ]
4? (0.00 / 0)
why you gotta hate on fo'?

[ Parent ]
ah, the 4 (0.00 / 0)
As explained in the comment ratings guidelines...

(A note: BOR does not have a 4 rating. The "Big Orange" (DailyKos.com) used to max out a 4 rating (since deprecated) and at the time of our migration to the Soapblox platform (SoapBlox.net) we chose to skip 4 and max out at 5. It is a "fabulous" rating in honor of Burnt Orange Report's founder Byron LaMasters who was self-admittedly pretty fabulous.)    


Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

[ Parent ]
LOL (2.00 / 1)
Why not take it a step further and make "pi" a rating for posts that are enigmatic and don't make much sense... :)

[ Parent ]
Sorry for teh stupid . . . (0.00 / 0)
You guys have a wonderful website and this a great post, funny but making a lot of legitimate points.
But as long as you brought it up, I'm still trying to get my mind around the primacaucus. Taking as a given that Obama won more delegates while losing the popular vote in the primary -- do we really know why that is?  There seems to be an assumption that Obama won the caucuses because his people showed up in larger numbers for the evening caucuses (they are more passionate, better organized, whatever).  But is part of the difference between primary popular vote vs. caucus because delegates for each precinct/county/senate district were predetermined based on prior elections so winning certain geographic areas carries a disproportionate number of delegates?  I.e. am I understanding that the caucus is not a one person/one vote system? Is one caucus voter in true blue Austin worth more than one caucus voter in in historically red Dalhart? At some point will the actual number of humanoids caucusing for each candidate be reported as well as the resulting delegate count?  
There was a lot of dissatisfaction with the caucuses hereabouts (chaos, confusion, exhaustion).  I'm sure there will be a lot of discussion about scrapping or changing the primacaucus system at the upcoming conventions and I want to try to understand it better before the March 29 convention.

Every delegate is equal (0.00 / 0)
no matter where they come from.  But there are just more of delegate slots to be filled in Obama precincts than in Clinton precincts.

(Before anyone repeats the story that this came as a shock to the Clinton campaign and that they didn't know this factoid, please review that the leaders of the Clinton campaign, including Bill and Hillary Clinton, have operated under these rules in a whole slew of Texas campaigns going back to 1972 and they full well knew how this would play out.)

The delegates are allocated by looking back to the 2006 General Election vote for Governor nominee Chris Bell.

Because turnout patterns in that election are weighted toward two areas, African American precincts, and Anglo suburban counties where there are those "educated, latte drinking folks", Obama has a better map.

When Republican Collin County has more delegates than El Paso, and Republican Williamson County has more delegates than Hidalgo in the Valley, it means Obama wins more delegates than Clinton.

While she may be doing well in those "unreported" counties in the primary popular vote, there just aren't any appreciable delegats to be had.


[ Parent ]
The thing that gets me... (0.00 / 0)
I understand the "reward" factor but come on...who cares about the last election?  The current one is the only thing that matters and precincts should be rewarded as such.


[ Parent ]
No argument here (0.00 / 0)
You won't get an argument from me on that. But, we have to follow the rules that are in place right now. What we needs to be done is to change the system we are using to elect delegates in Texas. Until that is done, we are going to continue having these problems every time we have a Presidential election where Texas is "in-play".

Chris Utchell

[ Parent ]
But every voter is not equal . . . (0.00 / 0)
Thanks Glen.  Do you have a link to the delegate map?  I didn't realize it was just based on '06 Bell. That is a particularly odd benchmark because of the four way race with Governor Goodhair, Kinky and Strayhorn -- Bell only got 30% of the vote which is low even for a Dem in statewide race in Texas. It seems like using the last couple of Democratic primaries might be a better measure of where the true Democrats are (or were . . . there have been a lot of demographic changes).  
It's all water under the bridge now and we may never have another election like this one, but it seems like a rule change may be in order.  

[ Parent ]
But every caucus is equal... (0.00 / 0)
In that a caucus is by nature undemocratic.  Whether we're talking barriers to participation, the lack of secret ballots, viability thresholds, delegate splitting formulas, etc., almost every component of a caucus departs from a simple popular vote.  For those activists who have worked in caucuses from Iowa to Texas, the problems we saw here in Texas are by no means unique.  I was in Nevada for their caucus this year, and it appeared to me to be in many ways much more a nightmare of disorganization than anything I saw or experienced in Texas.

But while we're at it, primaries aren't really that purely democratic either.  Though it's a much more familiar voting process, delegate allocation through primaries is also done through mechanisms that distort the final result.  Since primary states use delegate allocation formulas based on the primary results in congressional districts or other geographic divisions, the final delegate tallies in primary states don't necessarily reflect the direct proportion of popular votes received by each candidate.  This is apparent when you look at primary states where the final popular vote tallies for Obama and Clinton may seem to depart quite a bit from the final delegate tallies.

There are a lot of arguments for and against these structures, and each state party has its own reasons for doing what they do.  Certainly, one option would be to decide the nominee based purely on the final total popular vote tally of all the states using a primary system without any translation into "delegates."  Whether that would be a wise idea is a discussion beyond the scope of this comment.

"In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H.L. Mencken


[ Parent ]
Racist! (0.00 / 0)
NIGGLING IS A WHITE RACIST WORD!!!

omg stop with the stupid (3.00 / 1)
Please get a dictionary or use teh google. It's a cognate and sounds like one, but it's not.

Of greater concern here should be the fact it's been used as a verb when it's an adjective.

And really, given the fact this post was tagged as "BOR Humor", it may even have been purposefully used for that very point. Paging Geraldine Ferraro....


[ Parent ]
Connect With BOR
Your source for Texas politics.

On Facebook: BOR
On Twitter: @BOR
On the Go: Mobile App

Upcoming BOR Events

"Do I Look Illegal?"
Arizona GOP Debate Watch

Wednesday, February 22
6:00-9:00 p.m.
Angie's Restaurant
1307 E. 7th Street
RSVP on Facebook

Save The Date:
Super Tuesday Super Watch Party!
Tuesday, March 6
6:00-10:00 p.m.
Scholz Garten
1607 San Jacinto



Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Shared On Facebook

Advertisement

Best of Texas Left
- (Complete Directory)
- B & B
- Bay Area Houston
- Blue Bloggin
- Bluedaze
- Brains and Eggs
- Capitol Annex
- Collin County Democrats
- Collin County Observer
- Community Forum
- Dog Canyon
- Dos Centavos
- Easter Lemming Liberal
- Eye on Williamson County
- Feet to the Fire
- Grading Texas
- Greg's Opinion
- Grits for Breakfast
- Half Empty
- Houtopia
- In the Pink Texas
- Kiss My Big Blue Butt
- Letters from Texas
- McBlogger
- Mean Rachel
- Musings
- North Texas Liberal
- Off the Kuff
- Panhandle Truth Squad
- Para Justicia y Libertad!
- Pink Dome
- San Antonio Mayor
- South Texas Chisme
- StoudDemBlog
- Texas Clover Leaf
- Texas Kaos
- The Caucus Blog
- There..Already
- Three Wise Men
Best of Texas Right
- Blogs of War
- BlogHouston
- Boots and Sabers
- Lone Star Times
- Publius TX
- Rick Perry vs the World
- Safety for Dummies
- Slightly Rough
- Urban Grounds
Other Texas Reads
- Burka Blog
- D Magazine
- DOT Show
- Statesman Elections
- Strong Political Analysis
- Texas Monthly
- Texas Observer
- The Texas Blue
- Quorum Report Daily Buzz
Around Austin
- Austin Bloggers
- Austin Chronicle
- Austin Contrarian
- Austin Metblogs
- Austin on Two Wheels
- Austin Real Estate Blog
- Austin Statesman
- Austin Texas Bike Shit Stuff
- Austin Towers
- Austinist
- Capital MetroBlog
- Daily Texan
- Do512
- Downtown Austin Blog
- East Austinite
- Elise Hu
-
Flash Mob Austin
- Keep Austin Blue
- M1EK
- Travis County Democrats
- University Democrats
TX Progressive Orgs
- ACLU Legislative Blog
- Atticus Circle
- Criminal Justice Coalition
- Equality Texas
- NOW Texas
- PFAW Texas
- Public Citizen
- SEIU Texas
- Tejano Insider
- Texas AFT
- Texas HDCC
- Texas Watch
- TFN
- TSTA
- TSEU
- Texas Young Democrats
- United Ways of Texas
TX Elections/Returns
- TX Returns 1992-present
- TX Media/Candidate List

- Bexar County
- Collin County
- Dallas county
- Denton County
- El Paso County
- Fort Bend County
- Harris County
- Jefferson County
- Tarrant County
- Travis County

- CNN 1998 Returns
- CNN 2000 Returns
- CNN 2002 Returns
- CNN 2004 Returns
- CNN 2006 Returns
- CNN 2008 Returns
Traffic Ratings
- Alexa Rating
- Quantcast Ratings
-
Syndication

Powered by: SoapBlox