As the possibility of a Democratic delegate deadlock looms, former Dukakis-Gore-Kerry-Edwards consultant Ted Devine has been all over the media as an expert on super-delegates, from NPR to Comedy Central (yes, there is a difference).
In today’s New York Times, Devine argues:
The superdelegates were never intended to be part of the dash from Iowa to Super Tuesday and beyond. They should resist the impulse and pressure to decide the nomination before the voters have had their say.
The party’s leaders and elected officials need to stop pledging themselves to either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama, the two remarkable candidates who are locked in an intense battle for the Democratic presidential nomination.
If the superdelegates determine the party’s nominee before primary and caucus voters have rendered a clear verdict, Democrats risk losing the trust that we are building with voters today. The perception that the votes of ordinary people don’t count as much as those of the political insiders, who get to pick the nominee in some mythical back room, could hurt our party for decades to come.
However, if you download the assessment Devine wrote before Super-Duper Tuesday, you will hear a different tune:
The party leaders and elected officials who qualify as unpledged delegates to the convention, the “superdelegates,†may end up playing an important role in deciding the Democratic nomination. This bloc of 796 delegates, more than a majority of whom remain uncommitted to a candidate at this date, offer the primary opportunity available to candidates to build big delegate margins…
A string of state victories after Super Tuesday will convince superdelegates to move towards a frontrunner, and add to that candidate’s delegate advantage. And with the impact of proportional representation, catching that front running candidate becomes almost impossible. (Emphasis added.)
For some reason, with the conventional wisdom pointing toward Obama racking up that string of victories, Devine now argues for the super-delegates to sit on their hands. He is also rewriting the historical purpose of super-delegates, which — as Daniel W. Drezner points out — was to influence the process from the outset. Indeed, as Kevin Drum notes:
The very existence of superdelegates assumes that they’ll vote their own consciences, not merely parrot the results of the primaries. After all, why even have them if that’s all they do?
Perhaps Devine has more of an agenda regarding the current race than he is letting on. Not that I expect anyone in his myriad media appearances to ask about it. That would be journalism.
(h/t Memeorandum.)
Ohnoes. Now we has to offset the more liberal impulses of elected officials. But no…
That’s all it’s about. How pitiful. It would help a lot really if Obama actually had some sort of substance so that people could have more to base their choice on than skin tone and gender. But that’s asking a lot. What they should do then I think is do blind changeyness taste tests in shopping malls so peeps can have some empirical data. Take the changeyness challenge!
Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.
Is so.
Ditto.
*urp*
Although this is a National Election Year, there has been a noticeable lack of posts on…….Iraq. It may be a function of myopia, or it could be the Denialism which has propelled
you all into the fix you put us in.
For old time’s sake; revisit your pride in our foreign poilcy advances.
There go.
that first quote you have happyfeet is quite the gem. Even within their own party there are elites that just know what’s bestier for everyone.
…former Dukakis-Gore-Kerry-Edwards consultant Ted Devine has been all over the media as an expert…
How does that work, exactly? Because I am starting to suspect I may be an expert in many areas and not even realise it.
Have you been passed out drunk since Friday leo?
Is like this B Moe. You commodify yourself. x ref the Chelsea thread.
I don’t think semantichloe’s a pass-out drunk; but I do think he/she writes blog-comments during his/her blackouts. There are probably other explanations for why it drops these gems and then completely fails to defend them, but I haven’t seen one.
@ #4
Can’t help you there, but maybe this comment will tide you over
’til the Blog Manager cranks something out.
WE WIN !!!
Blast!
“Have you been passed out drunk since Friday leo?”
What is that, Affirmative Action for Iraq posts?
Search the archives then tell me the good news about the WOT, ’cause
there is a noticeable LACK of posts on that subject. Endless musings
about the Election take the place of a good bottle of Scotch.
You might notice a distinct lack of Iraq stories on the CBS and teh NPR etc. too little man. I don’t think it’s us what’s in denial.
Having spoken with some of my friends in the Democrat Party, I can confirm for you that the reason Superdelegates exist is to prevent minorities from getting the nomination. The thinking is that with all the mulit-culti hoo ha Democrats spout off for the sole reason of making Republicans appear to be racists, their voters might actually, you know, God forbid, believe this shit and actually nominate one of them.
Can’t have that now can we, Jeeves.
There goes cleo again pretending that the side who’s position hasn’t changed is the one that needs to be discussing the issue. I think the real truth is that she just hates her self. I can see that happening when you are constantly pushing to abandon so many millions to the devices of evil men.
Well, there’s this sort of unglamorous thing. Not that the smegmatic one is ever paying attention:
Nothing to see here; move on.
Oh, and this:
But there aren’t that many pictures, so I think understanding might be slow in coming for our friend.
Blog Manager
Which is how the (Arizona Republic ?) referred to our gracious host, back in the day.
Slipshod.
there is a noticeable LACK of posts on that subject.
All kidding aside ‘cleo. That’s because Dan has a hard time typing. I read that he tore-out his own fingernails when Jeff decided to retire. So, cut him some slack, eh?
And of course, because this is a news blog, Dan’s slacking by not reporting the latest.
I think.
kleo is not happy unless we are losing, or at least when we are at a point where he/she/it can assert we are losing. Now that that meme has been fully discredited, he/she/it just wanders around in a stupor slinging feces at the passerbys.
In which case, Dan ought to get to telling us about how Patti Solis Doyle, Hillary’s campaign manager, has been replaced.
Got it up now, Pablo.
Or Karl, as the case may be. Like lightning, I tell ya!
IOW, nothing has changed, other than cleo’s purported level of angst.
“Comment by Semanticleo on 2/10 @ 2:22 pm #
Although this is a National Election Year, there has been a noticeable lack of posts on…….Iraq. It may be a function of myopia, or it could be the Denialism which has propelled
you all into the fix you put us in.
For old time’s sake; revisit your pride in our foreign poilcy advances.”
We’re winning.
Now fuck off.
Oh, and semantic (nudge nudge wink wink), how are you going to live with a candidate who’s “Selected. Not Elected” after Mrs. Clinton strongarms your “independent thinkers” to vote for her?
Would those deals be finished in a dope smoke filled back room?
“Comment by happyfeet on 2/10 @ 2:36 pm #
You might notice a distinct lack of Iraq stories on the CBS and teh NPR etc. too little man. I don’t think it’s us what’s in denial.”
Oh my goodness.
Bitchslapped by happyfeet.
That’s quite and acheivement, semantic(nudge nudge wink wink).
@ #23-24
DON’T MAKE ME COME DOWN THERE !!!
Well, of course! You didn’t think they’d put their paternalistic agenda on hold for a mere election, did you?
What!? Not again. A day without Teh Goldstein is like a day without.. Well, you fill in the blanks with your favorite drug. I needs my fix, dammit!
“We’re winning.
Now fuck off.”
Declare victory, then depart the field.
But, what of Dan’s fingernails?
For Semanticlown: You won’t like it.
Maybe I missed the memo, but I still put those up twice a month. I’d do it more often, but that’s the schedule the clipping service I use works on. Since I don’t have to pay for it, I’m not going to argue.
So, Cleo, now that I’ve drawn you a picture, again, where’s the one you owe me?
(Cleo disappears, again, in 5…4…3….)
: You won’t like it.
I count two posts. Anyone want to make it three…………?
Declare victory, then depart the field…
Led by the USMC Band, playing Stars and Stripes Forever.
Sweet!
How many is enough for you? How many times have you posted on Iraq, in the last week? Or ever?
Or as long as we’re asking her to hold forth on things she knows nothing about, how about that illumination on Afghanistan?
“on things she knows nothing about, how about that illumination on Afghanistan?”
I know enough to deduce $8 billion per month spent in Iraq would better utilized in Afghanistan.
You seem to be arguing yourself in a circle, here. You were asking about Iraq, and now you’re nattering on about Afghanistan.
I know enough to deduce $8 billion per month spent in Iraq would better utilized in Afghanistan.
Am I to understand you would spend $0 per month in Iraq?
A sure sign that things are dire for cleo — show up on a post about Democrats at each other’s throats to change the subject to Iraq — a subject Dems have been avoiding for months.
It’s curious that so many are so mired in their psychic investment in Iraq, they can’t focus on simple issues like ‘return on investment’.
They can’t fathom how anyone pro-WOT terror could call them on their
signature clusterfuck, Iraq. Their Denialism is perfected so completely such find their identity politics in that black hole of fiscal ineptitude as the last holdout, because they can’t admit they were wrong.
“show up on a post about Democrats at each other’s throats to change the subject to Iraq  a subject Dems have been avoiding for months.”
I had no idea it was so simple.
So how much is being spent in Afghanistan? When I cruch the nubers your $8b figure is 10 times more than all expenditures for the GWOT–Iraq, Colombia, Georgia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Horn of Africa AND Afghanistan.
So I’m back to questioning whether you know anything about the subject at all.
737 billion total GWOT through FY 2008. Divide by 85 months =8.6 billion/month.
But Afghanistan has been 200 billion. which is almost 2.3 billion/month.
No doubt you are unhappy that this number is less than the other , but if you subtract 2.3 from 8.6, that only leaves 6.6. And that’s not all Iraq.
So you’re still talking through your hat.
And the “return on investment” crack: You equate lives lost to sunk costs? That takes a very special kind of depraved indiffernce, though from you that’s expected.
“When I cruch the nubers your $8b figure is 10 times more than all expenditures for the GWOT”
Poor edit: When I cruch the numbers your $8b figure is 10 nearly % more than all expenditures for the GWOT
So it comes to this: Either alienate blacks, or alienate women. The numbers don’t look good for Obama, because blacks only comprise about 1/7 of the US population, while women are over half of those eligible to vote. Furthermore, an even larger majority of eligible black voters are women, given the skewed rate at which black males kill each other right about the time they’re becoming old enough to vote, with the survivors getting felony convictions that disqualify them. It’s really unclear whether black women would feel more shut out if the black guy or white woman loses. That may be pretty much a wash.
Obama’s real power bases are White Guilt and Clinton Fatigue. While Edwards was in the game, he got some of the latter, but it now belongs exclusively to BHO.
Besides, Obama’s really only half black, while Hillary is… uh, never mind. The math on that one might actually be in his favor.
“We’re winning.
Now fuck off.â€Â
Declare victory, then depart the field.
You know the Pub is open to anyone, cleo? If you think we need a post on Iraq or Afghanistan or the WoT in general, how about you put one up over there instead of continually trying to hijack other peoples posts like a spoiled, pissy little toddler. Everyone here would fucking love to see you lay out who you think is winning the war in Iraq and why you think so.
but BMoe then he might find articles about where some of the money in Iraq is going. rebuilding projects, personnel, etc….
““When I cruch the nubers your $8b figure is 10 times more than all expenditures for the GWOT—
Whew!!
I don’t even know how to address that. Tell me where you are crunching your numbers from. I would like to know who’s peddling that.
where do your numbers come from?
Cleo, you’re too stupid to breathe.
I corrected myself two minutes later and you still haven’t figured that out an hour afterward.
I don’t even know how to address that. Tell me where you are crunching your numbers from. I would like to know who’s peddling that.
You haven’t been able to address a point here in your life, you rude little bitch. Quit interupting the grownups and go make your own Goddamn post. If we aren’t winning, who is? By what metric? Stake out your position and defend it like an intelligent adult if you want to be treated as one, otherwise shut up and color. And see if someone will change your diaper, you are starting to smell.
The pub is here: https://www.proteinwisdom.com/pub/index.php
by the way, in case you need help finding it.
We can put a GPS tracker on your ass, too, cleo, given that (rhetorically speaking) you’re having a hard time finding it with both hands.
9.6 Billion dollars for Iraq per month—-
Afghanistan is 1.8 Billion per month——
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf
Shall I provide evidence the sun rises in the East, as well.
You could suggest a different balance of costs, or otherwise make some kind of point. Any kind of point would be an improvement.
Possibly we could scrape together a team of horses, or oxen, or even find a tractor to pull that point out of you. A voluntary delivery of a point would be so much easier, no?
I know enough to deduce $8 billion per month spent in Iraq would better utilized in Afghanistan.
Go to the Pub and prove it, or shut the fuck up.
$8 billion a month spent in Iraq is simultaneously far too much and not nearly enough, Moe. I win!
Shart;
Just because the Pub is open doesn’t mean you have to start this early.
Try reading the thread. Here’s the capper from above……
It’s curious that so many are so mired in their psychic investment in Iraq, they can’t focus on simple issues like ‘return on investment’.
They can’t fathom how anyone pro-WOT terror could call them on their
signature clusterfuck, Iraq. Their Denialism is perfected so completely such find their identity politics in that black hole of fiscal ineptitude as the last holdout, because they can’t admit they were WRONG.
You’re very like the thoroughly corrupt MacBeth.
“Out! Out, damned spot!!!”
There’s still nothing like a coherent point in there, cleo. Why don’t you try making a point, and then just for giggles, substantiating it?
What course of action do you advocate?
A ray of hope.
Some are finding the facts sufficient to ‘punch through their crust’.
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2008/02/too-little-plan.html
Unfortunately, for others, such epiphanies require some frontal lobe activity.
“What course of action do you advocate?”
First; clean house of the court jesters you have given slobberingly
mindless allegiance to, then allocate monies toward the real front on
terror; Afghanistan and Pakistan. Or shall I draw you a picture?
Just for the hell of it, I’m going to juxtapose all of cleo’s comments on this thread and see if they build anything interesting:
Feel free to add or subtract things to have it make more sense. You couldn’t hurt its sensibility by much, I say, so any surgery would be an improvement.
“Freedom ain’t Free”….cleo.
Let Them pay for it. myopic bastards. Again what is a needed is a Obama presidency, a 20 percent federal surcharge on incomes over 250K a year to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and a six month timetable..to win the peace and then get out.
the ‘surge’ might be working but at whose expense? and where will it end? Even Jonah Goldberg’s given up on the successful conclusion of Bush’s war.
Ok, now: how do you advocate doing these things? What would a “real front on terror” look like?
And if I have, as you say, given “slobberingly mindless allegiance” to the “jesters”, how am I going to do anything other than what they tell me to do? Why are you wasting your time, if that’s the case?
You might try a little less angst, and a little more straight talk. Straight talk communicates a little better.
frontal lobes disabled by alcohol poisoning………….
Good lord cleo, that link goes to a discussion of a report that was written in 2005. You seem hopelessly stuck in the past.
The funniest part of this is that your party is playing you for a fool on this issue. They aren’t about to cut and run from Iraq, because despite their rhetoric to the contrary they understand what that would mean to us, the Iraqi’s and to the world at large.
Frontal lobe activity indeed.
You’re very like the thoroughly corrupt MacBeth.
And you are like my two year old niece, who when she is not getting the attention she desires at family gatherings run in front of the TV, pulls her dress over her head and screams at the top of her lungs.
Try reading the thread.
We did read the thread, you preening little twit, it is about potential problems in the Democrats selection process. Unfortunately your masters are still trying to look the other way and haven’t spoon fed you any opinions on this, so you have to change the subject to the old tried and true. “Look at my panties! Look at my panties!”
I wonder how long the Democrat leadership has to stay in the shower after rubbing elbows when this shit all day?
“how am I going to do anything other than what they tell me to do?”
There’s yer sign……….
Ah, that explains much. Maybe you could put your primary caregiver on, and let those of us who aren’t mentally deficient chat for a bit.
a 20 percent federal surcharge on incomes over 250K a year to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan
How much revenue would that raise, dave? And how do you propose we spend the money?
and a six month timetable..
More specifics, please. I would like a month by month breakdown of what we should do.
“despite their rhetoric to the contrary they understand what that would mean to us, the Iraqi’s and to the world at large.”
Wrong, they won’t change course because, like so many conservatives, they are fully invested in the war and cannot admit their wrongheadedness. Otherwise, their jobs are in jeopardy. That’s why
TelCom immunity keeps sneaking back. They don’t want the extent of their culpability exposed.
Let us know when you’re done arguing with the the “they” in your head, cleo.
I swear, this just might be performance art.
Wrong, they won’t change course because, like so many conservatives, they are fully invested in the war and cannot admit their wrongheadedness.
Slart is talking about the Democrats, see, you can tell by the sentence immediately preceding the one you quoted:
The funniest part of this is that your party is playing you for a fool on this issue.
It is an example of this new, sophisticated type of communication many of us use here, where a string of sentences are often related to each other to form more complex ideas. You really should try it sometime.
“Wrong, they won’t change course because, like so many conservatives, they are fully invested in the war and cannot admit their wrongheadedness. Otherwise, their jobs are in jeopardy. That’s why”
First, their jobs are always in jeopardy, as they should be. Second, confidence in the war is on the rise so their jobs don’t seem to be in much jeopardy over that issue at the moment, and third it is a good thing that the leadership of the US should be “fully invested” in the war, regardless of how wrongheaded you think it is.
If you were POTUS what would you do about Iraq? Answers that reference Afghanistan or Pakistan will be ignored as being a dodge.
“If you were POTUS what would you do about Iraq?”
Iraqi elected officials have had sufficient time to meet minimal benchmarks. I’ve been saying all along “First, their jobs are always in jeopardy, as they should be”. That means soon, very soon, I would begin drying up any perks. Then I would begin the process of redeploying troops and cash to the real WOT (but you wished I refrain from mentioning Afghanistan, so I won’t if it hurts your ears).
That means soon, very soon, I would begin drying up any perks. Then I would begin the process of redeploying troops and cash to the real WOT…
BECAUSE OF THE CHANGEYNESS!
Of course, it would really hurt your ears to hear that we should not have engaged Iraq in the first place. But since we’re there, I can’t do that as POTUS now, so I and you and the rest are left with this huge clusterfuck. So it’s kind of a moot point, isn’t it?
“Iraqi elected officials have had sufficient time to meet minimal benchmarks.”
How is it that you are so comfortable knowing what sufficient time is?
“That means soon, very soon, I would begin drying up any perks.”
What perks are you referring to, and what do you mean by drying them up?
“Then I would begin the process of redeploying troops and cash to the real WOT (but you wished I refrain from mentioning Afghanistan, so I won’t if it hurts your ears).”
What effect do you suppose the redeployment of troops out of Iraq will have on the quite large segment of Iraqi’s who are not the government nor the enemy? Why does it matter one way or the other if Iraq is part of the WoT? Does it need to so neatly fit your label in order to be worth the effort to finish the job that we started, or does just labeling it outside the realm of acceptable WoT countries allow you to more easily betray the people there?
Finally, what do you suppose will happen to the next generation of our military when we again send them off to war with an enemy who knows, as Osama claims to, that they only need to be bled for so long before they will turn tail and run. Your plan could easily have the long term effect of increasing American casualties.
It doesn’t hurt my eyes or ears cleo. It’s a discussion that doesn’t avoid the unpleasant details. And yes, arguing over the rightness of invading Iraq is a moot point now.
“And yes, arguing over the rightness of invading Iraq is a moot point now.”
Did you support the invasion?
Do you think now it was a mistake?
Do you think the occupation has gone well?
If not, where is your denunciation of the architects?
Getting those out of the way will ease the discussion.
‘those’ questions, that is.
So I must agree with you in order to be worthy of discussing this with you? No thanks.
“So I must agree with you in order to be worthy of discussing this with you? No thanks.”
I just want to know what I’m dealing with. Peppering me with questions of limited scope, then asking me to define the meaning of ‘is’ is not my idea of a worthy discussion, but I was willing to continue.
Regards
“If not, where is your denunciation of the architects?”
So let me get this straight this means if Hillary wins you will vote against her?
Guys, though your efforts are noble, they are futile. Brick walls are far more prone to introspection and changeyness than the pre-traumatic stress disorder inflicted misskleo.
Which one of us are you talking to? And why do you need that, in order for you to make your point?
Did you support the invasion? Yes
Do you think now it was a mistake? No. It appears that the information that was globally accepted about WMD’s may have been off, but that was accepted wisdom across global borders and US political parties.
Do you think the occupation has gone well? Not well, but not the disaster you would have us believe.
If not, where is your denunciation of the architects? No need to denounce them. The idea of this being easy, and being able to be completed without mistakes, is laughable.
Getting those out of the way will ease the discussion. This sentence translates to “Getting those out of the way will ease my ability to make up shit about your position”.
There, KKKleo. That is all out of the way. Let’s hear what you will do, and how many brown people you are willing to sacrifice.
FWIW, I cannot wait until the Dem nomination goes to the floor of the convention, and the activists are over-ruled by the ruling elite. It should be broadcast by Dana White and Joe Rogan on PPV.
I just want to know what I’m dealing with. Peppering me with questions of limited scope, then asking me to define the meaning of ‘is’ is not my idea of a worthy discussion, but I was willing to continue.
My intention was not to limit the scope, but to point out that simply pointing to Afghanistan and Pakistan as worthy of our attention does not make Iraq disappear. That country will still exist, and as such needs to be addressed as well.
I am sure we will have more opportunity to discuss this in the future.
no, but you were wrong, and now we know it since you FINALLY provided a link for one of your assertions.
anyhoo, I’ve cleared some space on the fridge for your picture of Afghanistan whenever you get it done.