MyDD :: Clinton/Obama -- vs sports metaphors I

Clinton/Obama -- vs sports metaphors I

by 1950democrat, Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:54:23 PM EST

When I point out the advantages for Obama of a Clinton/Obama ticket, Obama supporters sometimes answer suggesting that whatever the practical advantages, it would be somehow dishonorable for Obama to agree to that -- citing various sports metaphors. I hope some Hillary supporters will help me explain to them why their kind of sports metaphors don't quite apply to this present contest.

Basically ... a primary season is not like the Democratic nominee vs the Republican nominee in November. It's more like tryouts, or an audition, to choose a job applicant.

And the Democratic Party primary process is not settled by raw ballots going to the Supreme Court, or any other numerical metric. It's more like a figure skating competiton that is settled by a panel of judges voting on who has made the best performance and is likely to be the best competitor when he/she goes to the Olympic arena (which may differ from the local try-out arena in known ways).

Tags: 'Clinton/Obama' sports metaphors superdelegates metrics rules 'spirit of the primary' (all tags)

Permalink :: 38 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Clinton/Obama -- vs sports metaphors I (none / 0)

Clinton/Obama ticket.
Hillary is practically giving Obama a big favor.

by SHIBAM8P on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:57:48 PM EST

really? really? really? (none / 0)

he can have a VP spot?? well sign me up....

To put in sports terms.

Obama is 5 miles ahead of hillary in a 100 mile run, with 1 mile to go and now you want him to stop and say, yes I will take the second place, because you know hillary deserves the first.

-- be excellent to each other

by kindthoughts on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:18:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton/Obama -- vs sports metaphors I (none / 0)

"It's more like a figure skating competiton..."

I wonder who is bribing the french judge?

Ok, really, I have to ask?

What is in for Obama, since he has clearly almost a glide path to the nomination, to decide to be Hillary's VP?

First, there is NOTHING that then assures immediately:

The Hillary wins in the fall as the head of the ticket?

And, that Obama wins in 8 years after that?

WHY should, since he is GOING to be the nominee, what makes this such a slam dunk in your mind?

"Well the danger on the rocks is surely past... Still I remain tied to the mast"...Don Fagen, Poet and Piano Player

by WashStateBlue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:00:21 AM EST

I guess.. (none / 0)

it would be that Obama could get 16 years in the White House instead of 8.

On the GWB/Cheney model of powerful VP (without the evilness component), Obama could be the visionary, and the Clintons could take out the trash and kick a bunch of GOP ass, and clean up DC for a prosperous and long Obama reign.

(rhet takes another long toke from the bong)

by rhetoricus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:14:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

LOL (2.00 / 1)

There is no Vice President in a Clinton administration. There's a line beginning with Bill, of 10 or so other people, whose opinion/influence will be greater than any VP could ever dream.

The ONLY reason that Clinton supporters bring up the idea of an Obama VP is not because they honestly believe that he will be given a portfolio that is befitting someone who is actually leading Hillary in all of the indicators, but because they know that he will be needed to get out the vote among new/young/black voters.

by highgrade on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:35:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I guess.. (2.00 / 1)

Something like that. The Clintons clean up after Bush Jr, balance the budget, make the world safe for ponies and rainbows in 2016. Obama gets four terms of worldwide bully pulpit.

And there's a unified Dem party running in Nov 2008 and Nov 2016.

by 1950democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:46:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I guess.. (2.00 / 1)

Make Obama second banana after he kicked Hillary's ass and there will be no unified party.

Government derives its power from those that it governs.

by lockewasright on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:02:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I guess.. (none / 0)

Yeah.. the only way that would work is if it was Obama's idea, for the sake of 16 years instead of 8, and he'd have a lot of hard sellin' to do with his own followers.

by rhetoricus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:47:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I guess.. (none / 0)

I'm sure it would be presented as Obama's idea.

What would help him sell it?

by 1950democrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:22:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I guess.. (none / 0)

"world safe for ponies and rainbows in 2016"

And a chocolate river and lollipop forest don't forget!!!

(another long hit from the bong.. damn.. that potpourri on the table is lookin' yummy..)

by rhetoricus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:50:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Spin all day... (none / 0)

...but we choose our nominee by delegates. From there, the nominee chooses the VP.

Obama has more delegates.

should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?

by Firewall on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:02:26 AM EST

Re: Spin all day... (2.00 / 1)

Yeah. Here's my own sports metaphor: Two heavyweights go toe to toe for 50+ rounds without a knockout. One of them wins roughly two-thirds of the rounds and earns a unanimous decision on points. We call those points "delegates."

by deminva on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:15:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton/Obama -- vs sports metaphors I (none / 0)

Ben Johnson won gold in the olympics but had to give the medal back for using steroids.

Wisdom Is The Reward For Listening Over A Lifetime

by gunner on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:03:58 AM EST

Re: Clinton/Obama -- vs sports metaphors I (none / 0)

yeah--those yeller eyes! it was crazy! but the gold probably wasn't so sweet for ol' Carl, getting it that way.

by rhetoricus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:15:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

um, (none / 0)

I see. Obama builds grasroots organization from scratch. Hillary uses the existing party machine ... aka steroids.

-- be excellent to each other

by kindthoughts on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:20:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

why would Hillary put Obama on the ticket? (none / 0)

not after he snubbed her at the SOTU.

"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!

by Al Rodgers on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:04:03 AM EST

Re: why would Hillary put Obama on the ticket? (none / 0)

Let's face it. It's going to Obama. But if by some odd twist of fate, she did win every single remaining delegate and thus, the nomination, she would have no choice but to take him. After this contentious primary season, she'd lose the African-American vote without him.

Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain

by psychodrew on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:46:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: why would Hillary put Obama on the ticket? (2.00 / 1)

Hillary more or less offered VP to Obama weeks ago (before Wright iirc). She's into party unity.

by 1950democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:55:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: why would Hillary put Obama on the ticket? (2.00 / 2)

you mean when she was ALREADY far behind and no chance of catching up?

That's when she offered it the first time, AFTER she was losing?

LOL, she and Mark Penn were already grooming some placeholder like Evan Bayh, cause, as folks have said, you don't need a VP when you have Bill?

"Well the danger on the rocks is surely past... Still I remain tied to the mast"...Don Fagen, Poet and Piano Player

by WashStateBlue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:12:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton/Obama -- vs sports metaphors I (none / 0)

This might make a better ticket than it would a government. IMO the problem is Bill. He couldn't keep his putz out of the political process. Maybe if he'd agree to be ambassador to Goa or some place far away like that, he'd at least be away most of the time.

by Hobe on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:07:06 AM EST

Re: Clinton/Obama -- vs sports metaphors I (none / 0)

They could sic him on solving the I/P problem (ever seen the Family Guy where Bill is so smooth he gets everyone to sleep with him, even Peter?). And they could give him vacations--I mean, cyclone and tsunami relief--on islands with hot chicks.

by rhetoricus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:19:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton/Obama -- vs sports metaphors I (none / 0)

That's a consideration, but I'm sure something could be worked out.

by 1950democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:26:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Give him the crap jobs. (none / 0)

Send him off to raise money for poor people or deal with little problems that the president wouldn't have time to. Think of him as like a Jimmy Carter who is on call 24-7.

Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain

by psychodrew on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:41:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton/Obama -- vs sports metaphors I (none / 0)

How 'bout Tuzla??

Obama supporter who is damn glad Hillary Clinton is a Democrat!!

by hootie4170 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:53:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton/Obama -- vs sports metaphors I (none / 0)

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Whatever you do, you need courage. Whatever course you decide upon, there is always someone to tell you that you are wrong. There are always difficulties arising that tempt you to believe your critics are right. To map out a course of action and follow it to an end requires some of the same courage that a soldier needs. Peace has its victories, but it takes brave men and women to win them.

Wisdom Is The Reward For Listening Over A Lifetime

by gunner on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:16:15 AM EST

Re: Clinton/Obama -- vs sports metaphors I (2.00 / 1)

Let's keep the Clintons as far away as possible from the White House as possible!

Put Bill's number on speed dial for a crisis and call it a day.

We can win without their help/drama.

Bill was an above average President. He looks better when compared to 20 years of Reagan, Bush and Bush

Nothing compared to Franklin and Harry. JFK was around for too short a time but still better.

Maryland Democrat

by jproctor on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:24:07 AM EST

Re: Clinton/Obama -- vs sports metaphors I (none / 0)

Nothing motivates GOP turnout like a Clinton on the ticket.

Government derives its power from those that it governs.

by lockewasright on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:34:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton/Obama -- vs sports metaphors I (2.00 / 1)

Dude, he's ahead. Quite honestly, if the supers give Hillary the nomination, there's going to be a huge problem. What part of "the African American community will boycott the election in November and we'll lose horribly to McBush" do you not understand?

Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.

by sricki on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:27:16 AM EST

Re: Clinton/Obama -- vs sports metaphors I (2.00 / 1)

um.... no, the nomination is race to 50%+1 delegates unless your candidate has lost that race and you're looking to make about something else.

It's quantifiable. It's not holistic ice skating judge subjective thing. Whichever candidate reaches 50%+1 gets the nomination.

Government derives its power from those that it governs.

by lockewasright on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:32:38 AM EST

50%+1 (2.00 / 1)

It's quantifiable. It's not holistic ice skating judge subjective thing. Whichever candidate reaches 50%+1 gets the nomination.

That means, 50+1 of the entire c. 4000 delegates, of which the c. 800 'superdelegates' form about 20%. If someone had got to that 50%+1 (aka 'magic number' which is either 2025 or 2209 depending on a ruling expected May 31) with pledged delegates, that person would have effectively won, regardless of whatever the 20% decide to do.

In this season, the 80% (pledged delegates) are so evenly divided that it's near impossible for EITHER candidate to get to the magic number with pledged delegates alone. So in this season, the superdelegates will effectively be the 'judges'.

After each superdelegate decides who would be the best candidate, he casts his vote. THEN we add up the votes and it's quantifiable. But each superdelegate does his own deciding using ALL the factors: pledged delegates and popular vote (he knows how FL/MI voted, whatever the Rules Committee says), polls, general performance -- and whoever, at this date, has got the personal stamina, and many other factors.

by 1950democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:18:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 50%+1 (none / 0)

The pledged delegates aren't close. He's up triple digits. Supers are declaring and it has been incredibly lopsided in favor of Obama since supertuesday. The motion among supers is nearly exclusively in his favor (80% since Iowa). Let's not pretend like the supers aren't doing there thing simultaneous to the slaughter that he's handing her in state after state. She's won where the demographics have been most favorable to her and nowhere else.

50+1 is coming sooner than your denial will let you see.

Your comment about the impossibility of either candidate reaching the magic number on pledged delegates alone is silly. Where does it say he has to do it on pledged delegates alone? It doesn't. The superdelegates are handing it to him right now even as we speak. Do you know why? Because they aren't going to take the nomination away from who ever has the pledged delegate lead after the voting is all done. That would be political suicide for the SD. Hope and pray and cut off chicken heads and shit if you want. It ain't gonna happen here in the real world and the SDs (political pros who know a hell of a lot more than you) can see just as well as everyone else that the pledged delegate race is no longer competitive. The remaining contests are too few and the gap is too large. Oregon will demonstrate it even more clearly shortly.

Kudos on the pointless win in West Virginia though.

P.S. We math dorks are right and have been since February. The events between then and now have been proving it. People who are still denying that the math proponents have been right all along are essentially looking at 475 pieces of a 500 piece puzzle assembled on a table and saying nobody will ever be able to assemble it.

Government derives its power from those that it governs.

by lockewasright on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:38:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 50%+1 (none / 0)

If he's up c. 150 delegates out of a total of 4,000+, that's within the margin of error -- 3.75%

There are c. 800 SDs, about evenly split right now, c. 250 undeclared, plus FL/MI delegates in limbo. The SDs can change their minds any time, and so can the 'pledged' delegates after the first or second ballot in August.

That 3.75% can shift with scarcely a ripple in the total.

by 1950democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:21:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 50%+1 (none / 0)

Tell you what. Keep watching. June 3rd we'll get back together and discuss which one of us doesn't know what the hell they're talking about. The pool is about 430 delegates left pledged and super combined. She can win 90% of them or she can finally start campaigning for Obama instead of McCain. Your candidate is done. She has been for a long time.

Before you make your next outlandish argument here's a question. How many superdelegates or pledged delegates have flipped form Obama to Hilaryous? Answer: none. Guess how many will? Answer: none.

My math is right. (Cocky as it may be to say: My math is always right. Always.)

This doesn't make it to convention. It might not even make it to June.

Government derives its power from those that it governs.

by lockewasright on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:36:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

electoral votes (none / 0)

For those who want a single, quantifiable metric -- try electoral votes each candidate would win based on their wins so far.

by 1950democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:23:10 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.