Memphis beat Kansas afterall... Hillary can win too!

[jettison]

http://endpoliticsasusual.blogspot.com/2008/04/hillary-says-memphis-national-champ.html

Hillary says Memphis National Champ Despite KU Having More Points

In a move that's sure to be seen as controversial, Hillary has contacted the NCAA Board of Directors to argue that Memphis is actually better qualified to be National Champion.

Ms. Clinton stated that Memphis, while losing the game, had actually shown more ability to act like a National Champion on Day One. She argued that Memphis had passed every test during the game, including scoring more points than Kansas for 38 minutes. For 38 minutes they had shown the experience necessary to be National Champion. "Just because some team comes along in the last minute and scores more points than the other guy doesn't mean they're necessarily able to be National Champion on Day One."

Ms. Clinton further stated that Memphis should've won the game had Derrick Rose's second half three pointer been allowed to count. Instead, it was ruled a two after review by the officials. His foot was clearly inside the line. Memphis coach John Calipari said he would ask that the rule allowing monitor review of shots be changed after this season. Hillary said she seconded that, and pointed out had Memphis been allowed to count a three that wasn't really a three they would've won. "It doesn't matter what the rules of the game are before it starts. What matters is how we change the rules after the game so we can have the winner we want."

Kansas, for its part, had this to say to Hillary: "Barack Chalk Jayhawk!"

[jackson_dem]

1. Obama: Memphis won. The game was over in the 4th quarter because Memphis was ahead

[jobycom]

3. Hehe. That's Obama, all right. "I'm ahead, let's stop the election and declare the winner!"

Where else have we heard that? Oh yeah, Florida in 2000.

[jettison]

8. not following your logic

Didn't they stop the repub primary and declare McCain the winner? And don't they almost always stop primaries before the actual convention? It's pretty rare that they don't. And in this case, "the game" is over. Obama is in the locker room, cooling down, while Hillary is still hoisting up prayer-like airballs from half court, the shot clock having already expired 20 minutes ago.

Stubborn doesn't even begin to describe the Hillary crowd right now. Delusional is more appropriate. What part of "she can't win" aren't you getting? If you you click your heals together 3 times, and chant "there's no place like home", maybe you can visit Fairy Land where some magic elves will turn this thing around for you. Otherwise, if you have no ruby slippers, why not "just say yes to math"?

[jobycom]

21. This is how it works.

"They" didn't stop the Republican primary, it's still going on. McCain got enough delegates to win, so there was no point in the other candidates campaigning.

They don't "almost always" stop primaries. They NEVER stop primaries until the process is over. In most recent primaries, one candidate has gotten enough votes to win the nomination early on, so the other candidates, for the most part, stopped campaigning. The primaries continued, though.

Obama cannot win enough delegates to secure the nomination before the primary. Neither can Clinton. So both are continuing to campaign.

In the basketball analogy, no one is actually calling for the game to be stopped. Obama's supporters are calling for Clinton to pull her team from the floor so that Obama can finish the game without an opponent.

Clinton can win. She can come close to catching Obama in pledged delegates with the remaining primaries--and they are all primaries, so Obama doesn't have that edge going for him. If she does (she may not, but we won't know until the game is played) she goes into the convention with momentum. The supers might side with her, then. Even if not, something could happen to either campaign before then--a scandal, a gaffe, a secret lover, whatever. None of that's delusional. It's a long shot for Clinton. But not as long a shot as the Giants winning the Super Bowl, despite Obama's (understandable) attempts to convince everyone otherwise.

It's over when democracy has run its course. Right now it's still running.

Hope that helps you understand all of this better.

[jettison]

24. you're a "literal" guy, eh?

It was a figure of speech. I know how primaries work. You, on the other hand, do not even understand basic math.

[jobycom]

33. I'm a factual person, and I can tell by your posts that you don't understand

how they work. Unless you are deliberately being disingenuous.

[jettison]

35. You understand no such thing

This is the internet. I'm a stranger to you. Quit projecting.

[Bake]

26. Excellent post!!

I salute you.

Another long shot, by the way, was the 3-pointer that Chalmers made at with 0:02 to go, to tie it up Monday night!!

Bake

[hfojvt]

4. no, it was over at half-time

when KU was ahead by 5 points, but Hillary's more like North Carolina, expecting to come back from 40-12.

[jackson_dem]

6. More like the Mavericks being down 13 late in the 4th quarter last Sunday against the Suns

Who won?

40-12. Come on. Her odds are not that bad. If they were the superdelegates would have ended the race by now by lining up behind Obama. You guys do realize it would be over tomorrow if the supers got behind Obama? Why haven't they if "it is over" and Obama has won?

[jettison]

9. delusional

And the race (that's already over) were prove that to be true. And once Obama has taken the nomination, all of the Hillary folks that failed math will be nowhere to be found, and your "Hillary in '08" bumper stickers will make for a nice conversation piece for years to come.

[jobycom]

2. She may have had an argument if KU used a caucus system for some of the game.

Regular rules would apply for about two thirds of the game, but one third would be a caucus system.

In the caucus system, teams beginning with the letter M would only be allowed three players, to the other team's six, and points would count eight instead of two, and ten instead of three. So KU could lose during the regular play, yet make up lost ground through the discriminatory system that favored them.

In that case, Clinton would have a right to protest.

[jackson_dem]

7. Good analogy for the sham caucuses!

[jettison]

11. riiight

An argument you wouldn't be making right now if Hillary had won all the caucuses. But just like the status quo, the only thing that "counts" or is "fair" is something that Hillary does well at. "Big states only". "Primaries over caucuses".

[jobycom]

14. Actually, that sin of selectiveness rests on the Obama supporters.

They are the ones trying to change the rules. They are the ones complaining about the superdelegates, and about pledged delegates changing positions. They are the ones creating a fantasy about the "popular vote," and pretending their candidate's delegate lead is based on it.

[jettison]

16. ok

The Obama crowd complaining about the superdelegates are clueless. The supers can vote however they like. The Obama crowd complaining about the delegates are just as clueless... but not for the reason you think. They are clueless to worry about it because not one delegate (not even a single one) is going to switch over to the Hillary camp so it's pointless to get all uppity about the process. Hillary can take every single one of them out to dinner on her private yacht, get them liquored up, and then take advantage of them, and STILL, not one would switch. That's the point of delegates. They are appointed loyalists. They don't switch.

[Condem]

23. What's the matter, Jackson?

Got a problem with voting in public?

[Bake]

28. I prefer the secret ballot, thank you very much

It's what we use in ELECTIONS. Not caucuses. No intimidation. No herd mentality. Just little ol' me in the voting booth.

Bake

[Condem]

29. dbaker41

Ever been to a caucus? Believe it or not, I actually had my mind made up beforehand. In fact, out of a caucus of over 700 sheep only six were undecided.

[Bake]

30. No, I've never been to a caucus.

For a couple of reasons: (a) my state doesn't hold caucuses; (b) if it had, I'd have been at work anyway.

I just go vote. By secret ballot.

Bake

[Condem]

41. Well, I'll tell you dbaker

No one by the name of Diebold there. At least at mine.

[Hugabear]

36. "sham caucuses"

Except if Hillary had won, they wouldn't be a sham, would they? Or what about her husband winning caucuses during his campaign? Were those also shams?

[jettison]

40. You already know the answer

If it doesn't benefit Hillary, it is a sham. "If you're beating me then it must be because you've cheated. I am God." - The inner thoughts of Hillary Clinton

[jettison]

10. sure

This is just like arguing that the 3pt. line is unfair because Hillary's team has no one who can shoot from distance. "The 3pt. line is cheating!!!! Do away with it!"

[jobycom]

15. Uninformed. Read post 13. I won't type it all again.

[jettison]

17. you're uninformed

I won't bother reading your other post for even the first time.

[jobycom]

19. So you won't read it, but you disagree with it. I'll bet I can guess who you're voting for.

[jettison]

25. bitter much?

[jobycom]

31. Never. You?

[jettison]

32. only after a hearty meal to help with digestion

[jettison]

18. you're uninformed

I won't bother reading your other post for even the first time.

[PVnRT]

12. Caucuses are bad when my candidate doesn't win them!

[jobycom]

13. They are bad no matter whose candidate wins them, but you only pay attention when your candidate

loses.

Many have been against caucuses for decades, but the issue hasn't mattered much in other elections, when one candidate had wrapped up the election early on. Even so, Washington holds both a primary and a caucus for exactly that reason. The parties used caucuses to award delegates, and in the late 80s the Washington legislature voted for a primary, saying, as all experts on caucuses say, that they discriminate against women, the elderly, the infirm, second and third shift workers, and others who have trouble attending caucuses during the narrow time window you have to register, or waiting for the hours it often takes for a caucus to conclude. As you can see, those are the demographic groups that favor Clinton, making this year's caucuses especially significant. In addition, caucuses are not secret ballots, so pressures can be applied--something else usually considered undemocratic. If we had a general election under these rules, even Obama supporters would protest.

Even though Washington voted to hold a presidential primary, the Democratic power bosses use only the caucus to award delegates, because they can control the caucus outcomes more completely.

Two states have both a caucus and a primary--Washington and Texas. In Washington, the caucus is used to award delegates. Clinton lost the primary election by four percentage points, meaning that if the primary were used, Obama would have had a narrow delegate gain from that victory. However, Obama won the caucus by 37 percentage points, given him two thirds of the delegates, against the wishes of the popular vote.

In Texas, Clinton won the popular vote by four points, but lost the primary by 20 percentage points, allowing Obama to gain delegates in a state where he lost the popular vote.

In most of the other caucus states, Obama won by roughly a 2-1 margin, meaning he got two thirds of the delegates from those states, roughly. Polls, and comparison to the situations in Washington and Texas, show that he would have won far fewer delegates, and maybe even lost delegates, in those states if the states used a primary system to measure the popular vote, rather than a discriminatory caucus system.

Thus, the analogy to the basketball game is uninformed. Obama's lead is not based on the popular vote, it is based on an outdated system created by party bosses who wanted to control the outcome of the nominating process while still giving an appearance of a Democratic process.

The rules are in place for this primary and have to be followed, and they allow for caucuses. They also allow for superdelgates and for pledged delegates to switch votes, in some cases. As long as ALL of those rules are obeyed, things should be fine. I have a problem with people attacking Clinton for playing by the rules that might help her while supporting Obama's taking advantage of unfair rules that favor him. Frankly, I doubt most Democrats even understand the issue, although on DU the percentage of informed voters is much higher than elsewhere.

Caucuses are fine for local elections, for platform and resolution issues, and for party-specific positions that the general voter wouldn't understand, anyway. They are great for sending informed local activists to conventions where they and the conventions can benefit. But they should be eliminated as a means of choosing delegates. They are far more discriminatory and unfair than the superdelegate system--which in itself was another way for power bosses to keep nominating power. I think the only fair system would be to hold primaries, and to coordinate those primary rules as much as possible, to prevent cross-over voting, or at least make sure that each state has the same rules when it comes to cross-over voting.

Anyway, that's all I had to say. See if anyone reads it all. Can't blame them for not. :)

[jettison]

34. and yet

"Thus, the analogy to the basketball game is uninformed. Obama's lead is not based on the popular vote, it is based on an outdated system created by party bosses who wanted to control the outcome of the nominating process while still giving an appearance of a Democratic process."

And yet you're completely fine with superdelegates deciding the nomination. Perfect. You can't have both.

[krispos42]

5. Yeah, if the refs come out for her

And in the mean time, while HC and BO keep playing each other, Team McCain is resting, recovering, and studying and analysing in extreme detail how they play.

[txaslftist]

38. I think you give Team McCain too much credit ..

They're just confused and befuddled, like their candidate.

[iiibbb]

20. Who cares who wins that game...

McCain's going to win because neither one of those basketball teams is going to the superbowl. For some Democratic voters they act like the season is over as soon as Clinton or Obama "win".

I'm sorry... nobody "wins" until November.

[Buzz Clik]

22. In an unusual move, Sen. Clinton called the Memphis at 3 am the morning of the game, ....

[thewiseguy]

27. but Obama is making his free throws!

[jettison]

37. Undemocratic freethrows... cheater!

[NJSecularist]

39. Let me guess... Hillary is going to tell us she has roots in Kansas pretty soon. n/t