Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

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

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
jettison Donating Member (284 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 02:22 AM
Original message
Memphis beat Kansas afterall... Hillary can win too!
http://endpoliticsasusual.blogspot.com/2008/04/hillary-...

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!"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 02:27 AM
Response to Original message
1. Obama: Memphis won. The game was over in the 4th quarter because Memphis was ahead
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 03:06 AM
Response to Reply #1
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jettison Donating Member (284 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #3
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"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #8
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jettison Donating Member (284 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #21
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #24
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jettison Donating Member (284 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. You understand no such thing
This is the internet. I'm a stranger to you. Quit projecting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #21
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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 03:12 AM
Response to Reply #1
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 03:20 AM
Response to Reply #4
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jettison Donating Member (284 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #6
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 03:05 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 03:21 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. Good analogy for the sham caucuses!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jettison Donating Member (284 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #7
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".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #11
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jettison Donating Member (284 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #14
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Condem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #7
23. What's the matter, Jackson?
Got a problem with voting in public?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #23
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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Condem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #28
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #29
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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Condem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #30
41. Well, I'll tell you dbaker
No one by the name of Diebold there. At least at mine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hugabear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #7
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jettison Donating Member (284 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #36
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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jettison Donating Member (284 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #2
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!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. Uninformed. Read post 13. I won't type it all again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jettison Donating Member (284 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. you're uninformed
I won't bother reading your other post for even the first time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. So you won't read it, but you disagree with it. I'll bet I can guess who you're voting for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jettison Donating Member (284 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #19
25. bitter much?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #25
31. Never. You?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jettison Donating Member (284 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #25
32. only after a hearty meal to help with digestion
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jettison Donating Member (284 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. you're uninformed
I won't bother reading your other post for even the first time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PVnRT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #2
12. Caucuses are bad when my candidate doesn't win them!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #12
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. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jettison Donating Member (284 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #13
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 03:19 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txaslftist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #5
38. I think you give Team McCain too much credit ..
They're just confused and befuddled, like their candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iiibbb Donating Member (658 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
22. In an unusual move, Sen. Clinton called the Memphis at 3 am the morning of the game, ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thewiseguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
27. but Obama is making his free throws!
Edited on Wed Apr-09-08 02:00 PM by thewiseguy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jettison Donating Member (284 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #27
37. Undemocratic freethrows... cheater!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJSecularist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
39. Let me guess... Hillary is going to tell us she has roots in Kansas pretty soon. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Feb 19th 2018, 01:29 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC