Math is Hard…for Riverdaughter!

Back in December I briefly commented at The Confluence under the nom de plume “Obot3000,” and I had an interesting experience that Riverdaughter’s latest post reminded me of. Long story short, while trying to tease out why some PUMAs think Obama’s a Marxist, and others thing he’s a republican, Riverdaughter “explained” it to me, by way of how he stole the nomination.

Obot: you are right in that many PUMAs are as confused by Obama’s political philosophy as Obamaphiles are. However, what we are NOT confused about is Obama’s goodness, freshness, honesty or integrity. He has none of those characteristics. Don’t forget that while smoke got in your eyes during the primary, we were following the caucus fraud, registration irregularities, theft of Hillary’s delegates in Mi, not to mention his squelching of a devote in FL and MI and the most disingenuous, illogical argument for taking 59 delegates in a state where he wasn’t even on the ballot. You realize that he was only 17 delegates ahead of Hillary going into the convention don’t you? Oh, you didn’t know that? I’m not surprised because the media and the campaign didn’t want anyone to notice that that lead would have been eaily wiped out if MI hadn’t awarded all of the uncommitted delegates to him In fact, Hillary would have been the leader going into the convention and she would have been more than justified in insisting on a floor fight. But the FL and MI delegations weren’t restored to full strength, like it was planned all along, until the day before the convention started. That gave Obama the appearance of being the winner when he wasn’t/ And with Hillary’s campaign on mute in the media outlets, he stole the nomination. Then he topped it all off with delegate threats and intimidation and misinformation followed by a lopsided and humiliating roll call vote at the convention.

Emphasis added by me. I highlight that part because I actually responded that no, I hadn’t know that. Then I linked to several sources, including the RCP delegate count, to demomstrate that this claim of 17 delegates was disingenuous at best, and downright dishonest at worst. Don’t bother looking though, after that, Kim Haas, defender of democracy, scrubbed my comments lest any blissfully ignorant PUMAs read them and look it up for themselves.

So it struck me again when today, in the middle of rant about Jon Stewart as tedious and sanctimonious as it was wrongheaded, Km wrote the following.

And what does the RBC do? It takes delegates away from the real winner and gives them to the loser and gives him 59 delegates from a state where he wasn’t even on the ballot, so that he will beat her by a mere 17 delegates when the primaries finally end a few days later. Then, they make it sound like it’s a big landslide, giving him the edge all the way to the convention. She *should* have taken it to the convention

First, let us dispatch with this claim of 17 delegates.

According to the Real Clear Politics totals, if you were to count FL and MI at full voting strength, giving Clinton 73 delegates and Obama none from Michigan, Obama would still enter the convention with an 18 delegate lead (17 is close enough- maybe an edwards delegate switched at some point). This was the subject of much discussion last year, but this scenario was without doubt the single most undemocratic way to allocate those delegates.

Leaving that aside, though, look what Riverdaughter is arguing. UNder even the most contorted method of counting, her candidate fell short, more so when you count superdelegates (Prowl failure there…).

And what were the delegate counts after the RBC meeting but before the last 3 primaries? DemConWatch has this handy breakdown of the count under 5 scenarios.

  1. Do not seat Florida or Michigan. Current Official DNC rules- Obama up by 155 pledged delegates.
  2. Seat Michigan based on new the proposal 69-59 split, but not Florida. Obama up by 145 pledged delegates.
  3. Seat Florida, based on January election, but not Michigan. FL Pledged get ½ votes, superdelegates get full vote. Obama up by 127 pledged delegates.
  4. Scenario 4: Combine scenario 2 and scenario 3. FL 1/2 vote, MI 69-59 split and Super full vote. Obama up by 117 pledged delegates.
  5. Scenario 5: Seat FL & MI based on the elections that have taken place. (Obama does not get MI 55 uncommitted). Obama up by 46 pledged delegates.

Hillary netted 20 additional delegates after the RBC in the 3 remaining contests.

Let’s be clear what Kim Haas is indignant about. She felt that Hillary should have been awarded all of the MI and Fl votes at full voting strength, and Obama none from MI. And then he still would have had a pledged delegate lead, so whe wanted Jon Stewart to help her make fun of the superdelegates until they tipped the scales for Hillary? And all this from the woman that wrote these things 2 years ago?

She’s entitled to her opinion that Hillary should have lost by slightly fewer delegates after a nasty and contentious convention battle. And of course, that opinion is why she’s a hilarious PUMA. But it’s downright bizzare to chastise Jon Stewart for not indulging her own narcissitic view of the world.

26 Responses

  1. The stupid of that whole thread temporarily brought me out from lurking into a post I knew would be deleted. I think it lasted a whole hour. Anyhow, I was seething because most of them were willing to ostracise so much of the world that all they can accept is their tiny stream of disinformation. No Moyers, Stewart, Colbert, etc. but a fraud like Cramer is A-OK because he supported Hillary. Hell, even Tucker Carlson is kewl every once in a while.

    The jackassery is awe-inspiring.

  2. The things Chucky wrote two years ago? Go back a few more years and take a gander at LiveJournal. *shudder*

    Sadly, while she seems more mature now, in some ways she is also less sane.

  3. Weird thing is, if you look back at a few of those involved with PUMA who didn’t just appear out of nowhere last spring, they generally came across a fairly reasonable (RD, on the other hand, was marginally loopy at the best of times, at least in terms of her weird LOTR online roleplaying).

    So was it some hidden defect of personality that led them to PUMAdom, or is it that PUMA has warped them beyond recognition?

    To tell the truth, at this point I don’t really care what the answer is to that question.

  4. There’s troubled waters at the Cesspool.

    We don’t want to assign blame or point fingers. We don’t want to make enemies and we certainly do not wish to further alienate some of our friends who are protesting the frontpage by their absence. The majority of the frontpagers met online and decided that in spite of the hurt feelings on both sides, we would like to forgive and forget and put the whole incident behind us. The door is always open to all of our colleagues. We feel like family who just had a bit of a falling out.

    Another month, another blog war. Oh those PUMAs, they are so entertaining.

  5. So so so sad. No really it is sad.

    Many of us were hurt on both sides and tears were shed by those who were accused. I don’t think I can adequately express the pain. It feels like betrayal by people you most cared about and who you would never dream of hurting. Nevertheless, it is what it is and some of our frontpagers have left for greener pastures. We wish them well and hope that someday we can get back togehter. But in the meantime, we just need to let the dust settle and tempers cool.

    Ah cult culling. And tears were shed. So sad. I wonder do PUMAs eat their young?

  6. Fuck, we missed the show.

    riverdaughter, on March 14th, 2009 at 7:49 pm Said:

    To be honest, I have to give the frontpagers on both sides a lot of credit for expressing themselves *privately* on the issue. Some of the exchanges were so heated that I don’t think the blog could have survived the fallout. It all went on behind the scenes and I for one appreciate the discretion of all involved. I wouldn’t have brought it up except that I was starting to get a lot of questions about it. I was hoping that no one would be the wiser.

    Trust me RD, on your site, no one is wise.

  7. Cinie, on March 14th, 2009 at 8:11 pm Said:

    I freely admit that I don’t know enough about the Israel/Palestine conflict to comment on posts about it, so I don’t.

    Doesn’t seem to stop her from writing on other subjects she knows nothing about. Cinie might just the be the worst writer of the whole damn lot. Tough call though.

  8. Damn, I am sorry I missed the blowup.

    bostonboomer, on March 14th, 2009 at 10:37 pm Said:

    The people who left are the ones who silenced discussion. No discussion was permitted even though their demands were met. All of those writers who have left here have blogs of their own that are listed on our blogroll. You can easily click on those links and read their blogs. No one was asked to leave this blog, even after people were attacked with language that left me (I can only speak for myself) shaken, trembling, and in tears.

    This from a woman who is calling the tent cities in California “Obamavilles.” What a fucking moron.

  9. Good lord, since Hillary said from the get-go that Florida and Michigan wouldn’t and shouldn’t count, until she realized she needed them, I think giving her ANY delegates was way beyond generous. What’s the message — “When Women Cheat, Women Win!”

  10. Oh the drama at The Confluence. They must quick post something about how terribly awful Obama is so they can unite again.

  11. Harsh language leaves them “shaken, trembling, and in tears?” As I’ve said before, good thing those women aren’t facing down firehoses, dogs, policemen’s batons, and bullets.

    PUMAS — Too Wimpy To Revolt, But Somehnow Still Revolting.

  12. I apologize for typos. New laptop, old fingers!

  13. Kerry — Yeah, I thought that was pretty over-the-top. Then I woke up to this, which kind of puts it in perspective:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/opinion/15danner.html?pagewanted=all

    What the fuck, PUMAs?

  14. Nijma chimes in with an e-mail that she received from a typical PUMA trying to eat it’s own;

    “Nijma, on March 15th, 2009 at 3:43 am Said:

    Mr. Cannon’s response to me shows exactly the kind of dangers in the moderate viewpoint.

    When I commented on the Palestine question over at Murphy’s place someone named “anonymous” sent me the following email:

    “Get off our blog you fucking arab b1tch!

    We don’t need your kind here! Only American PUMA are needed for our cause, not fucking terrorist wh0re’s!

    Long Live Israel!”

    hahahah losers!

  15. Gee, and here I thought Nijma told us just weeks ago that PUMAs gently try to correct each other and get to a place where they can feel “whole,” because such healthy people don’t resort to the awful asterisk-inducing language one finds here and at Rumproast.

    A PUMA who is WRONG?!?!?! How could such a thing ever be?

  16. OT. Routine Effluence Irony Alert:

    Kat5, on March 15th, 2009 at 1:22 pm Said:

    Meanwhile, the San Antonio and Austin papers continue to screen for any items unflattering to Obama, no matter how credible. Pretty depressing that we’re being forced to piece the world together online in a world of de facto censorship.

    fif, on March 15th, 2009 at 10:54 am Said:

    oops, my last comment (a link) just got eaten. Please rescue.

  17. I can see how it helps to call people stupid. That way you never have to engage in an argument using reason.

  18. Aww, carrisa – did you think that posting on an old thread that had slipped to page 2 wouldn’t get noticed?

    Try reading pumarubbernecker’s post above. Then try engaging with it using reasoned argument. We’ll wait with bated breath.

  19. Carrisa – I can see how it helps calling people kool-aid drinking, women lynching obots,. That way you never have to engage in an argument using reason.

    We’ve tried reason, sweetheart, it failed horrendously.

  20. I posted on an old thread because in a search for information it popped up, I read the post without finding what I was looking for–a real critique. Did I refer to anyone as kool-aid drinking or as an obot? I am just tired of all the name-calling. And I am not anybody’s “sweetie.”

  21. Still waiting.

  22. Nah. Given up.

  23. My humblest apologies for the sweetheart remark, it wasn’t meant as an insult, just a term I commonly use with my British and American friends, sorry if I offended you.
    You did not call us obots, no, but PUMA regularly does, moreover they have a habit of dismissing any critique as misogynistic, which is just plain dumb. Also, they are calling each other obots now, the meltdown is fascinating…

    sheila7 03.24.09 at 12:03 am

    Well, I never post anymore but I just had to say something.
    Zee, you have caused much discourse over the last few days. It is my personal opinion that you are an obot. Now, I really don’t give a shit what you have to say back to me. You’re opinion doesn’t mean anything to me.
    Also, the only reason I spoke up is your attack on Trish. You are way out of line. Trish has been here since the beginning and your lack of knowledge proves to me you are an obot- I don’t care what anyone else thinks.

    If you want a debate, perhaps you should consider your opening serve more carefully…

    It’s interesting that you don’t find a real critique in this post, doesn’t it show that Hillary wasn’t cheated out of the nomination? And doesn’t that fact defeat the purpose of having PUMA in the first place?
    My issue with PUMA is that they are vile, ignorant, racist bigots. As proven by the following comments, defend them if you can…

    FLBarbara 03.24.09 at 12:49 am

    OMG that is the best Obozo LMAO

    I can never concentrate when watching Obozo the Giggler because I swear that mole is winking at me.

    Then I start wondering why does he have purple lips?
    Grape Kool-aide?
    Micheles lipstick?
    Mental Illness?.

    I rarely hear what he has to say. Which is a good thing.

    Oooh, are those dog whistle comments I detect? No? Maybe this one then?

    jenniforhillary 03.24.09 at 3:26 pm

    Michelle Obama is human filth. She actually took those beautiful girls and ruined them at Trinity Church….how do you think people become racists and misogynists…for one thing they have parents like MO and BO….

    And this one:

    catarina 03.24.09 at 3:41 pm

    dances, MO is cra-zay, like in white house chainsaw massacre cra-zay.
    she’s a psycho.

    Now, is that enough of a critique for you, or shall I google “scoopmouth” and “shoot the cock of” ?

  24. My blog is about a woman who committed suicide as a result of workplace bullying. I dislike name-calling, belittling, etc. That’s why I think it’s not good to call people stupid, the occasion for my posting on a thread here in the first place, so I am certainly not going to defend remarks like you have posted, Nikki. I prefer civil discourse. I did misunderstand the “sweetheart” remark.

  25. Fair enough, carissa, you have to understand we only began calling them stupid after we tried civil discourse. For the most part, PUMAs are quite resistant to logic, and, let’s face it they, use much worse rhetoric on their own blogs, not to mention their habit of making vicious personal attacks, criticising things like appearances, or even advocating the castration of 50% of the global population.

    I should probably watch my language a bit more on this blog, but I could be a lot more brutal if I wanted to. I stand behind the comments I’ve written and have called out any comments I disagree with. So feel free to read some more, we’ve got nothing to hide 😉

    As for the sweetheart thing, no harm, no foul. I believe it’s a linguistic issue.
    When you add the Dutch equivalent (schat) to an admonishment, it’s a way of softening the blow, making the remark indicate exasperated amusement (my main PUMA-related emotion) or even fondness. I tend to forget that the English variant can be seen as insulting, I’ll try to pay attention to that in the future.

  26. Oh and sorry to hear about your blog, well not about the blog, about the woman…
    You know what I mean, sigh.

    Workplace bullying is a huge issue and should be brought under the attention of the general public. So good on you for helping out!
    Only comparing our little internet fight to severe bullying is a bit far-fetched, no? If they don’t want to read this, they don’t have to. Besides, we only ever quote front-pagers or obscene comments, so if they want to avoid us, they can.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: