So I thought about it some more, because it really didn't make any sense to me, and I thought of a set of assumptions under which your comment makes sense to me. IF:
1. You take it as axiomatic that Clinton fighting through to the convention would be beneficial or at least not harmful, AND 2. You assume that I obviously know that, AND 3. You read this post as expressing some sort of anger at Clinton for continuing to run,
THEN I understand how that leads to what you said.
Now, I think #1 is false. Obviously that makes #2 false. And #1 &2 don't even matter if #3 is false, which it is: All I'm saying in this post is that Clinton can't win. I'm making no statement about whether she should win, whether she should or should not keep running, or what outcome I want.
...
It's possible that you're responding to the last part of my previous post, where I said something more than just "she can't win", but if that's the case, then I can't make sense of it. In my previous post, I added a more complex argument at the end, specifically addressed to Democratic primary voters in (then-)upcoming states who want a Democratic president elected this year. I based it on this premise:
A1. Although Clinton can't win outright, she still has a small but realistic chance of doing well enough that she could have a case to try a convention fight.
A2. Even if she manages that, the convention fight would be a real long shot for her, but it's the only shot she has.
From that, I made this case:
B1. Having a convention fight rather than a planned campaign-kickoff sort of convention would be very harmful to Democratic chances of winning the general election.
B2. If Clinton actually won that convention fight, it would be absolutely devastating to Democratic chances, and almost equivalent to handing McCain the election.
B3. Whether Clinton could try to do that depended on how well she did in the next few states, SO:
C1. The only thing left to be determined by voting was whether Clinton would try a convention fight C2. Even if all Clinton supporters voted for her, she still wouldn't become president C3. Clinton supporters who want a Democratic president should vote Obama (to prevent a convention fight).
You can disagree with some of the steps in this chain (I think you do), but it is a perfectly logical chain. It's also something I didn't follow up on in this post, so let me do that now:
This scenario is now irrelevant. A1 is no longer true, so the rest of it no longer matters. To make A1 true she'd have had to win PA by something like 58% (that was very possible) and win Indiana by a solid margin, but she did neither of those, and there's no realistic way for her to get within range for a convention fight anymore. The superdelegates know it, and they're going to cut her off by endorsing Obama in droves (as they're already doing).
Nevertheless, even if it were still relevant and I were still arguing that case, your comment makes no sense, because I very specifically stated that I believe a convention fight would be very harmful. Therefore, you have to know that assumption #2 above is false (and #1 is not axiomatic). You could disagree with me on those points, and I could explain why I think what I think, but there's no way you can conclude that I "see no possible goal other than the nomination." Not only is that insulting, it's also a direct contradiction of what I wrote: I was clearly talking about the general election, which is "a goal other than the nomination".
no subject
1. You take it as axiomatic that Clinton fighting through to the convention would be beneficial or at least not harmful, AND
2. You assume that I obviously know that, AND
3. You read this post as expressing some sort of anger at Clinton for continuing to run,
THEN I understand how that leads to what you said.
Now, I think #1 is false. Obviously that makes #2 false. And #1 &2 don't even matter if #3 is false, which it is: All I'm saying in this post is that Clinton can't win. I'm making no statement about whether she should win, whether she should or should not keep running, or what outcome I want.
...
It's possible that you're responding to the last part of my previous post, where I said something more than just "she can't win", but if that's the case, then I can't make sense of it. In my previous post, I added a more complex argument at the end, specifically addressed to Democratic primary voters in (then-)upcoming states who want a Democratic president elected this year. I based it on this premise:
A1. Although Clinton can't win outright, she still has a small but realistic chance of doing well enough that she could have a case to try a convention fight.
A2. Even if she manages that, the convention fight would be a real long shot for her, but it's the only shot she has.
From that, I made this case:
B1. Having a convention fight rather than a planned campaign-kickoff sort of convention would be very harmful to Democratic chances of winning the general election.
B2. If Clinton actually won that convention fight, it would be absolutely devastating to Democratic chances, and almost equivalent to handing McCain the election.
B3. Whether Clinton could try to do that depended on how well she did in the next few states, SO:
C1. The only thing left to be determined by voting was whether Clinton would try a convention fight
C2. Even if all Clinton supporters voted for her, she still wouldn't become president
C3. Clinton supporters who want a Democratic president should vote Obama (to prevent a convention fight).
You can disagree with some of the steps in this chain (I think you do), but it is a perfectly logical chain. It's also something I didn't follow up on in this post, so let me do that now:
This scenario is now irrelevant. A1 is no longer true, so the rest of it no longer matters. To make A1 true she'd have had to win PA by something like 58% (that was very possible) and win Indiana by a solid margin, but she did neither of those, and there's no realistic way for her to get within range for a convention fight anymore. The superdelegates know it, and they're going to cut her off by endorsing Obama in droves (as they're already doing).
Nevertheless, even if it were still relevant and I were still arguing that case, your comment makes no sense, because I very specifically stated that I believe a convention fight would be very harmful. Therefore, you have to know that assumption #2 above is false (and #1 is not axiomatic). You could disagree with me on those points, and I could explain why I think what I think, but there's no way you can conclude that I "see no possible goal other than the nomination." Not only is that insulting, it's also a direct contradiction of what I wrote: I was clearly talking about the general election, which is "a goal other than the nomination".