home
Pelosi: The Voters Do Not Matter | 162 comments (162 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

New Rules This Election (5.00 / 3) (#37)
by MO Blue on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:28:06 AM EST
and they are extremely flexible based on who they favor at the moment. Just in case you haven't noticed.

[ Parent ]
but (5.00 / 2) (#93)
by kenoshaMarge on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:12:28 AM EST
how can we follow the roolz if we don't know what the roolz are?

[ Parent ]
That Is The Whole Idea (5.00 / 2) (#106)
by MO Blue on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:28:15 AM EST
These are not roolz that the masses are to follow or even understand. These are DC establishment roolz. Have to keep the flexibility of being able to change them at a moments notice.

[ Parent ]
It's a delegate race for a reason (none / 0) (#131)
by Humangutan on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:01:58 PM EST
The popular vote would not be a fair metric to choose the nominee for a very simple reason: caucuses.  The caucus model has been a fixture of the Democratic model for many years.  Only if caucuses are no longer held can the popular vote be used as a metric.  Caucus are currently held in states like Minnesota and Hawaii(core Democrats), Washington, Colorado, and Nevada (swing states).  The numbers of voters who participated in caucuses are lower than voters for primaries, but the caucus states are important for victory in November.

 Trying to trumpet the popular vote in the overall Democratic Party primary is a disenfranchisement of voters in the caucus states.  You might not like caucuses, but unless you are ready to lose Democratic Party support in those states, they must be apportioned their equal vote in the final convention in Denver this summer, and the delegate process is the equitable system.  It's a delegate race.  Nancy Pelosi is not trying to rig this election.  She's standing up for the caucus states, and for fairness in the overall process.

[ Parent ]

I don't know about anyone else (5.00 / 1) (#136)
by ChrisO on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:11:17 PM EST
but I'm not arguing strictly that the supers should follow the popular vote. Although I think the popular vote should hold sway, I think they should look at the popular vote, and the pledged delegates, then use their best judgment.

If Obama doesn't have enough pledged delegates, he doesn't have enough. It's that simple. Pelosi is arguing that the nomination should go to whoever is closest. If you're going to stand on precedent (which is a fool's errand in this particular election) then I'd be intersted to know when a nomination automatically went to the candidate with the most pledged delegates, despite the nominee not getting the required number.

Pelosi is just keeping up the Obama spin, which is that if he goes to the convention with the most delegates, he's the winner unless it's "stolen" from him. In fact, if neither candidate has enough delegates, that means the process isn't over. The supers are part of that process.

I also think Obama isn't exactly in a position to stand on principle. His efforts to game the system in Michigan are responsible for a lot of the mess the party is facing today.

[ Parent ]

Re: Popular vote and Michigan (none / 0) (#143)
by Humangutan on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:24:48 PM EST
The only way to have the popular vote count without unfairly disenfranchising the voters of caucus states would be to magnify the voter numbers of those states to reflect the populations of Democratic voters in those caucus states.  I am not advocating that this be done, because I think that it is bad to "massage" any of the numbers that come out of this.  Thus there is no way to fairly use the popular vote as a metric for the Party primary.  

And Pelosi makes a good point when she points out that in the general election in November, the popular vote doesn't determining the outcome -- the electoral college determines the outcome.  Thus the power of organizing and following through in the electoral process, everything from get-out-the-vote volunteering and election monitoring, matters in the end.  

As far as Michigan goes, you have a vivid imagination trying to blame it on the Obama camp.    The Michigan and Florida state democratic parties have strong Clinton ties, and they obviously tried to game the system by moving their primaries forward against the rules in order to benefit both their own states and Hillary.  Jennifer Granhom, the governor of Michigan is totally in the tank for Clinton and has tried to help her.  But it failed.  The Obama camp has encouraged that the rules be followed throughout the election process, while Hillary has flip-flopped as it suited her when the primary process started to go against her.

[ Parent ]

Nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#158)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:46:27 PM EST
First of all, Clinton has performed better in primaries.

I tell you what, if you magnify the result to reflect what happened in Texas and Washington I MIGHT agree with you.

But I still would not. ACTUAL votes are what counts.

[ Parent ]

For example (5.00 / 1) (#159)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:52:02 PM EST
ADJUST ALL caucus result by reducing Obama's percentage by 20%and increasing clinton's by the same amount in the adjustment.

To wit, Obama's 38% result would be reduced by 7.6% to 30.4%. Clinton's would be increased to 36%.

That would reflect the caucus advantage Obama has received based on the results in Washington and Texas.

Otherwise, let's do the right thing and just count the actual votes.

[ Parent ]

I think you have to see it as (none / 0) (#152)
by Warren Terrer on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:57:34 PM EST
two separate issues, i.e. what factors should superdelegates consider, and two, should they consider delegate count over popular vote.

If you think about it you'll see that they are separate, in that a superdelegate can consider many things such as what particular states were one by each candidate, demographics, etc.

But on the question of 'delegate count' there is simply no reason to consider it a better metric than popular vote for any reason. It's not a separate factor from popular vote. It is a number that is merely derived from another number, namely the popular vote. It is no better indicator of how a candidate will do in November than is the popular vote, AND it is only an approximate measure of the will of the people. In my view delegate count shouldn't be considered by a superdelegate AT ALL.

[ Parent ]

The primary model (5.00 / 2) (#138)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:14:14 PM EST
has been the standard. The caucus was invented by Iowa so that it could go before New Hampshire.

Indeed, your argument is counterintuitive - it actually proves that the delegate count is NOT a good representation of the popular will. Caucuses are disenfranchising.

The best measure we have is the popular vote.

[ Parent ]

BTW (5.00 / 1) (#140)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:17:04 PM EST
The popular vote for the caucuses is included in the popular vote.

It is a false statement from you when you say they are being "disenfranchised." Please stick to the facts in future.

[ Parent ]

Sadly, no (5.00 / 1) (#156)
by Quixote on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:48:17 PM EST
Certain states, such as Iowa, do not tabulate the individual caucusers for a candidate, just the delegate going to the next level.

Please stick to the facts in the future.

[ Parent ]

Re: BTW (none / 0) (#145)
by Humangutan on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:29:29 PM EST
Disenfranchisement is meant by the fact that the number of people who caucus is always lower than the number of people who vote in a primary -- which does not accurately reflect the number of "Democratic Party" voter in one state versus another.  So Minnesota may end up with fewer "popular votes" in your way of counting, even though it has more Democratic voters than some other states, and so on.  That is the disenfranchisement, not of the particular people who did come out and caucus, but of the caucus states in the whole.

[ Parent ]
Absurd n/t (none / 0) (#134)
by Warren Terrer on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:06:17 PM EST


[ Parent ]
After The Party Starts To Worry About (none / 0) (#135)
by MO Blue on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:10:18 PM EST
disenfranchisement of voters in MI and FL and the loss of their votes in November, I might take this argument under consideration.

[ Parent ]
Considering the color of so many (none / 0) (#164)
by hairspray on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:44:59 AM EST
caucus states (red) 'd say losing them  doesn't matter a whole lot.

[ Parent ]

Pelosi: The Voters Do Not Matter | 162 comments (162 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft