Rules Are Rules, Except When They Are Not

By Big Tent Democrat

It is funny to see the Obama camp decrying the rules that allow superdelegates to choose whichever candidate they prefer. I happen to agree with them. There should NOT be any superdelegates. That is one of many travesties in this horror show of a nominating process that the DNC has approved. Let's face it, the DNC has screwed this up six ways to Sunday.

From the absurd caucus system which is the biggest disenfranchising process in this entire system, to the craziness of apportioning delegates, to this Washington travesty, we have been cursed with an awful system for choosing our nominee.

What are we left with? These crappy rules. And what can we do? Accept it. As Matt Yglesias writes:

I'll take a middle ground view -- I think Chris is right to think it'd be a pretty bitter pill to swallow if that's how things shake out, but the controlling principle here is that "the rules are the rules." . . . [T]here's a lot of oddness in the nominating system and there's no point of plucking out any particular feature and slamming it as unfair as the process unfolds.

Update (TL): Comments now closed on this thread.

< TPM: NBC Sexism Not The Important Part Of The Story | What Is Obama's Position On Superdelegates? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    New nominating system needed (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:52:46 AM EST
    and today is too late.

    Exactly (4.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:59:33 AM EST
    The voting equipment is the bigger problem (none / 0) (#183)
    by Dadler on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:19:47 PM EST
    Since we can nominate the best candidate in the world, but with electronic voting equipment completely insecure and so easily hacked it's head in the sand time for all of us.

    Not to mention voter disenfranchisement, scrubbing the rolls, etc.

    Our entire electoral system, from primary to GE, has become a disgraceful joke.  Everyone should be counting ballots by hand and checking each other's work.  Street by street, neighborhood by neighborhood, city by city.  


    Yep. (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by TheRealFrank on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:55:28 AM EST
    I was just thinking the same thing. You can complain that superdelegates are undemocratic. And I agree.

    However, if you, at the same time, do your best to maximize the impact of something as undemocratic as the caucus system, or even worse, want the votes of primary voters of two big states not even counted, well, then you're just cherry-picking whatever suits you.

    Here's a compromise: take the superdelegates out of the equation, and seat the FL and MI delegates before the nominee is chosen. Sounds like the most democratic solution to me.

    Exactly right (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:00:33 AM EST
    People who have nothing to say about the caucus system should shut up about super delegates.

    I say talk about it all (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:13:22 AM EST
    in order to REFORM the system for the future.

    No more superdelegates.

    No more caucuses.

    No more apportionment by Congressional district. Apportion by percentage of the vote in a state.

    Starting in 2012.


    The caucus system disenfranchised me (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:19:38 AM EST
    this year.  I can't participate if I'm not there and I'm not there because I'm a military spouse.

    I'm sorry. That really stinks. (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:21:35 AM EST
    Thanks andgarden (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:23:14 AM EST
    This Hillary girl who would have asked a lot of questions at my caucus feels a little better.

    No more open primaries either! (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:36:42 AM EST
    No Caucuses - No Obama (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by koshembos on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:06:19 PM EST
    Iowa would've look differently than it did and the momentum that convinced many true progressives to switch to Obama's false progressiveness wouldn't have happened. Only in Neveda, Obama failed to rig the caucuses due to the Latinos that just didn't buy his new ephiphany, the union notwithstanding.

    By all means, let cancel the super delegates and rerun all caucuses as primaries.

    Can you imagine a crybaby president?


    Don't have to imagine it (5.00 / 0) (#112)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:07:59 PM EST
    We already have one -- Bush.

    However, we definitely don't need another.


    The root of the problem (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Steve M on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:34:37 PM EST
    If the only goal of the process were to produce a clear nominee, what you propose would be the way to go.  And of course, that's definitely the most important goal, so maybe we should go that route anyway.

    But the reason we have these arcane rules is that there are other goals being served along the way.  There's no question that caucuses are less democratic than primaries, but there is an upside to caucuses as well, in terms of party building and such.  Desmoinesdem at MyDD had many good diaries along these lines.

    We also have to remember the purpose of superdelegates, which was to get those people more involved in the process.  It's good for the party to have as many Senators and Congressmen at the convention as possible, and the way you encourage them to attend is by letting them vote.

    All of these considerations are great except when it comes time to have a really close election like this year, at which point you really wish they could all be scrapped in favor of a transparent and democratic system.  In the 90% of elections where a consensus nominee emerges from the primaries, there's no downside to these innovations, but there's a big downside in the other 10% of cases as we're seeing now.  I think it's just important to keep this context in mind.

    And of course, all of this is only relevant in terms of 2012 and beyond.  It's way too late to start complaining that superdelegates are undemocratic and we need to constrain them for the current election.


    You think this is building our party? (none / 0) (#181)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:16:35 PM EST
    I think it is tearing apart our Party.

    What party? (none / 0) (#185)
    by Dadler on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:22:56 PM EST
    So far the Democratic Party as a real opposition party, hasn't shown up.  Can't destroy something that doesn't really exist.  Tongue in cheek, but not so much.

    Like I said (none / 0) (#187)
    by Steve M on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:27:53 PM EST
    In the 90% of elections where a clear nominee emerges from the process, there is a party-building component to the caucus system, particularly in the red states that have a weak party organization.

    In the 10% of close elections, like the current one, there is nothing positive or party building about these non-democratic systems.  I think if you'll look at my comment again, I never stated or implied that caucuses were helping to build the party in the context of THIS closely contested election.


    Part of the probl;em (none / 0) (#27)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:41:19 AM EST

    Apportioning instead of winner take all is part of the problem.

    Apportion by percentage of the vote in a state.

    That is an option (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:46:49 AM EST
    OR a mix of the two.

    Yes (none / 0) (#42)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:00:22 AM EST

    How about this?  Half the delegates in a state are winner take all by the statewide vote, and half are winner take all by each congressional district.


    No, (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:20:04 AM EST
    apportionment by Congressional district IS the problem.

    Never again.


    Is that current practice? (none / 0) (#79)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:42:26 AM EST

    Everywhere I have seen it described, it has been apportion by the statewide vote.

    It IS the current practice (none / 0) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:44:11 AM EST
    There is extremely limited apportionment by statewide vote. 98% is by Congressional district.

    I'm tired of the blackmail (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Steve M on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:03:23 AM EST
    I am so sick of reading comments about how seating MI/FL will tear the party apart, not seating MI/FL will tear the party apart, I'll leave the party if the superdelegates don't vote the way I think is fair, etc.  Look, people are free to leave for whatever reason they like, or for no reason at all, but advertising such a threat in advance (as Donna Brazile has done) is just a way to try and blackmail the party.  

    Even worse than both sides playing this game, which can have no good outcome, is if one side ends up playing the game and thus the "reasonable" outcome is for the other side to surrender in order to avoid a rift in the party.  That's how Florida 2000 went - the GOP made it clear that they would simply not accept any outcome other than their victory, and the media begged the Democrats to appease them in the name of unifying the country.  No one should profit by such tactics.

    I find it very, very unlikely that if there is a clear leader in terms of pledged delegates, the superdelegates will vote en masse to overturn that outcome.  If they favored one candidate or the other that much, they probably would have endorsed by now.  But rules are rules, and no one should be going around saying "I'm going to riot if the superdelegates overturn even a 1-delegate lead."  It's ridiculous and immature.

    Donna Brazile caused all the problems (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:11:36 AM EST
    Her threat is to leave the DNC.

    I say I DEMAND Brazile leave the DNC.


    And I say to Brazile to not only leave the DNC but (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Angel on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:21:01 AM EST
    get off the TV as well.  She's a partisan hack.

    Second that motion. Leave NOW. (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:30:17 AM EST
    If she left the DNC (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:35:26 AM EST
    then they probably wouldn't want her on the TV anyway, so it would be a double win.

    Amen, (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by tek on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:39:09 AM EST
    Brother, Amen. Donna Brazile destroyed Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. I don't know why she's still a player in the party. She has such an obvious Obama bias that it's disgusting.

    Brazille (5.00 / 0) (#166)
    by auntmo on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:44:31 PM EST
    Isn't  she  supposed  to be  one  the "grown-ups" in  our  party?   Sheesh

    We also have the possibility that one candidate (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:25:35 AM EST
    will have a slight delegate lead and the other will in have a lead in popular vote. That will cloud the issue even more IMO.

    If we end the primary season without a clear winner, I don't see how it is resolved without half the voters feeling like their candidate was given the shaft.


    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:27:35 AM EST
    I think that's why they're both likely to be on the ticket unless one or the other has a clear victory.

    Not Sure I Agree (none / 0) (#77)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:41:24 AM EST
    I'm beginning to think that Obama is going to be anointed as the nominee. Seems like that is where all the maneuvering is headed. Once he becomes the nominee, I think he might chose another woman for the ticket thinking that is all that is required.

    Of course, this is just my opinion.


    To Me, The Blackmail Angle Is Really Bad (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:17:18 AM EST
    What we absolutely need is to come out of the primary season with the voters united behind party's nominee.

    Brazile has publicly gone on record saying if she deems the process (going by the rules) is unfair, she will leave the party. Well there are so many scenarios where voters could decide that the outcome was unfair, Her statement IMO opens the door for voters of either candidate to decide to leave the party and not support the nominee.

    I'm not a strong partisan Democrat. I'm more of a lesser of two evils Democrat who after the performance of the 110the Congress is increasing tired of voting for someone who is not quite as bad (i.e.my current Senator). Statements like Brazile's makes it harder for me to support Obama if he is the nominee. After each such statement from Obama (Clinton's voters will vote for me) and his supporters, I have to keep repeating SCOTUS  over and over so that I don't say in a pig's eye.    


    Ummm...Mondale/Hart. (none / 0) (#105)
    by oldpro on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:03:34 PM EST
    Sorry (none / 0) (#115)
    by Steve M on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:09:25 PM EST
    You're going to have to explain what you mean.

    The superdelegates (none / 0) (#180)
    by oldpro on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:16:26 PM EST
    chose Mondale over Hart and made the difference in Mondale's selection.  Without the superdelegate vote, Gary Hart would have been the nominee.

    I think you are mistaken (none / 0) (#190)
    by Steve M on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:04:01 PM EST
    Mondale didn't have enough delegates to achieve a majority without help from the superdelegates, but that doesn't mean he would have lost.  Can you cite me a source that says Hart would have been the nominee without superdelegates?

    The Rules Are The Rules (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:17:00 AM EST
    I love the discussions about the RULES. We can't seat MI and FL because that is against the RULES and would be unfair (to Obama). OTOH, we should throw out the long established RULES on Super Delegates because they are unfair (to Obama).

    So whether or not RULES are the RULES depends on if they benefit a particular candidate.

    I personally think the way the Democratic Party choses its nominee is horrible but they need to apply the rules in a fair manner. If they want to play by the RULES, then let's play by all of the rules regardless of who they benefit.

    What a mess.

    MI/FL rules (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:23:51 AM EST
    I could be wrong, but I thought part of the rules was that a majority of the convention delegates could vote to seat the MI and FL delegations.  If that's right, then seating them actually is possible under the rules.  It doesn't involve changing the rules.

    But, yes, the whole thing is a mess and needs democratic reform.  And while we're at it, let's reform the electoral college along the same lines: proportional allocation of electors, or direct presidential vote.


    MI/FL (none / 0) (#25)
    by tek on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:40:12 AM EST
    They could seat those delegates, but the Obama people would tear the party down if that happened.

    Not very kumbaya......heh! (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:48:03 AM EST
    The biggest preachers of Kumbaya usually have the deepest and widest passive agressive streaks ;)

    Link? (none / 0) (#150)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:29:52 PM EST
    Absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:49:52 AM EST
    They would feel robbed, and I would understand that.  Now what if he's slightly ahead and has his delegates vote not to seat MI/FL and that's how he wins.  (Assume for sake of argument that Clinton would win if they were seated and her delgates make a motion to seat them.)  Then the other half of the party feels robbed, and it becomes much harder to win Florida in the GE.  

    There is no good solution.


    The way the media framed both cases (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by my opinion on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:28:55 AM EST
    says a lot about their bias. When Clinton discussed seating MI and FL delegates the media went on and on about how she wants to break the rules, but when Obama complains about the super delegates it is framed as a serious topic and no negatives are thrown at him for wanting to break the rules.

    don't forget that awful (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by english teacher on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:41:19 AM EST
    "do anything to win" garbage that got played up around that, too.  for clinton it is corrupt and craven lawlessness.  

    when in fact the whole thing points me in the direction of thinking that it is obama that will do anything to win, including pushing his distorted caucus advantages and making an unholy alliance with hillary hatred and msnbc.  


    Agree completely (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by auntmo on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:30:42 AM EST
    It  appears  it is  Obama  who  wants  to twist  the   "rules."  Given that  he  gave his word  to Floridians  that  he would  support  their  reinstatement  at  the  convention  (before  the  primary),    and  then  reneged on that  promise  because  he lost,    it's  a  tad manipulative.  

    Did you  hear  the  latest  Obama   comment?

    When asked   if  his demand  that  superdelegates  vote  the  pledge  delegates of  their  states----would  that mean  Kennedy and  Kerry   have  to vote   Clinton because  she won  Massachusetts---Obama  said,  "Well,  we  can talk  about  all of  those  things later."

    Very  telling, I think.


    Link? (none / 0) (#118)
    by oldpro on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:11:04 PM EST
    oldpro (none / 0) (#131)
    by auntmo on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:18:02 PM EST
    See   extended  discussion  below  on  same  topic.   Plenty  of  sources  and  proof.  

    Thanks. Found it! (none / 0) (#178)
    by oldpro on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:13:58 PM EST
    In fairness (none / 0) (#26)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:40:32 AM EST
    Clinton is making the exact same argument, but in reverse.

    Should seat the FL/MI delegates because the people spoke, even though it's against the rules. Should let the superdelegates decide on their own, even if the people spoke, because that's the rules.

    Neither side is being particularly intellectually honest, and I don't expect either of them to flinch.


    Very true (5.00 / 6) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:45:33 AM EST
    And are condemned for it by the very people now cheering Obama on on this superdelegate nonsense.

    I have stated clearly that the only way Clinton gets to seat those MI and FL delegates is if she get more delegates at the Convention.

    By the rules, she can then seat those delegations.

    Otherwise, they are out.

    Those are the rules. For Obama supporters, it is clear the rules are the rules when they help Obama but not when they hurt him.

    Hypocrisy writ large.


    So you're condemning Clinton (none / 0) (#151)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:30:09 PM EST
    and her supporters (when they make that argument) in equal measure then right?

    Not in equal measure (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:07:13 PM EST
    because in my opinion, Clinton supporters are not as vocal in their sanctimonious hypocritical whining nonsense.

    In your opinion (none / 0) (#177)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:13:01 PM EST
    You must not have read the comment section or posters at MyDD, where it's a Known Fact that Clinton is getting screwed on MI/FL and of course superdelegates should vote freely.

    I do not post at MYDD anymore (none / 0) (#179)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:15:08 PM EST
    The ridiuclous candidate cults for both candidates is not what I want.

    I am speaking of the blogs as a whole.


    Well, technically, Florida 2000 was decided (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by Geekesque on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:47:41 AM EST
    under the rules.

    Note that the Obama campaign is not calling for the superdelegates to not get a vote--he is urging them to vote in a certain way.

    Any anyone who thinks that a bunch of DNC committee members overruling a primary process where one candidate had a clear lead in pledged delegates would NOT be a complete disaster is not thinking realistically.

    He is urging those who (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:53:19 AM EST
    are not yet committed to vote according to delegates. He says those already committed to him should vote for him regardless. Kind of a hybrid Obama rule.

    He's free to lobby them how he wants. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Geekesque on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:59:15 AM EST
    Just like Bill and Hillary are allowed to lobby them and twist arms behind the scenes.

    Surely (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:04:41 AM EST
    But complaining ABOUT the rules is complaingin about the rules.

    Hillary is free to lobby for the seating of the Florida and Michigan deleagtions.

    The point of this post is the hypocrisy of people like you.


    SD's were never intended to overturn (none / 0) (#70)
    by Geekesque on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:34:46 AM EST
    the primary vote, but rather to ratify it.

    Superdelegates, Back Off

    But the superdelegates were also created to provide unity at the nominating convention.

    They are a critical mass of uncommitted convention voters who can move in large numbers toward the candidate who receives the most votes in the party's primaries and caucuses. Their votes can provide a margin of comfort and even victory to a nominee who wins a narrow race.

    The superdelegates were never intended to be part of the dash from Iowa to Super Tuesday and beyond. They should resist the impulse and pressure to decide the nomination before the voters have had their say.

    According to Brazile right? (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:42:43 AM EST
    Sorry, Donnas Brazile is NOT the legislative history on Super Delegates.

    I strongly dispute her statement.

    Moreover, we need not resort to legislative history. We KNOW the power granted the superdelegates - to vote for WHOMEVER they want.

    Stop the BS Geek. You look like a foolish hyperpartisan hypocrite.

    LEt me ask you this, is the delegate approtionment process designed to frustrate the popular vote? Was that the intent?


    Even worse (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:45:47 AM EST
    Old Kerry hand Devine - Kerry supports Obama.

    What a ridiculously transparent column.


    You're right. (none / 0) (#92)
    by Geekesque on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:50:59 AM EST
    We should just cancel the primary process and let the superdelegates decide this from now on.

    And, I'm sure if Obama is ahead in the pledged delegate race and a bunch of DNC insiders decide to overrule that result, that all of his supporters will just shrug their shoulders and get over it.

    I'm sure that wouldn't hurt the party in the slightest.

    Fortunately, superdelegates are not morons, and they wouldn't even consider doing that.


    Funny you mention that (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:10:12 PM EST
    I am for cancelling superdelegates but people like Donna Brazile did not change the rules.

    Seems like you waqnt to change them in the middle of the game.

    Now WHERE have I heard that line before?


    Obamaball! (none / 0) (#132)
    by blogtopus on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:18:06 PM EST
    I love those rules! Who needs logic when you have the power of the ponuppy guiding you?

    They wouldn't? Mondale/Hart. (5.00 / 0) (#137)
    by oldpro on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:21:20 PM EST
    They already have...and THAT was why in the 'reforms' coming out of the 60s and 70s, we got superdelegates in the first place.



    Not At All Sure This Is Accurate (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by BDB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:54:53 AM EST
    I've read elsewhere that the Super Delegates were implemented after the McGovern fiasco as a way to put brakes on a candidate seen as a disaster by the party.   They were also designed to permit regular activists to represent states as delegates because often times Congress members and others ran for delegate slots.

    Nancy Pelosi, I think, made a good point when she pointed out Super Delegates are seated with their state delegations.  I think there's just as good an argument that Super Delegates should vote with their states as there is that they should vote for the pledged delegate leader.  Heck, there may be a better argument since there's no guarantee the pledged delegate leader will be the popular vote leader (which is, in itself, going to be virtually impossible to determine because of the lack of transparency of caucuses).  It would mean bigger, bluer states would get more Super Delegates than smaller, redder states and that purple states would be in-between - giving more weight to the votes in states that form the democratic base and swing states.    It would also be "democratic" to the same extent since Super Delegates would be voting to follow the choice of the constituents in their state.  So the candidate winning states like Ohio would have a leg up on the candidate winning states like Montana.

    Personally, I don't like super delegates, but I also don't like caucuses and pledged delegates, I think the system sucks and super delegates are not worse than the rest of it.  It must be changed in 2012.

    I've resigned myself that they are going to decide the nomination.  And, don't worry, Geek, they're gong to go Obama or else the Obama folks are going to scream bloody murder from every corner on the evening news, which has become a wholly owned subsidiary of Unity, Inc.  There won't be any more critical eye put to Obama's dubious - and often contradictory - rationale for why he must get super delegates than there has been to any other one of his positions.  It will all be about how teh evil Hillary Clinton is and how she's stealing the election from that nice young man, Barack Obama.  Because you know how the Clintons are.  Whereas Obama would never work the refs with threats or intimidation about splitting the party if he doesn't get his way.  

    Frankly, I think that's Obama's biggest weapon going into the convention fight - he and his supporters seem most willing to split the party.  Whether they actually would or not, I don't know, but I'm sure that impression is intentional.  

    Finally, I've decided I do not want Clinton on a ticket that is headed by Obama.  If Obama loses to McCain, which I think is possible (not inevitable, but possible), his folks and the media will blame her.  Better if she stays in the Senate if he's elected or keeps 2012 open if he's not.


    BDB (none / 0) (#103)
    by auntmo on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:02:21 PM EST
    Bravo!!  Well  said.  

    If Obama loses to McCain (none / 0) (#144)
    by oldpro on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:25:33 PM EST
    they'll blame the Clintons anyway...on the ticket or not.

    Count on it.


    So he is being consistent in saying the (none / 0) (#47)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:05:06 AM EST
    superdelegates should vote for the delegate leader unless they have already committed to him? For example, Kerry and Kennedy should vote for him even though HC won MA?

    Well, Clinton isn't releasing John Lewis and (none / 0) (#93)
    by Geekesque on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:51:57 AM EST
    her superdelegates, even though their districts voted 80-90% for Obama.

    Cantwell and Murray hadn't switched, last time I checked.


    Geek (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by auntmo on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:19:58 PM EST
    Translation  of  Geek's post:  "Wah  wah  Clinton did it  first."

    Nor is Obama releasing Kennedy. So? (5.00 / 0) (#147)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:27:27 PM EST
    To release superdelegates (none / 0) (#139)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:21:47 PM EST
    in states with open primaries and Republicans trying vote her out of the upcoming election would cause me to get really pissed at her for releasing them.  If anything they have a chance of helping to balance that dynamic out.

    False (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:53:39 AM EST
    Florida was decided by a rogue Supreme Court violating the rules.

    Your statement is flat out false.


    Interestingly (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:54:37 AM EST
    If Obama wins by NOT seating MI and FL a lot of peope are predicting a disaster there too.

    You really have no leg to stand on here.


    Clinton quote from October 2007: (none / 0) (#40)
    by Geekesque on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:58:35 AM EST
    NHPR's Laura Knoy: "So, if you value the DNC calendar, why not just pull out of Michigan? Why not just say, Hey Michigan, I'm off the ballot?"

    Hillary Clinton: "Well, you know, It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything"

    Letting MI and FL help determine the nominee would be changing the rules.  As would preventing super-delegates from voting.  Lobbying superdelegates is not against the rules.


    So what if she did say that? (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:10:21 AM EST
    She deflected the question, hedged her bets, and made a smart political move while Edwards and Obama unilaterally disarmed in MI.  I think she showed her superior political skills here.  I'm not saying MI should definitely be seated, but it can, in fact, be seated under the rules.  

    And in any case, why is it her problem if Edwards and Obama pulled their names off the ballot in order to pander to IA and NH?


    By proving herself a shameless hypocrite (none / 0) (#55)
    by Geekesque on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:15:47 AM EST
    and Calvinball champion?

    It's rather difficult to look at that quote, her current stance, and call her anything but a self-serving, hypocritical flip-flopper.


    It takes a shameless hypocrite (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:17:52 AM EST
    to know one.

    Pols are by profession shameless hypocrites.

    WE should not have to be. Why are you choosing to be a shameless hypocrite?


    Didn't you take a time out (none / 0) (#169)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:52:34 PM EST
    last time you started calling people names like that? I have no problem with calling people out on their arguments but the tone here is getting radioactive. Go get some fresh air!

    Excuse me (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:05:10 PM EST
    Name calling bans does not preclude pointing out that a person calling someone a shameless hypocrite is being a shameless hypocrite when they do so.

    Your selective outrage is duly noted.


    Shameless Hypocrite? (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by auntmo on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:38:26 AM EST
    Excuse  me,  Geek, you  have  conveniently  neglected  to tell the  board  that  Barak Obama, before  the  Florida  primary,   told  voters  there  that  he  would  SUPPORT  their  reinstatement  at  the convention.  

    As  soon  as  he lost  in   a huge  landslide,  he  changed his mind.  

    DEFINITELY,  he is  a shameless  hypocrite.


    I believe she is a politician (none / 0) (#61)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:18:27 AM EST
    who wants to win.  And the same can be said for Obama whose positions on this can also be viewed as self-serving.  What is your point?

    Nonsequitor (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:03:40 AM EST
    The problem is not what Hillary said, but what the effect will be in Michigan and Florida.

    Critical states in a GE.

    Are you asking me if this will be an insurmountable problem? I say no. Nor do I believe Hillary winning would be an insurmountsable problem.

    We are discussing what people are saying. You brought it up. Not me.


    There will not be a disaster (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Steve M on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:36:15 AM EST
    if both candidates behave in a statesmanlike fashion, help to explain that the outcome was within the rules, and encourage their supporters to support the nominee.

    If one of them refuses to behave in this fashion, we may indeed have a problem, but that's who I'll choose to hold responsible.

    We have bigger problems in this country than unfair party procedures for selecting a nominee, and those problems will not be solved without a unified Democratic Party.  Anyone who wants to be the nominee of that party needs to understand that.


    Sadly to say (5.00 / 0) (#104)
    by blogtopus on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:03:25 PM EST
    Thus far one of the candidates has been gracious in losing, gracious in winning, and willing to emphasize party unity over petty sniping.

    Unfortunately, that candidate is not Obama. If he can destroy the Dem party because he didn't get his way, he will. Shows how much of a Uniter he is.


    Sad to say (5.00 / 0) (#142)
    by auntmo on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:23:55 PM EST
    Agree,  Blogtopus.    He'll  do  anything  to win,  and  his  supporters  won't  even see  the   irony  of  his  hypocrisies.     They'll  even   issue  THREATS  to  the party  and  the  superdelegates.   No  "unity"  or  "new politics"  here.....just  same ole  same ole,  but  worse.

    If the winner of pledged delegates loses (3.00 / 0) (#82)
    by Geekesque on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:44:01 AM EST
    because of a Boss Tweed scenario, the party will deservedly get its ass kicked by the Republicans in the fall.

    Note that I highly doubt that will happen.  It would be suicide for the superdelegates to go down that road.  They're obviously waiting to see who gets the upper hand.  Most won't commit any earlier than March 5.  If Clinton loses OH and/or TX, that'll be it for her.  


    Suicide (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by auntmo on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:53:13 AM EST
    No,   Geek.  

    If   Michigan  and  Florida  are  disenfranchised,    the  Democratic Party   will  get  its    a**  kicked.  


    Please (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by Steve M on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:07:21 PM EST
    do not resort to the passive voice in an attempt to absolve the candidates of their responsibilities in this manner.

    If the candidates behave in a statesmanlike fashion, as I described, there will not be a problem.  The fact that people like Donna Brazile feel obligated to threaten the creation of a rift in the party is evidence that rifts do not just "happen" on their own.  They will only happen if the candidates do nothing to stop them.

    There is nothing wrong with lobbying the superdelegates, but I have a big, big problem with this attempt to intimidate them with threats of dire consequences.


    Amen To That (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:17:50 PM EST
    There is nothing wrong with lobbying the superdelegates, but I have a big, big problem with this attempt to intimidate them with threats of dire consequences.

    Apparently you did (none / 0) (#91)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:50:30 AM EST
    not watch th SOTU. The didn;t even sit together. LOL! But I too hope this can be resolved in a mature manner. Given that the Dem Party is like a disfunctional family... I have my doubts.

    Last year commentator said that "This is the Democrate's election to lose. Not Republicans election to win."

    We have a history of losing elections in the past several elections... I WANT the White House back.


    There is a situation (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by kenosharick on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:01:01 AM EST
    being set up that if Hillary wins- no matter how- it will look tainted and "undemocratic." The media is playing along with the Obama campaign to destroy Hillary.

    Actually (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by Salt on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:27:59 AM EST
    Time believes the Party will attempt to anoint Obama if he wins Maine today so lets see what they do.  And I by the way haven't been hearing this battle cry I hear on the blogs that this election is about electing a Dem that's not a shared sentiment out here or at least I have never heard anyone say it as a burring goal preference sure but so is a preference for divided government if a Party has moved to what the country may view as fringe.

    Read Frank Rich NYT that is irrational commentary that I would expect from the Scaife Arkansas Project


    That would be insane (none / 0) (#99)
    by blogtopus on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:55:37 AM EST
    If they try to annoint Obama without waiting for Texas, Penn, or the other upcoming big states, that's crazy.

    As for tearing the party apart, let's look at that closely:

    1. Most of the people braying about how if they don't get Obama they won't vote dem are independents whose only draw to the party is Obama, right?

    2. That leaves a purer Dem party, with more progressives. That's not tearing the party apart, it's making it more progressive.

    3. If we lose the AA vote because of this, the most we would lose is around 12%, and it's highly unlikely they would suddenly vote GOP. It would be a big hit for us, but doesn't mean an automatic loss, not if we take most of the big states.

    God, I'm writing this down and it seems as shaky as a Jenga tower, but I'd like to open this up for discussion. What happens if the 'big rift' comes about? What are the realistic consequences?

    I Suspect (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by BDB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:54:21 PM EST
    the rift heals when the Republicans start hammering the Democratic nominee.  Nothing will bring Democrats together quite like the specter of President McCain.  

    Although I could be wrong about that last part, McCain is remarkably popular among some democrats.  I can only assume it's because they don't know anything about him and only get what the MSM are feeding them.  Defining him is going to be critical to any Democratic win, IMO.


    If its Obama (none / 0) (#182)
    by Salt on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:18:49 PM EST
    they will not hammer him, it will be polite he will be inspirational but not experienced, please keep in mind this is a Party that uses racial code as a science honed perfected they will never attack him but pat pat on the head. Most people still don't understand what they mean when they promote States Rights and Low Taxes. just look at races in the South for a primer..and how is he going to attack McCain with inspiration what percent of the population not already moved to vote for the

    We are the ones we've been waiting for," Barack Obama. "We are the change that we seek." ," Barack Obama......................

    the Christian Right will never vote for him never


    I'm About As Far Away From The Christian (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:26:45 PM EST
    Right as you can get and I'm really turned off by

    We are the ones we've been waiting for," Barack Obama. "We are the change that we seek." ," Barack Obama......................

    A lot of this is Hype Axelrod in a media insider (none / 0) (#175)
    by Salt on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:05:55 PM EST
    ...check out the Axelrod Patrick race in Mass if you want to uderstand the palybook better and I dont belive O loss there by 15 percent was by chance but a good indicator of some GE problems.

    1. Is wrong 49 percent of Independents voted for Kerry in 04, I would add I am an I, and I am here only for Hillary as are many others so thats false we held are noses to vote for Kerry and yes that was hard thats true.  

    2.  Progressives are less then 20 percent of the country and 85 percent already support Dems so no growth opportunity for the party by catering to this crowd. Thats why the 2006 Schumer platform won non traditional voters.  And organizations like Move On are as offensive to moderates and conservative as Rush and the Moral Majority are to progressives a collective Yuck factor here.

    3. Not sure about three but I would hate to see a group disenfranchised unfairly because they have no place to go but the Dems have a lock on 90 percent of the AA vote already,

    I think the big factors that would be lost is the math vs the O spin....

    factor the growth potential of Hispanics and Women Hillary brings to the GE and the Party, they may not come otherwise almost half of both groups which make up 51 percent of the electorate voted for Bush in 04 and I do not believe they will support Obama

    I would add neither candidate is breaking into the 55 percent white male vote on the Republican side Dems already have 45 percent


    Clinton Is Up By (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by bob h on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:07:14 AM EST
    more than 400,000 in the popular vote total so far, according to Sunday's "This Week".  My guess is that with Pa, Tx, and Oh coming up, she runs this up to at least 500-600,000.  That advantage, not the elected delegate total, is the most representative of the popular Democratic will, and it is that # that should be uppermost in the minds of superdelegates.

    That must include Fl & MI (none / 0) (#71)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:35:43 AM EST
    I crunched the numbers that are on ABCNEWS.COM right now.

    If FL and MI are left out, Obama is ahead in popular vote by 92,131

    Clinton leads in Super Tuesday popular vote by 58,761.

    Add back MI and FL and Clinton now leads by 524,187

    Of course, March 4th may change EVERYTHING -- or not.


    NBC has Obama ahead by 50,000 (none / 0) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:39:32 AM EST
    Superdelegates should be scrapped (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by Grey on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:16:54 AM EST
    However, the Obama camp wants it both ways.  First they said superdelegates should vote as they want since those are the rules; now, they're saying they'll keep the superdelegates they have but, from now on, superdelegates should vote the way their states did.  Do you see this?  Kerry, Kennedy, Gov. Napolitano  and a whole bunch of others went for Obama, but their states went to Clinton so, according to Obama, those superdelegates should stay with him and only after this arbitrary point that he has decided on should superdelegates vote the way their states did.  How convenient for them.

    No, sorry.  The superdelegates system sucks (as do open primaries and bonus pledged delegates), but that is the system in place.  Obama must not he allowed to cherry pick which rules he'll follow and which rules Clinton should follow.  There is one set of rules and that applies to all.

    I Totally Agree BTD (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by BDB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:08:35 PM EST
    If Obama's folks cared about enfranchising voters, they'd be complaining about caucuses and pledged delegates and talking about reforming the system.  This entire system is a travesty and should be before 2012. But it's the system we've got and we're stuck with it this time around.  (FWIW, I believe Clinton, who has been hurt by the system more is more likely to try to fix it if she wins, at least by pressuring states to go to primaries.)

    The Obama folks can't argue that it's okay for him to win under rules that disenfranchise Florida and Michigan voters because rules are the rules, but that it's not okay for Clinton to win under rules that permit Super Delegates to ignore the pledged delegates/ popular votes for other states.*  Either following the will of the voters matters, damn the rules, in which case Super Delegates should follow either their state or the nation's popular vote (I go back and forth on which, the national vote is very difficult to figure out due to caucuses) and Florida and Michigan should be seated.  Or rules are rules and so long as the person who gets the magic number of delegates needed to win the nomination, wins the nomination.

    * I'm not at all convinced that Super Delegates not following the pledged delegate leader would be disenfranchisement since it's possible that the pledged delegate leader will not be the popular vote leader, assuming we can figure the popular vote in a system designed to hide it with caucuses.

    They'd be a little bit upset about (none / 0) (#119)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:11:35 PM EST
    open primaries as well.

    Leave It is Right it will only make it worse (4.00 / 0) (#54)
    by Salt on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:13:12 AM EST
    There is no way to change it now and to try to attempt to will just break it further if Hillary is marginalized the draw of women and Hispanic will swing to McCain, if he plays his cards right and Veep will matter, it is an awful system the Dems have it dose not have integrity and now with this obscene money SDs if they change appear to have been bought and the Party does seem to turn on itself at every step.  

    I am an Independent who truly was considering joining the Party, I liked the Chuck Schumer Platform Positively America I saw in 2006, even received the DNC Dean join the party card in the mail, then when SC hit after JJJr MSNBC Clinton did not cry for Katrina Prof Dyson MSNBC Clintons using racist code and it appeared to me that the old myopic Liberal Social wing of the Party using historic grievance was feeding on itself and surging, so I put it on the shelf.  When Kennedy came out and Fla was disenfranchised a state in my view that represents the collective demographics of the GE Mich and a must win State for a Dem nominee.  I threw the DNC membership request away.

    I am a Hillary supporter and will work to help her become President because she is what this country needs.

    consider the impression (none / 0) (#9)
    by cpinva on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:17:56 AM EST
    left on the public's mind, by the fact that the democrats can't even seem to select their own party's nominee without appearing to screw it up. compare that to the republican "winner take all" approach; you might not think it fair, but it's blunt and to the point.

    the democrats have created some rube goldberg-like method, that most of them don't even appear to understand. is this really the crowd you want in charge of the entire country for the next 4 years?

    Republicans (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:34:10 AM EST
    Yes, they do things in a straight-forward manner.  

    I also like that in Washington State with its hoaky caucus/primary system, the Repubilcans have decided to award half the delegates based on the caucus, half on the primary.

    That is much more fair considering how stupid the caucus system is in Washington and the undoubtedly massive numbers of people who think their primary ballots (which are greatly absentee) actually mean something.


    seems to me a lot of people will say no (none / 0) (#19)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:32:02 AM EST
    Believe me (none / 0) (#22)
    by tek on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:36:37 AM EST
    The Obama people control the Democratic Party and they will never allow Hillary Clinton to be the candidate, so the Obamanians can stop crying about superdelegates. They will never be allowed to decide. That's what Howard Dean meant when he said one candidate has to drop out on March 4, that candidate will be Hillary. Otherwise, the old men in the party will cry RACISM!

    I actually had a friend who's for Obama tell me this weekend that the only reason anyone wouldn't vote for Hillary is if they are racist.

    I think your last sentence has a negative (none / 0) (#29)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:42:45 AM EST
    going the wrong way.

    But anyway, I think it's kind of ridiculous to say one or the other 'controls' the party. The reality is that the party is controlled by state chairs and local machines, and, if superdelegates are anything to go by, Clinton has a somewhat large advantage in this.


    OTOH (none / 0) (#35)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:52:23 AM EST

    On the other hand any criticism of Hillary is sexist.

    In a previous post Jeralyn made it pretty clear that no matter what Hillary said or how she said that it, any description of what she said as "shrill" would be sexist.


    Jeralyn said no such thing (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:55:30 AM EST
    IF you persist in lying, you will be temporarily suspended for the day.

    Honest recollection (none / 0) (#44)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:02:50 AM EST
    That is my honest recollection.  I will see if I can find the post.

    You remeber wrong (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:05:17 AM EST
    Jeralyn would NEVEr write that.

    Do not repeat that lie.


    OK, I misunderstood (none / 0) (#96)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:54:18 AM EST
    The drift on these direct quotes or approvong quotes of others seemed clear.

    Taylor Marsh has a good post on the media's gender bias against Hillary where a show of passion or a flash of anger or forceful self-defense is deemed shrill...

    Because any time a woman raises her voice half a decibel she instantly becomes shrill.

    I think people who dislike Hillary will call it shrill. Of course that response is sexist.  

    Emphasis added.

    Of course?  Perhaps you could point out how the use of the word shrill to describe Hillary or something she said would not be considered sexist.


    Here's my post on shrillness (none / 0) (#184)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:22:54 PM EST
    You are correct (none / 0) (#49)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:07:09 AM EST
    in that the Dem Party will make Sen Obama the nominee. The writing on the wall is pretty clear now.

    Unfortunately there are still some people that want to make this about demographics rather than the person. But making about the person is something that is still note coming out clear in this race.

    In this case the "person" with the last name of Clinton will be against that nominee.

    The rules really need to be changed. I for onewill do anything possible to work towards a better process for the Dem Party.... otherwise we are going to lose members. No wonder we can't get a Dem into the White House... and this year may not be any different than the last few election. How depressing.


    Let me throw this in here again: (none / 0) (#52)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:10:23 AM EST
    What if Clinton has the popular vote
    But Obama has more delegates?

    Then what?

    Maybe we return (none / 0) (#56)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:15:50 AM EST
    to the smoke-filled room.  It's an O/C or C/O ticket, with the party heads deciding the order based on what they think is more electable.  Just a guess.

    Fear Factor. . . (none / 0) (#59)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:17:28 AM EST
    Some kind of reality TV competition.  I say we cover them in spiders and whoever freaks out first loses (I'd guess Obama).

    Really, it makes about as much sense as the current system.


    LOL (none / 0) (#62)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:19:54 AM EST
    Your solution is much better than mine.

    Well so far (none / 0) (#67)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:30:33 AM EST
    Obama is winning the popular vote by half a point.

    According to NBC (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:38:58 AM EST
    According to ABC, Clinton leads by 400,000 votes.

    ahh (none / 0) (#98)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:55:30 AM EST
    Should have know that the numbers were debatable.

    Reform. . . (none / 0) (#53)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:12:18 AM EST
    is what's needed.  We're stuck with the rules for the race underway (rules which state that MI and FL might be seated if enough delegates vote to do so, and that superdelegates can vote against the popular result but can also be lobbied (or threatened) in secret).

    But let's throw out the current system for next time and come up with a system in which all Democrats are equally able to vote, all delegates are elected by public vote, and delegate apportionment (either proportional or winner-take-all) represents the popular result at least at the state level.

    Big Tent I agree but (none / 0) (#64)
    by Saul on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:23:06 AM EST
    I agree with everything you said but isn't the apportioning of delegates a good thing?  Maybe I am missing something there.  I always thought that the Electoral system should be done away with and who ever had the most popular vote would be the president.  This would show who the public truly wanted as president. If you could not get rid of the electoral college then  the other option  would be to apportion the electoral votes by the percent each party got in that state.  That would be more repesentative of what the people wanted and the one that more electoral votes after this process would be president.  Isn't apportioning delegates in the nominating process follow this same argument.  Like I said maybe I am missing something here and would appreciate clarification.  I am no expert on this.

    Not by Congressional district (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:26:49 AM EST
    IT is a voter dilution mechanism.

    Wrong things are being measured (none / 0) (#81)
    by Salt on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:43:54 AM EST
    No it is measuring the wrong things the GE doesn't work this way their are no Caucuses or apportioning so your not learning about delectability.  I am not sure who these super delegates are but I watched Donna Brazile a CNN pundit say she was and heard someone say a blogger in Oregon was one as well, and that one super delegate is equal to 10,000 voters NOW thats ugly pundits and bloggers that makes no sense but you cannot change it now. Fla and Mich voters disenfranchised by the DNC, Fla had 1.5 Million Dems turn out...

    go to the below link and volunteer to get out the vote for Hillary and help make it a blow out..so none of this matters



    Super Delegate List (none / 0) (#101)
    by Saul on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:00:54 PM EST
    Salt here is web site for list of Super Delegates



    Thank You (none / 0) (#125)
    by Salt on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:16:06 PM EST
    Let democracy really decide the nomination (none / 0) (#69)
    by ajain on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:30:46 AM EST
    Well I think if we are do away with super delegates then we should also do away with pledged delegates.

    I mean they really aren't democratic. In Nevada Sen. Clinton won the popular vote and yet did not win the most delegates and so in the true spirit of democracy we should see who wins the popular vote.

    She clearly has the lead there and so Obama can't really make that argument.

    Pledged delegates (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by auntmo on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:44:19 AM EST
    Here's  another  "rule"  the  Obama  camp  is  choosing  to ignore.

    Only  primary  votes  are  "pledged  delegates."

    Caucus   votes   are  subject  to change,   and  as  such,  are  not  "pledged"  or  certified  until   a  vote  takes  place  at the state  convention.  

    Essentially,  NONE  of  Obama's   caucus  delegates  are as  yet,   "pledged  delegates."

    Only  the primary  delegates  are.  


    NV (none / 0) (#76)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:40:22 AM EST
    Sorry, the chosen one (Obama) has already claimed NV ;-).

    See his own truthy web site:


    AND BTW do his little sunbeams coming off the new states he won raise the hackles on anyone's spine?  I'm sorry, but those are proof that this guy is not my idea of a Democrat -- you know, the feet on the ground, reality based kind of person?  He is apparently God.


    IMO (none / 0) (#78)
    by athyrio on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:42:04 AM EST
    to ignore Florida and Michigan, just to seat Obama will destroy the party bigtime...To ignore the fact that she won more big democratic states than Obama will also destroy the party...it is an automatic recipe for disaster in November....I certainly hope Ted Kennedy isnt willing to destroy the hopes of the party in order to seat Obama in the nomination...It is sure looking that way...I think the biggest question is this...which are you more loyal to, the party or your candidate....

    IMO (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by auntmo on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:48:29 AM EST
    Here's  my   out-on-a-limb  projection:  

    If  Florida  and Michigan  are not reinstated  and  are, thus,  disenfranchised,  to aid  Obama's  nomination,  

    The  Democratic  Party  will NOT win  the  general  election.  

    I just  don't see  any  way around it.  


    DNC Victims? (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Salt on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:04:11 PM EST
    Look we are not anyone victims, volunteer and work for your candidate lots of big States coming up.  If the nominee is someone you can not support vote for someone else and become an Independent we have the true power in this country and we should be about electing ethical competent capable people not being controlled by fools.

    Salt (none / 0) (#120)
    by auntmo on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:12:24 PM EST
    I'm  not IN either of  those  states,  Salt,  and  I  AM working  for  the  candidate.  

    But  I  really don't  think he  can carry either  state----based  on THEIR  emotions  ---if   he  doesn't keep  his  promise  to  reinstate  them.  

    But  thanks  for  the  speech, anyway.


    So, we should just confine primary (none / 0) (#85)
    by Geekesque on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:45:47 AM EST
    voting to 4-6 big states?

    This is the kind of mentality Howard Dean is fighting, and further proof why the Clinton folks can't be allowed to take the party back to its 19 state plan.


    I would feel better about it (5.00 / 0) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:47:01 AM EST
    if they were primaries he won.

    Or.... (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by auntmo on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:50:16 AM EST
    Even if  his  "wins"   weren't  red  states  that  will    never  turn blue  in November.

    These  wins  bring  nothing  to  the  ge.


    You keep saying the same things over and over (none / 0) (#102)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:01:13 PM EST
    If the Democrats don't win midwest and southern states they will lose the election.  It is pretty simple.  

    And Barack Obama most certainly can win some red states.  He can win Kansas, Missouri, Indiana, Alabama, and Louisiana.  He wins those states and he wins the election by a landslide.

    Why in the world should the Democrats strategy be "win the big blue states and a couple of swings"?  They have the upper hand.  They should be looking to rout McCain.


    Red states (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by auntmo on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:07:49 PM EST
    He  will  NEVER   win   Kansas,   Alabama, ALaska,  Georgia, Utah,  Idaho,  North Dakota,  Nebraska, or  Louisiana  in  a    general election.  

    It's  NOT gonna  happen.  

    But  if  he  disenfranchises   Florida  and Michigan,   he  loses  the  ge, FOR  SURE.


    Good Point (5.00 / 0) (#124)
    by blogtopus on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:15:44 PM EST
    Can the superdelegates make their decision based on the logic of the GE election, please? What are the states that Obama has NO chance of winning? Look at the past voting, look at the percentage of independent voters, look at the core GOP voters who will never vote Dem for any reason.

    Which of those states that Obama has won in a DEM primary has NO chance of voting for a dem candidate, regardless of who it is?

    Which of those states that Hillary has won are pivotal in a GE election? Which of those states that Obama has won are pivotal?

    It seems a pretty easy choice for the Superdelegates, and the logic and reasoning is there for all to see. If this logic favors Obama, then I can support him because I know it isn't an ego thing, its a realistic advantage. The same for Hillary.


    Addendum (5.00 / 0) (#143)
    by blogtopus on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:24:57 PM EST
    What States has/will Hillary win that we can't do without?

    What States has/will Obama win that we can't do without?

    Think of all the possible combinations, vs. past voting history and probability of them changing / staying the same this year.

    The combinations could get pretty messy, but in the past it has been the candidates that win the big states that get the nomination. And rightly so.


    I don't think it's clear (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by BDB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:33:46 PM EST
    that either will win a state the other wouldn't, except possible Clinton in Arkansas.

    I do think Clinton is a stronger candidate in Florida.  That's going to be a close one and I think if its delegates aren't seated then a lot of democrats are going to be very angry down there.  Its demos also seem to favor Clinton.  Which doesn't mean Obama can't win it. but it's going to be more work for him, IMO.  

    I have democratic relatives in Florida and I'm not sure if the rest of the country understands how livid they are.  They feel like they got screwed by the DNC because the Republican legislature moved the primary and the DNC punished them for it.  I also don't think there's going to be any caucus.  I read somewhere the DNC had floated the caucus idea, but because of costs they were suggesting 150 caucusing locations, there were 2,000 in Iowa and Florida has a heck of a lot more voters than Iowa.  A caucus in a state that's never held one, done on a shoestring budget is never going to work.

    Frankly, I don't care about his 50-state strategy, Dean should be fired.  His decision to unseat all Florida delegates is part of what created this mess, meaning he allowed Florida Republicans not only to keep our candidates out of that state, but also help play havoc with deciding a nominee before the convention.   He's not the only reason we're in this mess, but his decision to go for the nuclear option on Michigan and Florida is a large part of it and is the part that's most likely to come back and haunt the nominee in November.


    Florida (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:39:27 PM EST
    Putting myself in the shoes of a Florida voter, I can tell you that if my delegates weren't seated and/or weren't counted TOWARD the nominee after I went to all the trouble of voting, I'd sit out the general.

    And that's what Democracy is all about -- counting votes. Why vote if your vote doesn't count?

    I agree, Dean should be fired.  The utter and complete lack of judgment is atrocious.  


    But that is a flawed assertion (none / 0) (#157)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:33:10 PM EST
    In the past primaries were decided on Super Tuesday, if they weren't decided before that.  NY, NJ, OH, TX, Florida, and Michigan rarely even mattered.  The race was over by that time.

    The Democratic candidate this year will win NY, NJ, MA, NJ, CA, MI, CT, PA, OR, MD, IL, DE, and VT without breaking a sweat.  They won't even be contested states.  

    I honestly believe that the election in November is a done deal.  Hillary or Obama will win it.  The question is by how much and how long their coattails will be.


    Respectfully, (5.00 / 0) (#163)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:38:31 PM EST
    That is the kind of thinking that will lead to a Dem loss in November.  Dems should take nothing for granted.  

    Good point (5.00 / 0) (#152)
    by auntmo on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:30:30 PM EST
    That's   exactly  what  the superdelegates  are  FOR,  blogtopus.   Look at  the big  picture,  location  of  Dem base  states  &  swing  states,  nominee    who's  best  for  party  as  a  whole.    Obama   wants  to   NARROW  them  doing that  because  he thinks  those  red  state  wins   matter.    They  don't.

    Totally agree (none / 0) (#188)
    by blogtopus on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:43:40 PM EST
    But that doesn't mean Obama will like that decision. He's been sipping a little too much of the koolaid he's making to realize that if past Dem candidates couldn't win certain conservative states, then an AA candidate isn't likely to have a better chance. AA voters have always been significantly voting for Dems, so he doesn't gain anything in that equation, and he loses a LOT in the white vote.

    He's getting fooled, naively, by the Primary voters, when he should be looking at the GE voters. Too bad.

    Not to say white people in general won't vote for Obama, just that, if I recall correctly, there was this THING with race in the south. Unity ponuppies don't change that.


    In 1992 (none / 0) (#135)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:20:19 PM EST
    Clinton won Georgia, Tenn, Louisiana, Missouri, and Iowa.  

    These are states that can be won again.  

    So the question is who offers the best chance to win the purple states and the light red states?  


    Sorry, didn't mean to bruise ya (none / 0) (#146)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:26:27 PM EST
    any.  Just bringing a red state that he recently won in a "landslide victory".

    Mormons just fairly recently (none / 0) (#128)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:17:33 PM EST
    decided that African Americans were people too.  Outside of Hillary hate I don't see them voting for Obama in Utah much if at all.  He won the primary because that deep red state wanted to help ensure that the Dem in this election got as few votes in their limited perception as possible.

    Oddly enough (none / 0) (#141)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:23:19 PM EST
    I didn't mention Utah.

    Because of your abusive comments (none / 0) (#159)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:33:56 PM EST
    You are suspended for the day.

    Do not comment anymore today.

    I will delete your comments.


    Kansas, Indiana and Alabama? (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:07:53 PM EST

    The Only Way Dems Win Those States (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by BDB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:14:41 PM EST
    Is if they get photos of McCain having sex with Huckabee regardless of the nominee.  And even then, an African American would still most likely lose the deep southern states.  The Republican party dominates states like Alabama in large part because of race.  

    And before I get a thousand responses accusing me of saying Obama will lose the GE because he cannot win the white vote, go back and read what I wrote again.  


    BDB (5.00 / 0) (#149)
    by auntmo on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:28:31 PM EST
    McCain  kissing  Huckabee....ewwwwwwwww

    But  a  great post...and you're  right.   He won't  win  them.   Not  a  chance.


    Neither Will Hillary (none / 0) (#161)
    by BDB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:35:52 PM EST
    BDB (5.00 / 0) (#171)
    by auntmo on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:58:39 PM EST
    "Neither  will Hillary."  Well,ok.  I  thought that's  what  I'd  already said;  maybe I  was unclear.  

    Red  states  he listed  are  not possible for OUR  nominee.  

    We  must  focus  on  Dem  base  states  plus  swing,  just like you said.  

    But  considering  Obama  to be  winning  just  because  he's  won   a  lot of  states  that  won't  go  blue  for  anyone,    is  just  foolishness   if  we   want to  win  the  ge.


    Puhleaze what? (none / 0) (#122)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:14:31 PM EST
    Is it simply impossible for you accept anything positive about an Obama candidacy?  

    McCain is hardly the favorite son of those states. GOP voter turnout could be very low.  Obama appeals to a large swath of independents.  

    Will he win those states?  I have no idea.  But it is NOT unreasonable to believe he could win those states.


    What a nonsequitor (5.00 / 0) (#136)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:20:37 PM EST
    It is not negative about Obama that he can not win Kansas, Alabama and Indiana.

    FDR could not win them today.


    And I disagree with this assertion (none / 0) (#148)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:27:43 PM EST
    Alabama has a 30+ African-American population.  Obama would likely win 90+% of the African-American vote against a Republican.  So he would need 30% of the remaining vote to win Alabama.

    He is a favorite son in Kansas.  He could win there.  

    Indiana would be tough but I honestly believe that in this election the Dems could take almost ANY state.  


    Completely Wrong about Why Dems Lose the South (5.00 / 0) (#167)
    by BDB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:46:49 PM EST
    Obama cannot win the deep south, there was a lot of analysis at the time he suggested he could pick up those states that showed it was highly unlikely - see here.  Democrats don't lose the deep south because they don't get enough of the AA vote, they lose it because they fail to get enough of the white vote.   Obama isn't going to change that.

    It occurred to me that the best ticket in the deep south might be Clinton/Obama.  Clinton might be able to flip enough white women and Obama could raise the African American turnout.  But even then, I think it's highly unlikely we're looking at a Blue Dixie.

    Kansas and Indiana are only going Democrat if all states go democrat because of a clean sweep.  That's not any more likely to happen with Obama than it is with Clinton.


    I reiterate (none / 0) (#156)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:32:55 PM EST
    Because of your abusive behavior, you are suspended for the day.

    Do not comment anymore.

    I will delete your comments.


    BTD (none / 0) (#172)
    by auntmo on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:59:55 PM EST
    Thank  you,  that's  what  I meant.  

    You   made your  point  more  clearly  than  did  I.  


    Yes it is (none / 0) (#130)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:18:00 PM EST
    Obama has as much chance of carrying (5.00 / 0) (#133)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:19:34 PM EST
    Alabama as Hillary has.........and that would just about zero.....maybe a tenth of percent more than zero.  Same with Utah and Kansas......I don't know that much about Indiana.

    I dont believe thats the case (4.00 / 0) (#121)
    by Salt on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:12:36 PM EST
    Kansas will not go Blue no way, Indiana no way Ohio no way and the south is a larger problem for him because of the polarizing racial States Rights politics and military voters. And I dont belive he can pull MO either now.

    Ohio (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by BDB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:16:10 PM EST
    May very well go blue.  It has been trending that way in recent elections.  Based on demos, I think Clinton would be the stronger candidate there, but I think either candidate would have a shot at carrying it.

    BDB (5.00 / 0) (#165)
    by auntmo on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:39:38 PM EST
    Ohio  is  QUITE  possible, with  Clinton leading  the  ticket.  So is  Arkansas,  as you said.   And  Hispanics  in  the  SW  states  will  be  key.    GOTTA  have  Michigan  and  Florida.  

    We'll Get Michigan (5.00 / 0) (#168)
    by BDB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:49:50 PM EST
    I suspect with either Obama or Clinton.  Florida is much harder.  I think Clinton would be stronger there, but that's not to say Obama would automatically lose.  He's not going to get as much Republican cross-over, at least from the Cuban community, because of his position on opening up relations with Cuba (which I applaud him for and agree with, btw).  Clinton isn't going to get that vote either, but she's got other strengths in Florida, particularly among non-Cuban hispanics.

    BDB (5.00 / 0) (#173)
    by auntmo on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:03:07 PM EST
    Absolutely  correct.   You're  the  best  damm  poster on the board.  Well,   besides   BTD, of  course.  

    But  your  analysis  is always  spot on.    



    So we're screwed then (none / 0) (#126)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:16:08 PM EST
    What are the states that you think that the Democrats will win this time around that they lose in 2004?  You already say that Ohio and Missouri, 2 swings in 2004, are going red.  So what do we win?

    Or is it simply that Obama can't win those but the much more red state friendly Clinton can?


    Swing States (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by BDB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:21:25 PM EST
    I think democrats have a terrific chance at picking up Arkansas if Clinton is the nominee.  

    Other potential wins for Dems include Virginia, Florida, Missouri, Nevada, Iowa, and New Mexico.  We could also be competitive in some border states like Tennessee and Kentucky, but I think those are less likely.

    The hispanic vote, IMO, is going to be crucial to expanding the democratic base.   I think Clinton has a much better shot in Nevada, Florida, and New Mexico than Obama, but I don't think we automatically lose those states if Obama is at the top of the ticket.  Obama would probably have a leg up in Iowa, they seemed to genuinely love him there and there is not a good history of women candidates in Iowa (and, no, I'm not saying the only reason Obama won was sexism, go back and re-read what I wrote).    I think our chances are about the same for the other states regardless of the nominee.  


    Obama Won MO By Less Than 10,000 Votes (5.00 / 0) (#153)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:31:01 PM EST
    He had almost the entire  Dem machine behind him in MO. Yet, the counties he won were counties that the Dems always win. Clinton won the other counties. We do not register by party affiliation in MO and it would have taken absolutely no effort by Independent or cross over Republican voters to vote for Obama in those counties. Yet, he did not win them. Doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy that he would win the state.

    I reiterate (none / 0) (#155)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:32:02 PM EST
    you are suspended for the day.

    Do not post any more comments.

    I will delete them.


    Considering that those are the ONLY states (none / 0) (#100)
    by Geekesque on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:56:58 AM EST
    Clinton has been able to win, that doesn't make much sense.  That's like saying I would feel better if she didn't lose by 35 points in Illinois.

    Three more primaries on Tuesday.  I'm sure people will find a way to spin MD, DC, and VA as not really counting for much.  Because one's a blue state.  Or a purple state.  Or something.

    Obama's won twice as many states, because Clinton thinks Mark Penn is more valuable ($4 Million) than opening offices in states like Washington, Colorado and Virginia.


    Loopy Obama Cult thinking (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:07:13 PM EST
    My support of primaries over caucuses is not determined by who wins them, but by the fact that they are more represntative and democratic.

    My gawd, can you ever stop being an Obama maniac?


    Obama cult (5.00 / 0) (#117)
    by auntmo on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:10:36 PM EST
    Indeed,   BTD.  Notice  she   didn't mention  that  Obama's  campaign  is  already  conceding    Texas, Ohio,  and  Pennsylvania  to   Clinton.  

    A  follow-up on one of  your  diaries  yesterday:  

    Did  you  read  that  Washington  literally   THREW OUT  14,000  early  votes   in  the  upcoming  "not important" primary?  


    I found a place that shares your views (none / 0) (#140)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:22:09 PM EST
    on the Obama cult.  Perhaps you can have a good chat with them.

    You are suspended for the day (none / 0) (#154)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:31:02 PM EST
    Do not post here anymore today.

    I will delete your comments.


    flyerhawk (none / 0) (#162)
    by auntmo on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:36:37 PM EST
    So....did  the  other  brilliant posters  convince  you   Obama  can't  win   all those red  states you  think he  can win?  

    Listen to the  collective  wisdom of  those posters,  hawk.....they  KNOW  what  they're  talking about,   and   have  only  the Party's  best  interests  at heart.  

    Incidentally,    so   do I.  

    You  have  to think REALISITICALLY  to  win  general  elections.  


    No (5.00 / 0) (#88)
    by Salt on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:47:47 AM EST
    It dose feel if Dean is behind this, fighting to prove he could of should have won last time he really should be replaced.

    My Country (none / 0) (#94)
    by Salt on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:52:03 AM EST
    I think it doesn't as much destroy the party they can fire Dean, but it loses the GE election and the wound will be self inflicted again.  

    We keep forgetting (none / 0) (#114)
    by blogtopus on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:08:51 PM EST
    That the people who have the most power are the ones who like both Obama and Hillary equally, not us internet folksies.

    The ordinary voters who don't get caught up in the superhype and just do their day-to-day thing have no idea of all this stuff going on. Hasn't that been the case for a lot of articles recently: Most people have no animosity towards either Hillary or Obama, they love them both.

    All this talk of tearing up the party is being pushed by a limited few: Us.


    And folks on television (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by BDB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:26:03 PM EST
    I worry much more about people like Donna Brazile threatening to take her ball and go home than I do about what the intertubes say.

    Because what the party is going to need are grown ups.  It's becoming pretty clear that half the party is not going to get their first choice as the nominee.  The party is going to have to get together and decide the best solution for THE PARTY and then folks are going to have to work to bring everyone together behind that solution whether they like it or not.  Having party leaders like Brazile threatening to split if all of this isn't done exactly how they want it is ridiculous.  Unless one candidate pulls way ahead before we get to June, there is no one fair way to do this, that's why people disagree.  And for folks like Brazile to act like there is, is unhelpful and immature, IMO.


    Comments almost at 200 and closing (none / 0) (#189)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:59:19 PM EST
    Thanks for your thoughts.

    Hillary supporters (none / 0) (#191)
    by mouth of the south on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:13:49 PM EST
    I wonder if Hillary's supporters would be saying the caucues are undemocratic if she were winning all of them. I don't think so.  She is playing the victim AGAIN.