home

Would Obama Accept The Nomination If He Loses The Popular Vote?

By Big Tent Democrat

This article, featured at TPM, discusses the Clinton position that she will accept the nomination even if she loses the popular vote. I think it is rather academic myself in that if Clinton loses the popular vote, the majority of the Super Delegates are not likely to support her.

However, I do wonder if the Media and TPM are willing to ask Barack Obama the same question - to wit, is he willing to accept the nomination if he loses the popular vote? Not the pledged delegate count, the popular vote.

Anyone concerned about Obama thwarting the will of the people? Media? TPM? Hello?

NOTE: Comments are now closed.

< Texas Overturns Ban on Sex Toys | Quinnipiac Poll: Clinton Has Big Leads In OH And PA >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • The Democratic nomination (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by kid oakland on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:26:19 AM EST
    is a contest for Pledged Delegates according to pre-agreed upon rules.

    The campaigns and their supporters have conducted themselves with that in mind. Changing the rules mid-stream would disenfranchise everyone and besmirch the entire process.

    There is no pre-agreed to way to measure the popular vote. In fact, delegates are awarded in most states in ways that DON'T relate strictly to the popular vote. There are pre-agreed to rules about Pledge Delegates.

    The nominee will be the candidate who wins the most Pledged Delegates according to the pre-agreed upon rules. The Super Delegates should rally around that candidate.

    Pledged Delegates AND Super Delegates (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:33:46 AM EST
    Now what should be the criteria of Super Delegates?

    You say they should ALL vote for the Pledged Delegate leader. you accept that the rules do not require this or indeed, even suggest this, since Super Delegates would then be a redundancy.

    In your view, and givwen that you are an Obama supporter, hardly surprising, you think the guiding critiera should be who is the Pledged Delegate leader and that the SDs should not consider anything else - not even the Popular Vote leader.

    My view is different than yours. It starts from the premise that the entire process is horribly flawed. The undemocratic nature of caucuses and delegate apportionment makes it hold little MORAL suasion for me when the delegate result is close.

    Of course a +100 pledged delegate is difficult to ignore and where the popular vote is close, I think it is a decider.

    However, if the pledged delegate lead is say 40, and the trailer holds, let's say a 400k vote advantage in the Popular Vote, at the very least, SDs have the MORAL freedom to follow their conscience.

    to argue otherwise is absurd to me.

    Parent

    Whatever the circumstances (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:46:46 AM EST
    the superdelegates vote for who they want to vote. Each one. A superdelegate can conceivably uphold the will of the people of his state, or his favored industry, or whatever.

    All complaints about the anti-democratic nature of superdelegates have traction. And if the superdelegates jointly make the wrong the decision and send the party to defeat, then I am sure that what's left of the Democratic Party will do something about them for 2012 if a party still exists.

    But, Big Tent, I suspect that the majority of superdelegates will vote for Obama if he continues to win. If he loses by a large enough vote and loses the delegate count, they'll generally go for Clinton. There is no way to presume how they will all vote right now.

    You are creating something that doesn't exist. Why? Because examining the last eight or ten primaries/caucuses would be very depressing for a Clinton supporter.

    Parent

    But, of course, the pre-agreed-upon (none / 0) (#166)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:29:33 AM EST
    reules include the Super Delegates doing whatever they darn well want to.

    Parent
    Rules are rules (none / 0) (#175)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:34:23 AM EST
    except, when they are not.

    Parent
    Of course, they count (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:38:24 AM EST
    Are you counting on the superdelegates to thwart the pledged delegates?

    Parent
    I am hoping they uphold (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:44:46 AM EST
    the will of the voters as expressed in the popular vote, unless the difference in pledged delegates is +100.

    I take it you are hoping that the will of the voters is thwarted.

    Parent

    Both of them should agree... (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Dadler on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:44:06 AM EST
    ...that whomever gets the popular vote accepts the nomination.  If not, then all the Democratic bluster about Bush's two stolen elections is a bunch of crap.  We have to set the example here, the fair and just electoral example, that has been wholly absent in the last two prez elections.  The will of the people, all the people, must be what matters, not the technicalities of a brokent and useless and undemocratic system.

    Set the precedent now.

    Ah, finally (none / 0) (#203)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:50:00 AM EST
    a man of principle.

    Parent
    Well... (none / 0) (#1)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:58:53 AM EST
    there aren't many scenarios where he could potentially win the delegate battle but lose the national popular vote, since he's behind in super delegate counts.

    Pledged delegates has been tracking fairly well with popular vote, and assuming that, at best, Obama ends up winninging 50% of the superdelegates, he'd almost certainly have to be in the lead in national votes to have a lead in pledged delegates.

    Clinton, on the other hand, if she maintains her 100 superdelegate lead, could conceivably win the nomination but lose the pledged delegate contest. This would almost certainly imply losing the national vote.

    The Pldged Delegate battle (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:07:02 AM EST
    is the marker Obama wants to be the ultimate calculus.

    I think it is a very important calculus, but there are others.

    MY point is with regard to the story and TPM's framing of it.

    Parent

    My point (none / 0) (#11)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:12:17 AM EST
    is that there is no real conceivable path to the nomination for Obama if he loses the pledged delegate (and hence the national vote) battle. It's a necessary but not sufficient condition. So it's sort of an irrelevant question to be asked of him.

    Parent
    Hillary hate (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by tek on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:15:49 AM EST
    should be prez candidate, Obama VP. He is in no way competent to be president.

    Vote for Obama so Dick Durbin, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry can be president. Three people who on their own couldn't get elected to the WH, but can RULE through a surrogate.

    Parent

    my thoughts exactly (none / 0) (#49)
    by Josey on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:33:34 AM EST
    Head of his law class? (none / 0) (#62)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:41:03 AM EST
    Which means that someone who voted to give Bush war powers is competent?

    Parent
    10,000-plus lawyers around today (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:14:45 AM EST
    must have been at the head of their law school classes.  Heck, half a dozen live within blocks of me, and I wouldn't vote for a one of them.

    But Jeralyn and BTD probably were at the top of their classes, too, and I think they'd make a great ticket. :-)

    Parent

    wrong kind (none / 0) (#180)
    by jdj on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:35:52 AM EST
    Hillary has the wrong kind of experience. Obama is a better leader as this primary has shown.

    Parent
    Obama is a better divider (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Josey on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:47:33 AM EST
    His scorched earth Rovian tactics including attacking universal health care and allowing the Clintons and Edwardses to be smeared as racists -is very divisive.
    Especially since Michelle and Oprah initiated playing the Race Card.

    Parent
    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:16:42 AM EST
    You wanted to change the subject. I got that.

    BTW, you are quite wrong in thinking Obama may not lead the pledged deleagte count while losing the popular vote. I think there is better than a 50% chance.

    The question for Clinton is irrelevant. It is VERY relevant to Obama.

    Parent

    He's up by 800k so far (none / 0) (#32)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:24:07 AM EST
    And she won NY (which I think count as a blowout) by about 300k. If she completely blows him out to overcome those margins in the big 3, I think he's probably done. Otherwise, the rest of the calendar other than the big 3 look pretty favorable.

    I'm not changing the topic - you asked why no one is asking Obama these questions; the reason is because the question is irrelevant. There is a reasonable possibility that Clinton could win the nomination without a pledged delegate lead (and hence national vote lead). It would be almost impossible for Obama to do the same.

    Parent

    Oh the don;t count Florida contingent (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:35:39 AM EST
    is in force today.

    He is up 500k, as you WELL know.

    It is one thing to not award delegates. It is another to pretend 1.7MM did not vote in Florida.

    IT is a disgraceful argument and I hope Obama has the sense not to adopt this disgraceful approach.

    Parent

    Even 500k (none / 0) (#64)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:41:34 AM EST
    And she still would have incredible difficulty overcoming that. Ohio has about 3/5 of the democratic voters as NY does, TX about 7/10 and PA about 7/10. So even if she gets her currently-polled support in both March 4th states, she's only getting margins of 100-200k.

    Plus Mississippi and Wyoming will vote between TX, OH.

    So if Obama collapses and she significantly overperforms her baseline polls, then sure, she's going to have the national vote lead. But she'll also probably have a pledged delegate lead and an overall delegate lead. And it won't be an issue about whether he could win the nomination while losing the popular vote.

    Parent

    Sorry (none / 0) (#65)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:42:05 AM EST
    mean MS and WY will vote between March 4th and PA.

    Parent
    Your math is off (none / 0) (#102)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:58:07 AM EST
    I demonstrated this yesterday.

    If, as is likely, you get 2 million Ohioans, 2 million Pennsyvanians and 2 MM Texans to vote, a ten point win gives Clinton a 600k margin.

    If it is 15, 900k.  

    Parent

    Big Tent (none / 0) (#69)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:44:54 AM EST
    How do you manage so much outrage? It must be exhausting. Is your computer screen covered with splutter? Do you confide your "harrumphs!" to the net or do you let them slip into interactions in public?

    How about a couple of harrumphs for Clinton agreeing to cut out the voters of Florida and Michigan before the election season?

    Parent

    Coming from you Bob (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:56:34 AM EST
    That is hilarious.

    Parent
    It's the points on the board. (none / 0) (#204)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:50:28 AM EST
    There is one thing that gives you the nomination. It's the majority of the delegate votes. The other calculations are your excuses/hopes/alternate narratives. You win or you lose by delegates.

    Parent
    superdelegates and popular vote. (none / 0) (#2)
    by SecondAve on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:00:40 AM EST
    The question should be: "would he accept the nomination if he had less delegates that were selected by the voters'

    Actual votes are not counted in caucus states, ergo, one can not use them when adding the actual single votes of voters. The only fair way is using the votes won by voters. I think he would give it up. Besides, whoever is in the lead will win because that is the way the majority of the super delegates will vote. Forget about Kennedy and Rangle - the majority will do the right thing.

    Obama can not lose at this point. It is mathematically  impossible.

    No (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:05:55 AM EST
    that is what YOU and Obama want the question to be.

    Voters vote, they do not choose delegates.

    The will of the voters will be thwarted if the popular vote winner is not the nominee.

    Heck, this entire nomination process is extremely undemocratic.

    Of course Obama wants the measure of the will of the voters to be pledged delegates instead of the ACTUAL VOTES of the voters. He leads in that category. And of course, Clinton will argue for popular vote, she MAY lead in that category at the end of this thing.

    Which one should sway the SDs? In my view, these are two factors in the SD calculation. They kind of wash each other out imo.

    The issue I have with Obama right now is that he has not won a contested big state. He needs to win TX, OH or PA. If he does, I will, FWIW, strongly urge his nomination since he will be the clear leader in SDs and very close in PV and will have proven he can win a contested big state.    


    Parent

    one thing I've learned this cycle (none / 0) (#40)
    by desmoinesdem on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:29:00 AM EST
    is how undemocratic the delegate allocation can be even in states that have primaries.

    I've written a lot about the problems with the Iowa caucuses and caucuses generally, but I hadn't realized that some distortions could happen with the delegate allocation even if all states had primaries.

    Parent

    This nomination system (none / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:34:10 AM EST
    is a disgrace.

    You recall I said so LONG before the Iowa caucuses.

    Parent

    Let's change the rules (none / 0) (#76)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:46:38 AM EST
    for 2012.

    Parent
    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:55:56 AM EST
    And do not cry iof the SDs give Hillary the victory if she has a popular vote lead but a narrow deficit in pledged delegates.

    Those are the rules.

    Parent

    In primaries... (none / 0) (#43)
    by solon on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:30:19 AM EST
    The popular vote is not reflective of the will of the people or the will of the democratic party. If you set aside support for either candidate, remain impartial for five minutes, and examine the institutional arrangements by which the parties choose their nominee, you will see how the popular does not matter:

    1. States choose different methods of elections (caucuses/ primaries)

    2. States choose who can vote, so there is no standard way of knowing what the people want let alone what the Democrats want. The independents can vote in California but not in New York; Florida Independents could vote in the Democrat but not Republican primary. This makes a difference especially when other measures are on the ballot, as was the case in Florida.

    3. By having staged primaries and caucuses over a five month period, you do not know what the "general will" of the people is... And, a national election for primaries would be a terrible idea.

    4. The DNC announced that the vote would not count in Michigan and Florida. In Michigan, some Dems. voted for Republicans; in Florida, some Dems did not vote.

    Delegates matter, not the popular vote. The Super Delegates need to vote their conscience and they should do this after the primaries are over.

    And of course, you are wrong about Obama not winning Big States, unless you want to change the definition of Big State to include only New York or California. He won Illinois and Georgia, which are in the top ten of populated states in The US.

    It makes no difference who wins more states or who wins more Blue States, unless you want to tell Democrats in Red States that their vote is just not important.

    Parent

    Here is NOT the argument to be made by any Dem (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:33:27 AM EST
    The popular vote is not reflective of the will of the people or the will of the democratic party. If you set aside support for either candidate, remain impartial for five minutes, and examine the institutional arrangements by which the parties choose their nominee, you will see how the popular does not matter.

    I hope never to see this argument made by the Obama camp.

    Incredible that you make it.

    Parent

    Set aside... (none / 0) (#77)
    by solon on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:46:39 AM EST
    Your partisanship for two minutes and read what I wrote you may understand the point I was making about how institutional arrangements alters the meaning of the vote.

    1. If you want to know who the Democratic nominee should be, ask only Democrats to vote.

    2. Have nothing else on the ballot.

    3. Allow all candidates to campaign.

    4. Employ the same format for all states.

    If you do not do this, the popular vote will not reflect who the is the choice of the Democratic Party, making the vote count trivial.

    And again, these are impartial comments from someone who examines the meaning of our political institutions, especially as it relates to voting practices.

    If you want to twist my words for your partisan advantage, fine. But you look foolish doing so.

    Parent

    I QUOTED your words (none / 0) (#95)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:54:35 AM EST
    Words I found offensive.

    Parent
    Undemocratic (none / 0) (#90)
    by Lora on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:53:25 AM EST
    BTD wrote:
    Heck, this entire nomination process is extremely undemocratic.

    So...The rules should be changed.

    The primary popular vote count is not necessarily an accurate reflection of the will of democrats.

    The difference, if any, between the number of delegates and the popular vote count (IF accurate, which really is a very big "if") will be used for political gain by whoever can get away with it.  Question is, can Obama get away with it if he needs the popular vote count?

    Parent

    You are saying (none / 0) (#100)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:57:21 AM EST
    that the will of the people who voted in caucuses should not be counted?

    Are you saying that caucus states should be minimized in your new rules for counting who is worthy to be the nominee?

    You can keep inventing reasons for why Obama shouldn't be President and Clinton should be, but the bottom line is that the rules were in place before the primary season, all the candidates agreed to the rules, and now Clinton finds herself at a disadvantage. Her people haven't seemed to be able to run in a caucus state. She has lost something like eight or ten straight primaries huge margins.

    So now you want to find a way to change the rules. If you can't win the delegate count, then you want to make another standard, the popular vote, knowing that it would negatively hurt Obama who won in caucus states. And then to top it off you want to count votes in a primary that Clinton agreed would not count before the election season even began?

    Do you realize how you look, each day trying to figure out how to change the rules to favor your candidate?

    Clinton's campaign continues to ignore some states in preference to big states. She has Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania to pull it out. If she does, she does. If she doesn't, she'll try to convince the superdelegates. The farther that the SDs veer from the public will, the fewer votes that the Dem candidate will get in November.

    Parent

    I am for counting them (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:59:08 AM EST
    I am for counting EVERY VOTE.

    It is you and others who are for not counting votes.

    Parent

    Undemocratic. (none / 0) (#208)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:52:45 AM EST
    Big Tent writes: "Heck, this entire nomination process is extremely undemocratic."

    And who agreed to it? Clinton, among others. Could you curtail your wringing of the hands until after the nomination? It's unbecoming, wanting to change the rules after falling behind.

    Parent

    Of course he would (none / 0) (#3)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:04:26 AM EST
    Rules are rules.

    I think so too (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:07:27 AM EST
    But you get my point I hope.

    Parent
    It works (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:12:42 AM EST
    in the scheme of wanting to frame Hillary as a cheater and someone who wants to "silence millions of voices".

    Parent
    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:14:13 AM EST
    and so will Obama be doing the same thing.

    Parent
    To be clear (none / 0) (#8)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:10:11 AM EST
    No one in the Obama camp has said anything one way or another about the national vote mattering.

    The reporters are responding to the now nearly mathmatically certain outcome that Obama will win the pledged delegate count. If he does that, it is also almost guaranteed that Obama will also win the national vote (as the two have tracked very closely together).

    So Clinton's main path to the nomination is through super delegates (in particular, keeping the pledged delegate count close enough to make a good pitch to the super delegates). But it would be very difficult, barring a major collapse by Obama, for her to retake the national vote lead.

    Parent

    Barring a major collapse? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:13:43 AM EST
    You mean like losing Ohio by 21 and Pennsylvania by 16?

    What are you taslking about? At this point I think it is better than 50/50 that Obama will have a lead in pledged delegates and be behind in the popular vote.
    i


    Parent

    Much less than 50/50 (none / 0) (#22)
    by AF on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:17:37 AM EST
    It is highly implausible that Hillar wins Ohio by 21 and PA by 16 without also winning TX, IN, KY, WV, and PR by similar margins.  That would give her the lead in pledged delegates.

    Parent
    Highly implausible why? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:24:50 AM EST
    Because reports of momentum's death (none / 0) (#99)
    by AF on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:56:51 AM EST
    are greatly exaggerated.

    Parent
    Ahhh (none / 0) (#106)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:59:54 AM EST
    Well, that is a hypothesis to be tested in the coming month.

    Parent
    Two and a half months actually (none / 0) (#118)
    by AF on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:05:56 AM EST
    Because I was talking about HILLARY picking up momentum.  

    Parent
    Because he wishes it so! (none / 0) (#105)
    by Virginian on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:59:47 AM EST
    It is just like Obama rules...its Obama math

    Parent
    Virginian (none / 0) (#115)
    by AF on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:04:58 AM EST
    I suggest you read more carefully.  I was presenting a scenario in which Hillary wins the nomination outright and suggesting it was MORE plausible (in the event of big wins in OH andPA) than a split decision.  That is not Obama rules or Obama math.

    Parent
    You were? (none / 0) (#122)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:06:43 AM EST
    I missed that I must admit.

    Parent
    I missed it too (none / 0) (#164)
    by Virginian on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:27:51 AM EST
    Much less than 50/50 It is highly implausible that Hillar wins Ohio by 21 and PA by 16 without also winning TX, IN, KY, WV, and PR by similar margins. That would give her the lead in pledged delegates.

    Not to mention the bold is logically incoherent, possibly a bit of subjective validation involved?

    Parent

    Correct, no matter what the comments say! (none / 0) (#25)
    by koshembos on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:19:47 AM EST
    UH? (none / 0) (#103)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:58:58 AM EST
    No matter what the comments on TalkLeft say? This is a representative slices of Democratic voters?

    Parent
    So you're suggesting other blogs (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Virginian on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:01:09 AM EST
    give a better cross sample...like say...Daily Kos?

    HA!

    Parent

    That would count as a major collapse (none / 0) (#27)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:20:37 AM EST
    But I really doubt that it's going to be that great of a spread by the time March 4th rolls around. Obama is currently up by about 800k in popular vote.

    So she would have to have major, major blowouts in the big three (for reference, she won NY by about 300k), plus limit her losses in MS, HI, WI and NC, which currently look like Obama blowouts.

    Parent

    Why do you hate Florida? (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:22:27 AM EST
    Don't count their delegates yet, okay -- but don't count the people in the popular vote?  Explain.

    Parent
    A collapse from where? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:24:29 AM EST
    IF he is behind now, and loses by that amount, his support did not change.

    That is an anti-collapse.

    Parent

    I mean collapse (none / 0) (#41)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:30:07 AM EST
    in the sense of delegate and vote share lead. Being up by 800k in votes and 125 pledged delegates and falling behind again I think counts as a collapse.

    If he does fall behind in either, there is no path to the nomination for him; he has no reservoir of superdelegates to provide an alternate path to the nomination.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:31:47 AM EST
    You have redefined collapse imo.

    Parent
    Well, define it however you want (none / 0) (#58)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:37:25 AM EST
    I think the point stands; there is essentially no possible way for Obama to lose the pledged delegate battle (and hence, national vote battle) and still be the nominee.

    Even the most optimistic scenarios in OH, TX, and PA have Clinton winning by margins that will not allow her to completely overtake him in popular vote (remember, NY had her win by 300k, and she'd have to overperform her baseline polls to get anything near that in OH and TX).

    Parent

    hence national vote battle (none / 0) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:53:39 AM EST
    This is just nonsense from you.

    There is a better than even chance that that is precisely what is going to occur.

    Parent

    Show me the math (none / 0) (#121)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:06:41 AM EST
    Popular delegates awarded (per CNN):

    Obama
    Pledged: 1096

    Clinton
    Pledged: 977

    Differential: 1.12

    Popular vote (excl. FL, MI), per Open Left
    Obama: 9,560,675
    Clinton: 8,761,747

    Differential: 1.09

    Florida Popular Vote vs. Delegate share per Green Papers:

    HRC    865,099  49.80%     111  52.86%     
    BO    571,333  32.89%     69  32.86%     

    So vote share and delegate distribution, even including Florida, has been nearly exactly the same. It would be nearly impossible for someone to win the pledged delegate lead without also winning the popular vote.

    Parent

    Putting it another way (none / 0) (#127)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:10:09 AM EST
    There is basically zero chance that Obama can win this thing (i.e. be the nominee) if he doesn't win the popular vote. I want someone to show me a scenario where this happens, with the math, because all of the scenarios I've done myself and seen other people do essentially preclude this possibility.

    Clinton, on the other hand, has probably her most likely shot at the nomination by losing both counts.

    Not right or wrong, not judging whether these are legitimate strategies or not. But it is outside of the realm of plausible for Obama to be nominee without winning the popular and pledged delegate vote (necessary but not sufficient condition). It is very likely that Clinton could end up in this situation.

    Parent

    I don't think it's mathematically possible (none / 0) (#7)
    by AF on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:09:15 AM EST
    For him to lose the popular vote and win pledged delegates.  Unless you count FL and MI.  And sure, he'd accept the nomination if he won pledged delegates, overall delegates, and the popular vote in states other than FL and MI.  Are you suggesting he shouldn't?

    OF course it is (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:12:21 AM EST
    He was behind in the popular vote after Super Tuesday but still ahead in pledged delegates.


    Parent
    As long as you agree (none / 0) (#19)
    by AF on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:14:17 AM EST
    That FL and MI aren't included in the popular vote, then of course I agree the same rule should apply to both candidates.  

    Parent
    Why should they not be included in the count? (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:18:13 AM EST
    Did these people NOT vote?

    I can see excluding Michigan but Florida there is no excuse.

    Don;t count the delegates? I think it is stupid but the DNC has ruled.

    But you cannot pretend those 1.7 MM people did not vote.

    Parent

    Unfairness (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by koshembos on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:24:34 AM EST
    You weigh unfairness to Obama against unfairness to millions in BOTH MI and FL. MI and FL must count otherwise you treat these states the way Saddam treated the Shia.

    Parent
    Directed at AF I take it (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:25:36 AM EST
    I ave proposed my grand compromise.

    Parent
    That is exactly right (none / 0) (#107)
    by AF on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:00:33 AM EST
    But don't assume unfairness to Obama will be irrelevant in the GE.

    Parent
    An unfairness (none / 0) (#114)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:04:32 AM EST
    to which Clinton agreed. How can you support a candidate who agreed to such unfairness?

    What was the name of that person who rode the bus over most of the Boston Marathon thirty years ago and then ran across the finish line and tried to claim victory?

    There are rules. Clinton agreed to those rules as long as they favored her. If she somehow wins the nomination will she demand the Presidency if she loses the electoral college?

    You folks are such hypocrites.

    Parent

    We can argue FL and MI (none / 0) (#24)
    by AF on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:19:45 AM EST
    All over again if you want, but you can at least recognize a principled difference between those two states and the other contests?

    Parent
    A difference? (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:23:55 AM EST
    Yes, MI and FL were stripped of their delegates.

    Now you want to pretend they did not even vote. As I say, for differentials, you can exclude MI. But you can not exclude Florida.

    You are being quite unseemly in my opinion.

    Parent

    Get both HC & BO on record about your plan (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by katiebird on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:34:09 AM EST
    I'd like to see both HC & BO asked about your plan.  Let's drag this into the open and get them on the record.

    When's the next Debate?  Can we get a question submitted?

    I can't believe how many people think we can run a fall campaign without FL & MI on the convention floor.

    Surely the candidates don't think we can do it.  And I'm ready to get them on the record.

    Parent

    Me too!! (none / 0) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:36:36 AM EST
    Can you arrange it?

    Parent
    Getting it out as a talking point helps (none / 0) (#67)
    by katiebird on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:42:22 AM EST
    (I'm sure you know this)

    Getting it out as a talking point helps -- it's (still) amazing how many things that get mentioned in comments, get picked up as topics for blog-posts & show up on the news shows....

    (babbling now) It's obvious that the commenting-Obama-supporters Do Not want to seat either MI or FL.

    But what does Obama himself think?  

    Parent

    I don't pretend they didn't vote (none / 0) (#55)
    by AF on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:35:40 AM EST
    But I do assert their votes are not comparable to the rest of the primary because no delegates were at stake and the candidates did not campaign.  A rational voter would have stayed home.  No doubt many did.  

    The solution, I think, is to have three figures: pledged delegates,  popular votes including FL, and popular votes not including FL.  If any candidate wins all three the nomination is his or hers.  If those three are split, we've got a problem on our hands.  But the best solution is to take the candidate who's got 2 out of 3.

    Parent

    They are not comparable (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:37:34 AM EST
    because no delegates were awarded.

    As a statement of their candidate preference, it is the equal, no, it is the SUPERIOR of the votes in MOST of the other states, particualrly those that had caucuses.

    Parent

    Thank you -- this is VERY true (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by katiebird on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:45:25 AM EST
    They've got nothing but disrespect from the experience.  Yet that didn't stop them from taking their one chance to say which candidate they preferred.

    Parent
    But if you're talking about the popular vote (none / 0) (#75)
    by AF on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:46:37 AM EST
    The caucus states are already penalized.  So that problem is taken care of.  

    Parent
    They are? (none / 0) (#88)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:52:19 AM EST
    YES! they are. So we should redo all the caucus states.

    Have primaries. Do you imagine Obama is going to do s well in that scenario? Of course not. sort of the point isn't it?

    Parent

    Clinton agreed (none / 0) (#119)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:06:21 AM EST
    beforehand to not count those elections. So, as you weep for the failure of democracy in Michigan and Florida, remember that it was your candidate, the most influential candidate going into the primaries, who helped to screw the people of Florida and Michigan. The blood's on her hands.

    Parent
    Yes do remember that in the fall (none / 0) (#147)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:19:30 AM EST
    while the Republicans have commercials running from some anonymous group showing your candidate advocating not counting Fl and MI.  

    Parent
    Or worse... (none / 0) (#157)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:24:39 AM EST
    ... when some "anonymous group" runs ads talking about how the Clinton campaign thinks over half the states in the country are not "significant."

    It works both ways, my friend.  

    And by the way... Hillary Clinton is clearly playing both sides on this.  She agreed, along with everyone else, that FL and MI would not count.  Whether we like it or not, that is the case.  I believe it was an awful decision on all sides - the DNC, the states, and the candidates.  

    But Hillary cannot realistically expect to have the rules changes after the fact simply because she needs those delegates.  

    I think there should be some kind of compromise reached.  I don't know what that is or what it should be.  

    I also think that many Obama supporters are silly in saying that MI and FL should not count at all, just as i think that many Clinton supporters are silly for saying that MI and FL should count as is, even though Clinton agreed to the elimination of FL & MI's delegates.  

    Parent

    You want to know why? (none / 0) (#68)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:42:24 AM EST
    Because he wasn't on the ballot in Michigan!

    Really now.  That can't possibly be fair to count Michigan's popular vote when he wasn't even on the ballot.

    Parent

    Why did he remove his name? (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by katiebird on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:46:12 AM EST
    That's another question I would ask him.

    And Why in MI but not in FL?

    Parent

    Not possible in FL (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:51:33 AM EST
    I don't think anyone could remove their names from the FL ballot because of the rules down there.  Still, he removed his name in MI to pander to IA and NH, and maybe that wasn't such a great move. It wasn't required under the pledge.

    Parent
    Why did he remove his name? (none / 0) (#176)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:34:37 AM EST
    Because the DNC, ahead of time, disaqualified all their delegates.  Following that decision, all of the Dem candidates removed their names -- with the exception of Hillary and Kucinich.  (I think it was too late to do so in Florida).

    If we care at all about fairness, we shouldn't penalize Obama for following the DNC on this, and, even more importantly, we shouldn't penalize the voters that didn't have a complete ballot.

    Parent

    The DNC did not say (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:46:21 AM EST
    that they had to remove their names. I agree that MI is harder to handle than FL, but the fact remains that it was Obama's (and Edward's) choice to pass up an opportunity to gather some votes. This part of it is perhaps the only part that is NOT the DNC's fault.

    Parent
    So you will count FL's votes then? (none / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:51:03 AM EST
    Just to be clear on your position.

    Parent
    Let's count the votes (none / 0) (#123)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:07:18 AM EST
    that Clinton agreed to count before the primary season.

    Parent
    my position on Florida.... (none / 0) (#187)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:39:57 AM EST
    ... is mixed.  I actually liked your half-half proposal vis-a-vis Florida.

    On one hand, all the candidates were on the ballot.

    On the other hand, the voters didn't get too see any campaigning in the state.

    But I don't have a big problem with either solution on Florida.  I'd prefer your half-half solution, but I could go for just counting it all.

    I do, however, have a major major problem with counting anything from Michigan.  I don't see how anyone could come to a conclusion other than to seat Michigan is to disenfranchise voters, because the voters there didn't get a chance to choose between Clinton and Obama.

    And, after the US Attorney scandal, and GOP voter supression tacticts -- I am very sensitive to anything that disenfranchises voters.

    (And, yes, I think caucuses are basically unfair, too, but that's not the issue vis-a-vis Michigan and Florida).

    Parent

    Easily. (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:20:47 AM EST
    Some of his big wins have come in caucus states with relatively low participation.

    As 2000 showed us, it's entirely possible to win "delegates" (or electors in that case) while having a substantial deficit in popular vote.

    The election vs caucus difference serves to exaggerate that difference.

    I'm not following the actual numbers too closely, but it's certainly not hard at all to win pledged delegates but lose the national popular vote by a substantial margin.

    Parent

    The problem is, though, (none / 0) (#81)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:49:19 AM EST
    that he should have won more delegates than his strict share of the vote suggests in the states where he got major blow-out victories in the primaries (SC, VA, DC, MD, IL, etc), because delegate allocation rules tend to keep things fairly equal. If you compare popular vote percentage differentials to delegate share differentials, you'll see that they're actually pretty close.

    Parent
    All the more reason (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:54:21 AM EST
    to take the popular vote very seriously. "One man, one vote" is a pretty good principle to live by.

    Parent
    What are you? (none / 0) (#101)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:57:41 AM EST
    "One man, one vote"

    Some kind of Hill-hater?

    Parent

    Oops (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:03:45 AM EST
    One person, one vote?  Is that better?  :-)

    Parent
    And don't you forget it. . . (none / 0) (#120)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:06:37 AM EST
    mister!

    Parent
    Umm (none / 0) (#124)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:08:41 AM EST
    that's Ms. to you!

    Parent
    Oops. (none / 0) (#205)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:50:55 AM EST
    Don't you forget it mster!

    Parent
    It also suggests (none / 0) (#131)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:12:19 AM EST
    that pledged delegate counts are a pretty good proxy for national vote share.

    Parent
    Not really (none / 0) (#144)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:17:52 AM EST
    It depends upon the amount of the "bias" in each direction.  There's no reason to think they offset.  

    And in any case, we don't need a proxy for the national vote share.  We have the national vote share. Why look at an imperfect proxy when we have the votes to look at?

    Parent

    See upthread (none / 0) (#150)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:20:36 AM EST
    Obama is beating Clinton's delegate share by 1.12x. He's beating her popular vote share by 1.09.

    These will probably be converging percetages since we have almost no more caususes left, and primaries tend to bias delegates away from the popular vote winner (see: NV, AL).

    Parent

    NV (none / 0) (#170)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:31:41 AM EST
    Nevada was a caucus.

    Parent
    I can't vouch for your numbers (none / 0) (#207)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:52:02 AM EST
    And if they don't include at least FL, then I reject them.  But the larger point is that if both delegates and popular vote go in the same direction, then there is no issue as far as who the superdelegates will go for. I think the math shows that they could very well go in opposite directions by the time the voting is over. That's the issue.

    Parent
    Then why (none / 0) (#138)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:15:21 AM EST
    did Clinton agree to caucuses before the primary season began?

    Wouldn't that have been the time to make a principled stand against all caucuses? You know, before she lost?

    Not that anything said here is going to change the rules after the fact, but don't you folks see how hypocritical you are? Little states don't count because Hillary doesn't win little states. Georgia and Illinois aren't big states because Hillary didn't win them. Caucuses are NOW undemocratic because Hillary doesn't win caucuses. The two states where the primaries don't count because they violated the rules (and Hillary AGREED to those rules) should now count because Hillary needs those delegates. Delegate totals shouldn't count because Hillary might not get the delegate total.

    It's one thing to reinvent oneself. It's another thing to reinvent the rules after the game is played.

    Parent

    This sounds like (none / 0) (#9)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:10:22 AM EST
    another attempt to impose a new set of rules on this primary season. We won't count Florida and Michigan, unless we're behind and we won in a non-primary. That kind of thing. Big Tent isn't trying to impose a new set of rules in the middle of the primary season, is he?

    Whoever wins more delegates will win the primaries. You can't extrapolate a popular vote from caucus states. Certainly Big Tent isn't trying to deny caucus states the importance of their people, is he?

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:11:45 AM EST
    it does seem someone was trying to impose a new set of rules on Clinton, doesn't it?

    Sort of my point that if that new rule is going to come into play it should apply to Obama too.

    Parent

    Sure (none / 0) (#14)
    by AF on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:13:22 AM EST
    As long as you aren't including FL and MI.  Because then the concept of "popular vote" is just a veiled attempt to count FL and MI.

    Parent
    A veiled attempt? (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:20:44 AM EST
    You meaning counting the votes of people who voted is a veiled attempt to count votes?

    You can have your Michigna point as Obama removed himself from the ballot, but you have no such argument for Florida.

    This is not about the delegate count, this is about recognizing that people, 1.7MM of them voted in Florida.

    Hell of a thing to act as if they did not vote. Do not award delegates - that is pretty stupid politically, but you can not pretend 1.7MM people did not vote in Florida.

    On this point, Obama supporters are going beyond the pale.  

    Parent

    Look (none / 0) (#39)
    by AF on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:27:23 AM EST
    I understand the outrage about FL and MI.  They shouldn't have been disenfranchised and hopefully they won't have to be.

    But having been disenfranchised, you can't pretend that the results are comparable to the other contests.  

    And you certainly can't say that the only way to apply the same rules to everyone with regard to popular votes is to include FL and MI.  Because there's another rule that could apply to everyone: count the popular vote in states where the candidates were allowed to campaign.

    Parent

    Hopefully (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:33:26 AM EST
    You better start hoping really hard.  Florida and Michigan are two big states that you don't want angry at your candidate for the GE.  This attitude of they don't count and they aren't the same is not going to go over well with the voters.  See they didn't do anything wrong. That's the problem for Obama.  The voters didn't do anything worthy of having their votes thrown away like yesterdays trash.  So what they will see is a candidate who tells them to their faces that their votes are worth nothing. They may remember that the next time he comes around asking for votes.

    Parent
    Rebecca (none / 0) (#145)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:18:48 AM EST
    It wasn't just Obama who cut out Michigan and Florida. It was Hillary too.

    That is, it was Hillary until she won the false primaries and needed the delegates.

    Rebecca, those votes don't count. Give the states new primaries, or caucuses. Whatever. The false primaries don't count. Clinton agreed to this.

    Parent

    Bob (5.00 / 2) (#219)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:58:35 AM EST
    There has been a lot of political posturing going around here.  Don't blame this whole thing on Hillary.  Obama was right there with the rest of the Dems fouling this thing up.  After all he took his own name off the ballot in MI for blatantly political reasons.  There was no need to do that but he wanted to pander to Iowa's first in the nation status.  

    You keep on saying those votes don't count.  Try not to wince too hard when they remember that in the GE.  The problem is that this isn't about Obama.  It's about the general election.  We can't afford to tell two states that their votes don't count.  Just remember the voters did nothing wrong here.  They did nothing worthy of the punishment they got.  So just by telling them their delegates won't be seated you're insulting them.  By going that step further and saying their votes mean nothing you've gone beyond insult.  

    So go ahead and try to sell that Hillary agreed to this.  The voters won't look at that since your guy and the rest of the Dems did too.  What they will look at is the candidate's behavior for the convention and determining who our eventual candidate will be.  When they vote in November I don't want FL and MI remembering our candidate saying their votes don't count.

    Parent

    I pretend nothing (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:31:11 AM EST
    they voted in an aelection that was much more democratic and fair than ANY caucus in the country.

    This line of attack is a nonstarter for Obama supporters.

    To pretend that ANY caucus is a better and more representative event that the Florida election is ridiculous and makes me wonder if you even get it.

    Parent

    It may be a non-starter for you (none / 0) (#70)
    by AF on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:45:12 AM EST
    But it isn't for me or, as far as I can tell, a lot of other people.  It seems generally accepted that FL and MI don't count.  The networks are all making the distinction, even with respect to the popular vote.  

    I understand why FL voters are upset.  Really I do.  But if you don't even understand the basic fairness argument against counting FL and MI, all I can say is that it's you who don't get it.

    I will not call you "unseemly" or "ridiculous," however, because you're not. :)

    Parent

    Not for a lot of people (none / 0) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:50:04 AM EST
    in Florida and Michigan.

    you say what you want, the last thing I WANT is Obama saying what you are saying.

    Parent

    I agree with you completely (none / 0) (#89)
    by AF on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:53:16 AM EST
    and we should all pray that the distinction is not decisive.  If it is, there is no good solution.  I thought you agreed with that.  My point is that counting FL popular vote is also not a good solution.

    Parent
    There is no official count (none / 0) (#116)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:05:12 AM EST
    No delegates are awarded. But you know that. What you want is for SDs to IGNORE it. Have a rule to cite for THAT one?

    BTW, what did you think of the Boston Globe and TPM focusing on Hillary' willingness to ignore the popular vote?

    I found it ironic in the extreme.

    Parent

    I don't find it ironic (none / 0) (#125)
    by AF on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:08:46 AM EST
    But I do find it unfair.  Rules are rules and the rules include super-delegates.

    Parent
    And the rule I would cite (none / 0) (#128)
    by AF on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:11:30 AM EST
    Is the rule against campaigning.  This favors the better known candidate.  Say Hillary wins the "popular vote" including FL by 50,000.  Do you deny it's at least plausible that Obama would have made up that difference had he had a chance to campaign?

    Parent
    Rules against campaigning (none / 0) (#160)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:26:10 AM EST
    will be used by Obama to call for IGNORING (no delegates in this discussion) 1.7 MM Floridian votes? It is not going to happen.

    Parent
    I'm glad you understand their upset (none / 0) (#84)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:50:54 AM EST
    That may help when Obama loses MI and FL in the general election after he has told the voters there that their votes mean nothing.  It's rather hard to believe someone who comes asking for your votes when that same someone told you your votes mean nothing.

    This is so unbelievable.  Are you that sure of winning this election that you can risk alienating the voters of 2 states for the GE?  This is Obama's problem.  He has to figure a way to win while counting the MI and FL votes.  If he doesn't he may win the nomination only to lose the GE.  We can't afford to lose the real purpose of this election.  It isn't to get Obama the nomination.  It's to get a Democrat into the White House.  

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#96)
    by AF on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:55:27 AM EST
    But conversely, Hillary supporters should try to find a way to win without counting FL or MI, because that will piss off a lot of Obama supporters and would undermine Hillary in the GE.  That's my point.  I am not being one-sided.

    Parent
    I have to disagree (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:13:46 AM EST
    We can't have either of our candidates disregarding the votes of these two states.  The voters did nothing wrong.  That's the problem.  The DNC really fouled up this election with this problem.  I think BTD's solution is the best one I've seen.  The problem is that I don't see anyone being rational enough to take it.  What I see going on is a slow motion train wreck.  I rather think everyone is going to go forward with no preparation for disaster hoping against hope that something will stop the crash everyone sees coming.  

    Your idea that Hillary will have to win the nomination without FL and MI tells FL and MI again that their votes don't count.  So the Obama supporters will be offended if we count the very votes they will need to get their candidate elected if it doesn't elect him.  It seems to be a heads he wins tails she loses option here.  I do know that if Hillary loses she will be advocating that her supporters get out and work for Obama.  I don't know that Obama will do the same considering his track record on this.  What we have here is the problem we've seen all along.  Someones supporters are going to be upset.  The question is will they take their ball and go home?  The Hillary side will be encouraged to stay in the game.  I'm not sure of the Obama side.  

    You're setting his bar low and her bar high.  Two sides of the same coin.  The problem here is that the voters (you know the ones we need to win this election) that their votes don't count either way.  

    I agree we can hope that something happens that will win this thing for one or the other before it come to this.  But one thing we can't do in this election is to tell the voters that their votes don't count.    

    Parent

    You misunderstand (none / 0) (#142)
    by AF on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:17:32 AM EST
    I am saying that in order to avoid a trainwreck BOTH candidates have to win the nomination without FL and MI being DECISIVE.

    It would be a trainwreck if Obama won without counting FL and MI.  It would ALSO be a trainwreck if Hillary won with FL and MI (delegates or popular votes) providing the decisive margin.  

    There are different degrees of trainwreck, of course, and it's up to the super-delegates to minimize it.  But for now, we should all be hoping it doesn't come to that.

    Parent

    Oh I'm hoping (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:28:15 AM EST
    But I'm also watching the Obama supporters doing their best to alienate the FL and MI voters.  Do we really need to have people telling them their votes mean nothing?  That's what I'm seeing here.  It's like watching the 2000 election but with Democrats playing the Republicans this time.  To see the same people who not so long ago were talking about making sure every vote counted now saying they don't is upsetting.  When I think of how this is going to play in the GE I'm past upset.  

    This problem is one for both candidates but the way it's playing out it's more of a problem for Obama since he has taken the stance of not counting their votes.  Can you see that?  

    We have seen that most voters will be happy to vote for both candidates.  So while there will be some disgruntlement from either side if there is a loss if this comes down to a loss by not counting these two states we could lose a heck of a lot of voters.  We tend to forget here on-line that most voters don't watch all this infighting that we see.  So much of this will be gone by the election.  But the FL and MI voters will remember this.  Especially the FL voters.  They are still sensitive from 2000.  So it's not really the same thing.  

    Parent

    Once again (none / 0) (#141)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:16:42 AM EST
    Clinton agreed not to count them.

    Now you want to change the rules. How about a little hatin' on Hillary for her initial decision to cut all these people off?

    Parent

    Clinton agred no to count them? (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:24:28 AM EST
    You got a cite for that? The pledge was to not campaign there. And if you want a stretch, that no delegates would be awarded there.

    But not to count the votes? Excuse me, the votes were counted. Now if you want to argue that the votes should be ignored. Be my guest.

    that is an ugly argument that I do not imagine Obama making.

    Parent

    Either candidate should say, (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:20:24 AM EST
    if I am nominated, yes, I will accept the nomination.

    BTW:  

    discusses the Clinton position that they will accept the nomination

    What does "they" mean here?

    Parent

    Clinton camp (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:21:18 AM EST
    But I see your "Billary" concern so I will edit.

    Parent
    Aawk. (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:26:53 AM EST
    More (none / 0) (#15)
    by tek on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:13:28 AM EST
    the question: would Hillary accept VP and would the Party dare not offer it to her considering her huge traditional Dem following. Of course, I want to see her at the top of the ticket, but VP would be some comfort. If she's on the ticket, I could feel okay voting Dem.

    Why would she accept VP (none / 0) (#48)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:33:34 AM EST
    she will be 70 in 2016.


    Parent
    After watching how she has been demonized (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:45:23 AM EST
    this primary season by Democrats I don't want her on the ballot as VP.  If Obama loses this very winnable election I want him to take full credit for the loss just like Kerry had to before him.  I don't want them saying it was all because Hillary was so divisive and if only he hadn't had to take her he could have won.  I can see how it will all be blamed on her and the sainted Obama will be divested of any responsibility for his own decisions in losing this election.  How hard is it to go from Obama wins even when he loses to when he loses it's the VP candidates fault and not his?  

    Parent
    Good point, although (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:54:08 AM EST
    I anticipate she will accept if she thinks that is what the party wants.  

    Parent
    She's just 60 now (none / 0) (#169)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:31:37 AM EST
    Born 1947.  That's looking young to me. :-)

    Parent
    What would she bring to an Obama ticket? (none / 0) (#154)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:24:04 AM EST
    All the women who are going to vote for anti-choice/pro-war McCain who would have otherwise voted for Clinton?

    The core of Clinton voters would not vote for Obama at their own risk. And the opposite is true. VPs are supposed to add strength to the ticket. Clinton subtracts from it. She has no appeal to most independents and Republicans.

    Parent

    Lose he will (none / 0) (#17)
    by koshembos on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:13:52 AM EST
    Obama is almost sure to lose the popular unless he wins Ohio and Texas. He should be, I have no numbers tough, behind already. At best, he is about equal and the big states might tip the scales against him in vote but not delegates. This math is simple arithmetics that can be done with the voting participation numbers. (The latter is known only after the vote obviously.)

    Still, if he wins the delegates he is the winner without reservation! (I may not like it but this is the game.) It's not the Bush case, where Bush lost the popular vote AND should have lost Florida, and electoral votes, if the Scalias would've turned the tables.

    No (none / 0) (#42)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:30:16 AM EST
    He should be, I have no numbers tough, behind already.
    Nope, sorry.  Obama is leading the popular vote.  The best possible scenarios still show Clinton to be trailing Obama.

    Open Left has the best numbers here, and he looks at different ways of determining the popular vote.  Obama is leading in every one of them.  

    Parent

    I saw this coming (none / 0) (#38)
    by andgarden on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:27:08 AM EST
    It's the likely result of trying to win a primary on the Bush map with caucuses.

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Virginian on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:13:08 AM EST
    Have you seen the Hillary vs. Obama maps with Hillary in Blue and Obama in red...it scarily resembles the 2000 GE map...Obama is REALLY banking on the Gore state strategy in the GE...he is assuming he'll get the Blue states regardless...

    That is a huge mistake...especially if he doesn't win FL...remember, if Gore had won his home state, TN, FL would have never mattered...Obama's home state is already blue...so its already in the calculus...Obama will HAVE to win FL and not lose any other BLUE state to win the GE...I don't think he can do it...

    Parent

    So New York is now red? (none / 0) (#168)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:30:02 AM EST
    And California?

    How primaries go don't necessarily reflect how states go in the general election. After all, McCain has been losing a lot of red states and winning blue states. Won't they count the electoral votes in Massachusetts this fall?

    Parent

    Ummm (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Virginian on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:35:07 AM EST
    thats my point...Obama is banking on winning the traditional BLUE states in the GE...he is playing Gore's GE state strategy...but in that strategy, Obama will HAVE to win FL (MI of course too, but that is assumed in the 2000 strategy) to win the GE...and I don't think he can win FL...of course the same holds true for Hillary...but I think her FL relationship is different considering her hispanic support ant the NY connection between the two states...(didn't work out for Rudy though...so it may not work out for HRC either)...

    Try looking at logical positions as just that...its not an attack on Obama...its a thought out, rational opinion, read it, understand it before you hit your "attack" er..."reply" button

    Parent

    I see the light blue/dark blue maps (none / 0) (#178)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:35:03 AM EST
    on CNN and several other networks.

    Very clever.  Anyone who knows graphic design, anyone who looks at their screen, can see what the networks are doing.  Dark blue looks very strong.  Light blue is so pale, her states recede.

    And they really ought to do proportional maps, refiguring for population.  There would at least be a lot more light blue to show viewers how it really looks in terms of how Americans have voted so far.

    Parent

    A lot of journalists (none / 0) (#183)
    by Virginian on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:36:23 AM EST
    and editors don't understand statistics...not to mention the graphic designers...I think you're asking to much...

    Sad but true

    Parent

    Obviously Obama will go the distance to win (none / 0) (#50)
    by MarkL on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:33:58 AM EST
    I found Mark Penn's statement this morning refreshing. It's about the delegates.. duh!

    refreshing?! (none / 0) (#78)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:46:46 AM EST
    To call states like Virginia (over 7m people, 12th largest state) "insignificant"?

    Rather, it's insulting.

    (And I'd say that even if I didn't live and vote in Virginia!)

    Parent

    well, I only meant the part about (none / 0) (#86)
    by MarkL on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:51:27 AM EST
    the race depending on delegates.

    Parent
    "What MarkL meant" (none / 0) (#158)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:24:40 AM EST
    Insulting? (none / 0) (#135)
    by Virginian on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:14:07 AM EST
    bleah...its politics...and VA ain't CA...

    Parent
    Super Delegates and Their Loyalty (none / 0) (#53)
    by Saul on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:35:18 AM EST
    Some say that the Superdelegates will all give their vote  to the leader if there is no clear nominee regardless of how  they initially pledge their vote.   Many of these delegates have very strong obligations to the Clinton's and you just don't throw away that obligation willie nillie even if its for the best cause of the party.  Many will stick with their initial endorsement no matter what.


    Many of the superdelegates (none / 0) (#171)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:32:00 AM EST
    will go with the will of the voters in their states. And many will vote their own self-interests. In most places Obama is better at the top of the ticket.

    But, hey, they do what they do. We'll see.

    Parent

    Do you have stats for that? (none / 0) (#189)
    by Virginian on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:41:19 AM EST
    Obama being better at the top of the ticket?

    I am not sure thats true in some states where we're trying to gain seats that traditionally go Red all the time...

    Parent

    Just go for (none / 0) (#56)
    by doordiedem0crat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:36:18 AM EST
    a goddamn revote in MI and FL.

    The DNC has the money to fund it, they screwed up they should pay for it. Whose says they can't afford it?

    This will enfranchise all of the voters in both states and give a true picture of the will of the voters.

    Both candidates will have the ability  to campaign in the states and both will have their names on the ballots in MI.

    No one can say a damn thing about unfairness if we go this route.

    My great compromies (none / 0) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:48:23 AM EST
    on MI/FL is the way to go there.

    But Obama still might lead in pledged delegates and lost the popular vote. Will he thwart the will of the people?

    Parent

    this seems like a thinly vieled attack,,, (none / 0) (#91)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:53:32 AM EST
    ...against Obama.

    But please look at the bigger picture: he's getting criticized (by implication) by an answer to a question that he hasn't been asked yet.  No one's asked him the question, and he certainly hasn't answered it yet, but we are free to criticize him anyway on the issue.  That makes no sense to me.

    I mean, c'mon, this is like other people saying, "Would Clinton be fighting to seat Florida if she had lost that vote", and then criticizing her for the hypocrisy, when, in truth, that's just not the reality.

    Parent

    We'll never know what she would have done (none / 0) (#109)
    by katiebird on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:01:28 AM EST
    "Would Clinton be fighting to seat Florida if she had lost that vote"

    But Obama has the chance to show us how someone in that position should fight.  The longer he stays silent, the worse it looks for him.

    Parent

    Exactly... (none / 0) (#110)
    by doordiedem0crat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:02:30 AM EST
    they don't seem to question the fact that Hillary decided to fight for FL & MI AFTER she realized she didn't have a free ride to the nomination.

    Their reason is the same as hers, while they didn't complain and were riding high before the primaries, they were quick to fight this cause after the butt-kicking.

    Hipocrisy much?

    Parent

    Not from me (none / 0) (#143)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:17:50 AM EST
    I decried the DNC decision on MI and FL, and Clinton screwed up too.

    The hypocrisy can be found all over the place. I decry the SDs system, long before this, the caucus system LONG before this.

    But now you  and Obama supporters do not like the SD system because it might deny Obama a victory.

    Where were you BEFORE?

    Stop this nonsense now.

    Parent

    The title of David Sirota's (none / 0) (#162)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:26:19 AM EST
    latest diary at DK supports your premise.

    Parent
    Exactly. (none / 0) (#174)
    by blogtopus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:34:16 AM EST
    Which is why I sent a letter lambasting Jim Dean to DFA when they sent me a spam letter attacking the SD's only now that their golden boy could lose because of them. Did they have a problem with it beforehand? Hmmm.

    Parent
    BTW (none / 0) (#152)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:22:24 AM EST
    you have attacked me twice now.

    Do it again and you will be suspended.

    I am deleting some of your comments now.

    Parent

    This is a CLEAR attack (none / 0) (#134)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:13:53 AM EST
    against the Media and TPM.

    Suince Clinton has no chance without winning the popular vote (IMO) and since it is much more likely that Obama wiould be the person to be a nominee without the popular vote, the MEdia and TPM chose to attack Clinton instead of asking the question of the logical perosn, Barack Obama.

    This is not an attack on Obama at all, but on the Media and TPM.

    It is amazing that you interpeted it as an a attack on Obama.

    Parent

    What are you talking about? (none / 0) (#140)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:16:22 AM EST
    I want to see some math. I showed you mine, you show me yours.

    There is almost no possibility that Obama could be the nominee while losing the popular vote. Clinton's +100 super delegate lead would make sure of that, and he'd have no other leg to stand on to move them.

    Parent

    I see (none / 0) (#148)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:19:38 AM EST
    So you  agree that the SDs will go for Clinton if she has the popular vote DESPITE Obama having the pledged delegate lead.

    and you accept that with good grace. your are unique as an Obama supporter on that score.


    Parent

    It's not a moral issue (none / 0) (#159)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:26:07 AM EST
    It's a fact of the campaign and the process.

    I think there's some percentage of pledged delegate lead that would make it difficult for SD's to want to overturn one candidates lead. That may be somewhere in the range of 75-100. But a lead that big in pledged delegates to make a convincing argument that one was the winner almost certainly would imply that the candidate is also the popular vote winner.

    If Obama is only ahead by anywhere from maybe 1-20 pledged delegates, then there is a possibility of a  split between popular vote and pledged delegates. Frankly, if Obama can't win the pledged delegate count by at least 20-30, then I'm completely fine with the SD's deciding it.

    But, anything larger than that and the pledged delegate leader would almost certainly have to be the national vote winner.

    Parent

    Clinton already gave her opinion (none / 0) (#173)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:34:05 AM EST
    before the primaries. She agreed to shut out Michigan and Florida.

    Parent
    Link? You keep saying this (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:38:02 AM EST
    without evidence, and you saying it is not enough for me.  Source?

    Parent
    Yes he would (none / 0) (#60)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:37:36 AM EST
    He has proven that he would be declaring Nevada a win (where he lost the popular vote).

    See Obama 2008 where Nevada also possesses the light of God! ;-).

    Oops, correction (none / 0) (#63)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:41:11 AM EST
    I meant to say, "He has proven that he would BY declaring Nevada a win.

    Parent
    I thought (none / 0) (#182)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:36:19 AM EST
    I thought that popular votes in caucus states don't count. And now, in the only caucus that Clinton has won, you judge the results on the POPULAR VOTE?

    Teresa, you may be in snow but you also seem to be in the fog. Where does the hypocrisy of the Clinton supporters end?

    Parent

    If he'd won some primary states (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:51:46 AM EST
    and not all caucus states, the popular vote issue wouldn't be an issue.  The popular vote would average out into part primary, part caucus.

    I'm not being hypocritical.  I'm seeing that he has serious trouble win when the primary election mimicks a general election (and when the democraphic doesn't favor him).

    If he could do so, he'd win the popular vote too.

    Speaking of hypocrisy, in your heart of hearts, divorcing who the candidate is, would you really think that a win that barely wins the large states would really be a win?

    Parent

    umm.... (none / 0) (#217)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:57:48 AM EST
    If he'd won some primary states...
    Do you mean like Virginia?  Or Maryland?  Or Washington DC?  Or South Carolina?  Or Alabama?  Or Alaska?  Or Connecticut?  Or Delaware?  Or Georgia?  Or Illinois?  Or Missouri?  Or Utah?  Or Louisiana?

    Parent
    Misinterpretation or deliberate spin (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:57:21 AM EST
    I thought what she was saying is that Sen Obama has no problem "winning" when he lose the vote count (like Nevada). This is the question under discussion, what if he loses the popular vote, but is ahead in delegates. I think it is a perfect example of this discussion.

    So I am curious: did you misunderstand, or are just spinning?

    Parent

    Caucus states (none / 0) (#195)
    by Virginian on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:45:00 AM EST
    generally have "estimated turnout"

    Nevada has much more definitive numbers...thats the difference...most caucus states are just estimates vs. primaries which are counted votes

    Parent

    I don't see how popular vote is (none / 0) (#61)
    by ksh on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:39:21 AM EST
    a huge factor in a system that assigns proportional delegates. Clearly, Clinton will look for any advantage and want to exploit it (up to a certain point, she should) as I expect her to fight hard.  Just a perception on my part, but I don't think the public cares as much about popular vote and is more focused on pledged delegates.  It certainly plays into the big states matter, small states don't theory. And although the votes aren't cast or counted in TX, OH, and PA, she may not get the popular vote.  I would think that if Clinton won, she'd want to have more to hang onto than the popular vote in a primary system.

    Want more to hang on to than (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:47:05 AM EST
    the will of the people?

    What is wrong with Obama supporters in this thread?

    Parent

    Primaries award proportionally (none / 0) (#126)
    by ksh on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:09:07 AM EST
    if Obama gets more delegates, he should win.  Note I'm not saying that's what the rules say, since SDs  come into the mix.  Popular vote is for the general (or not given the electoral college).

    It's not logical to weight representation within a state and then effectively tell that state it doesn't matter because Clinton won bigger states.

    Dean has worked hard for a 50 state strategy, a tally of popular vote only would decimate the progress he has had in growing the party.

    Parent

    Popular vote is for the general? (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:11:37 AM EST
    the heck with the will of Dem voters?

    What is with you folks?

    Parent

    So California has more of (none / 0) (#136)
    by ksh on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:14:29 AM EST
    a say than, say, Washington? Or New Hampshire?  How unDemocratic of you.  The whole primary system was constructed in order to give all states a say in the process and you would undo that in one swift tally.

    Nothing wrong with me.  I just don't think you should change rules in mid-stream to suit your purposes.  That goes for both candidates.

    Parent

    Ye siof course it does (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:21:12 AM EST
    MORE PEOPLE LIVE  THERE than in every other state. California will of course have the most say.

    Are we doing remedial democracy here?

    Parent

    But the point is (none / 0) (#190)
    by ksh on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:42:16 AM EST
    why have the primary system at all.  They are awarded proportionally and weighted.  I think the DNC website has a link to explain it.  Why undo it? It's not a national primary.

    What's wrong with Clinton supporters that they want to undo the system if it doesn't work out for them?  Why not try some patience?  Quinnipac says Ohio will be a blowout for Clinton, Tweety says PA will, too. There's strong support for her in Texas.  She might get the nomination on her own merit rather than trying to change the rules, which, by the way, when you think about it, is a little silly and premature. You ought to believe in your candidate!

    Parent

    What's wrong with you? (none / 0) (#201)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:49:06 AM EST
    The funny thing is that some of the Clinton supporters are supporting something I oppose - the Super Delegates ignoring both the Pledged Delegates and the Popular Vote.

    Which THE RULES permit. Clinton says if she wins with Super Delegates EVEN IF she loses the Pledged Delegate count and the Popular Vote, her nomination is perfectly legitimate as it complies with the rules.

    I disagree with Clinton. It seems YOU agree what if it complies with the rules it is fine.

    But let's face it, we both know you are NOT fine with that. You will scream bloody murder. Why? Because the rules will work against Obama.

    I really hate the sanctimonious and disingenuous hypocrisy from all the candidate supporters.

    you are all a bunch of phonies on this.

     

    Parent

    I'll go out on a limb (none / 0) (#149)
    by Virginian on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:20:32 AM EST
    and suggest bias?

    Parent
    "what is it with you folks" ?? (none / 0) (#212)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:54:31 AM EST
    You keep saying that.  That's not very friendly, and you've deleted other comments that are insulting.

    Suppose I changed the wording of my Michigan argument to:

    "are you going to count Michigan even though Obama wasn't even on the ballot, and you claim to be in favor of democracy?

    "what is it with you folks?"

    I was hoping this would be a friendlier place.

    Parent

    It may not be important to the party (none / 0) (#66)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:42:16 AM EST
    But it may be stingingly important to the VOTERS.  I know they don't really choose the candidate, but they VOTE (or NOT!) in November.

    Parent
    There are a lot of things (none / 0) (#111)
    by zyx on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:03:25 AM EST
    important to voters that can be infuriating.

    Like it infuriates ME that in Alaska there is one delegate for every 31 Democratic voters.  How many voters in California does it take to get ONE delegate?  That is crazy!  Alaska voters probably should get a delegate for showing up, but really, I don't care if they get zero.  What has Alaska done for Democrats in DECADES?

    If Obama loses, he can pout, but he will have another day, and he knows it, and everyone knows it.  If he were behind, he could drop out.  I can see why it is really hard for Clinton to make that decision, and will be, to the end.

    Parent

    This seems to be decrying the system (none / 0) (#130)
    by ksh on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:11:50 AM EST
    when the math doesn't work for your candidate.  Neither side can do anything about the existence of super delegates, nor should either side gripe about proportional representation if the numbers don't work out.  I mean that for both candidates.  It's like saying California should have more of a say in the House than Rhode Island.

    Parent
    It isn't realistic (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:55:05 AM EST
    to think that a candidate who can't win the popular vote is legitimate.  To the voters, it would be winning on a technicality (and bring back spectors of Bush v. Gore).

    Had Obama won more of the big states, he'd win both popular and delegates.  The fact that he doesn't win in primary states where the vote more mimics a general election (unless the Demographic heavily favors him) is a serious problem for him.  IMHO, it takes away legitimacy.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#139)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:15:53 AM EST
    Yep. Sort of like Donna Brazile saying she will leave the Democratic Party if the SDs overturn "the will of the ovters" (how she defines that is pretty transparent - the pledged delegate lead based on her crappy system of choosing delegates).

    The irony of your comment drips.  

    Parent

    I don't think Brazile (none / 0) (#181)
    by ksh on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:36:11 AM EST
    instituted the system and I guess she's free to state her stance on the issue, but my understanding is that misunderstands the assignment -- super delegates are intended precisely to overturn the will of the voters when those party elders believe the voter's will has been mistaken.  It's elistist and nonpopulist, but it is what it is.  I also understand that the  super delegate vote is more of an afterthought than something to be tallied before the convention.  However, as you know, the super delegate construct is relatively new, our primary system is not and has been accepted in this system -- by the voters -- much, much longer.

    Changing the rules mid-stream would cause great divisiveness.  One of them will come out with a plurality that can't be beat and I'm guessing the super delegates will go along with it, whoever the candidate may be.

    I'm sure you'll correct if I'm wrong, but I believe the "popular vote" is with Obama now and assume you anticipate that will change after Texas, Ohio, and PA.  Would you be for counting the popular vote instead of pledged delegates if Clinton didn't increase her share of the popular vote?

    Parent

    Let us all pray... (none / 0) (#83)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:50:17 AM EST
    that the leader of the popular vote is also the leader in the pledged delegate vote.

    The last thing we need is a nasty fight at a convention that's the last week in August, while the GOP has fallen in lock-step behind McCain and revs up the election campaign over a full month before hand.

    If that's the scenario, the only winner of that fight will be McCain.

    I completely agree! (none / 0) (#117)
    by independent voter on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:05:31 AM EST
    wow. (none / 0) (#177)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:34:52 AM EST
    Obama gets the popular vote, more like the votes of young popular people!!!! ... But these votes don't count as much.
    So you young votes don't count?  Seriously?

    Let me guess... you don't think the African American vote counts either?

    Or the college educated vote?

    Or the white male vote?

    ALL votes count the same.  And for any Democrat (or anyone, for that matter) to suggest otherwise is offensive.

    I don't care who votes for him or how many - this election belongs to her, and she will win!!!!
    Wow.  So basically you are saying that you do not care if Obama wins the popular vote and the delegate vote. You don't care if Clinton loses, because she should still win.  Just because.  

    Interesting...

    Yes... (none / 0) (#199)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:48:23 AM EST
    No I was not saying that.
    Actually... you did say it.  And you said it very clearly.  This is what you said:
    But these votes don't count as much.
    And that is incredibly offensive.
    It is just that in my opinion the people who vote for Obama only do so becasue he is popular.
    And Hillary isn't popular?  Both similar favorable/likable numbers.  And trust me... I most definitely did not vote for Obama because he was popular.
    Hillary is a hard worker
    Look... both are hard workers.  Both have worked very hard through their respective careers.  
    But it is unfair to NOT count votes in Michtigan and Florida!
    How is that relevant to this specific comment thread where you said young voters' votes didn't matter as much?

    Parent
    Hey that idea isn't unique to HRC supporters (none / 0) (#200)
    by Virginian on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:48:55 AM EST
    Obama loses = Obama wins because he didn't lose by much
    Obama gets blown out = Obama wins, because the blow out was expected

    They tie = Obama wins, because he didn't lose

    The spinning comes from both sides

    Parent

    her idea... (none / 0) (#209)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:52:48 AM EST
    ... was not spin.  It was nothing like the spin that comes from the Obama campaign.

    She made an assertion that poor, hard working voters' votes mattered more than young voters' votes.  

    And that is offensive.

    Spin is one thing.  Making a claim that certain groups' votes matter more than others because you agree with them is incredibly bothersome.

    Parent

    It's a nomination process, not an election (none / 0) (#188)
    by eric on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:40:19 AM EST
    Popular vote?  Gimme a break.  There hasn't been an election.  This is a nomination process.  In Minnesota the "voting" was done with scraps of paper and you didn't even need to be a registered voter.

    This is a nomination process.  It is wrong to assume that there are "votes" that can be counted and analyze it like it is an election.

    Super Delegates are part of that process (none / 0) (#191)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:43:28 AM EST
    And if you are arguing there are no "votes" being counted, I must wonder what "nomination contest" you are watching.

    Parent
    votes (none / 0) (#218)
    by eric on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:58:02 AM EST
    I'm just saying that you can't count the votes that are used to apportion delegates as a true "popular vote".  As others have explained, the way the state parties apportion their delegates is complicated.

    In Minnesota, for example, there was a "straw poll" at the start of the caucus.  People lined up, wrote their preference on a piece of scrap paper that was cut up by a lady wearing an Obama T-shirt.

    Many people didn't get to participate because the caucus sites were overloaded.  My friend and his wife couldn't even exit the freeway to get to their caucus.  This wasn't an election.  The "votes" here aren't votes in a traditional sense.  Literally, it was a poll of people who wanted to wait in line from 6:30 until 8:00 on supertuesday.

    In Michigan, we have friends that went to vote for Mitt.  They did so because they knew their "votes" didn't count.  Or maybe they don't...

    In Iowa, it's a staight caucus.  No votes there.

    I don't know about the other states.  But I do know that each state's party has their own quirks and designates it's own delegates how they want.


    Parent

    if the pop vote margin... (none / 0) (#192)
    by mike in dc on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:43:39 AM EST
    ...is less than a million in her favor by the counting method most favorable to her(counting MI and FL, counting elected state delegates only from the caucus states rather than estimating actual votes based on percentages and turnout, not counting uncommitted voters in MI for Obama), and he's well ahead in states won and has a 100-200+ pledged delegate lead, I don't think the "she won the popular vote" argument is all that compelling.

    There's going to be around 25-30 million votes cast in these primaries(nearly 20 million so far), so a difference of half a million votes is about 2 percent.  Over a million votes would verge on a 5 percent margin and probably couldn't be ignored by SDs.  A 100 delegate margin is about a 2.5% edge, and 200 delegates is about 5%, again a margin that can't be ignored.  

    I think SDs should look at several things:

    1. pledged delegates
    2. states won/big states won
    3. popular vote
    4. margins of victory
    5. national polling numbers between the two
    6. head to head national polling numbers with McCain
    7. head to head polling by state with McCain
    8. turnout and organization
    9. fundraising
    10. comparative down-ticket benefit

    note that policy, personality, etc. don't enter into this, because, in my opinion, SDs who have firm policy/personality preferences in this race have already endorsed someone.  The remaining SDs should be deciding based on a combination of fairness considerations and political practicality.

    At the moment I'd say Obama's beating her in almost all of those categories, the "big states won" sub-category being the only thing favoring Clinton at this point.  Obviously polling can change, and perhaps Clinton can continue to ramp up her online fundraising and mold her campaign into a more effective one.
    But at the moment I think it's understandable that there hasn't been any sign of a mass movement of the remaining SDs to Clinton, while the weekly trickle has lately slightly favored Obama.

    Mike we mostly agree (none / 0) (#210)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:53:09 AM EST
    You write:

    [If the difference]...is less than a million in her favor by the counting method most favorable to her(counting MI and FL, counting elected state delegates only from the caucus states rather than estimating actual votes based on percentages and turnout, not counting uncommitted voters in MI for Obama), and he's well ahead in states won and has a 100-200+ pledged delegate lead, I don't think the "she won the popular vote" argument is all that compelling.

    A +100 delegate lead render a lead of say, 250,000 rather meaningless. But a lead of +40 let's say does not.

    and a lead of a million is a big deal.

    But we are likely to be in a contested area ONLY if Clinton wins OH, TX and PA and leaps to a PV lead and cut the pledged delegate lead to 50 or so.

    At that point, SDs can vote their conscience it seems to me.

    Parent

    You can add (none / 0) (#202)
    by athyrio on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:49:36 AM EST
    You can add up all the participants in Washington, Alaska, Kansas, Maine, Colorado, Nebraska, Minnesota, Idaho, North Dakota, Iowa, Nevada, throw in the party-run primaries in New Mexico and Utah and you'll still only have 1.3 million participants, or about 450,000 fewer than Florida.

    It is such a shame (none / 0) (#211)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:54:11 AM EST
    that Hillary Clinton agreed with the party bosses to not count the votes in Florida before the primaries began.

    How terrible of her!

    Parent

    And as a survivor of the Kansas caucus (none / 0) (#215)
    by katiebird on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:56:57 AM EST
    And as a survivor (the chair of the credentials committee) of the Kansas caucus where we had about 2000 people show up in sleet waiting to caucus in a building that could barely hold 300 people (more than 1/2 left w/out caucusing) -- I shudder every time I read the word, caucus.

    There is NO WAY for a caucus to be as fair/representational as an election.

    Parent

    Isn't this all about winning public opinion? (none / 0) (#214)
    by Polkan on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:56:45 AM EST
    Since neither candidate will win the nomination outright, it comes down to agitating and moving public opinion in the hopes of influencing super delegates. So Obama's gamble is to talk about things like "majority" concepts, that are simple and effective. Clinton can and should counter with the argument about the voter base and party prospects in November (i.e. 6 of 10 Dems vote for me) - if she can pull off a close tie. Superdelegates will then be made to choose between appearing "democratic" or losing the WH. And since the Clintons won't go away, WH or not, they just might pull it off. Her best case scenario is her argument PLUS the popular vote majority, if that's even possible.

    Ya know this whole thing (none / 0) (#220)
    by athyrio on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:04:02 AM EST
    keeps reminding me of the election of 2000 when Gore won the popular vote but lost the election because of the electoral college...Back then, all democrats were in an uproar about the popular vote not counting....I still get mad when I think of it....Are we gonna go there again???

    Stupid questions (none / 0) (#221)
    by Prabhata on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:21:57 AM EST
    Those asking all kinds of hypothetical questions are desperate to create a narrative.  What is interesting is that all these questions are coming from the Obama supporters because they are into maintaining the illusion that Obama is ___(fill the blank)

    Obama super delegate gyration (none / 0) (#222)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:47:44 AM EST