Which Voters Matter?

By Big Tent Democrat

Markos writes another post attacking the Clinton campaign, nothing new there, but I found this part deeply ironic:

So the Clinton campaign has graduated from saying that certain states don't matter, to saying certain voters don't matter, to now saying that the Democratic Party electorate doesn't matter.

I am curious if Markos would agree with me that the popular vote totals should be the most important criteria for super delegates? Do you think he would agree that ALL voters matter (including the voters of Florida and Michigan, the ones Howard Dean and Donna Brazile decided don't matter?) Or do you think he will follow the Obama mantra that only the pledged delegate count matters?

< Tweety Does NOT Take Rebuke To Heart | Clinton With Wide Lead In Texas >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    This is going to get very ugly (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:36:42 AM EST
    Especially because it looks like Hillary is going to sweep the big states, including Texas:
    Survey of 577 Likely Democratic Primary Voters
    February 14, 2008

    Texas Democratic Primary
    Hillary Clinton
    Barack Obama
    Not Sure

    Looks like a Clinton sweep??? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Bear2000 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:42:05 AM EST
    Texas and Ohio are nearly three weeks away - and Obama is going to rack up two more wins between now and then. Moreover, these polls really haven't taken into account Obama's momentum either.

    Cite these polls at your own peril.  


    How much more momentum (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:43:52 AM EST
    can he get? This particular poll was released today, after the Potomac wins had time to sink in.

    As devils advocate, ARG released a poll (none / 0) (#20)
    by tigercourse on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:45:52 AM EST
    giving Obama a 6 point lead in Texas. Both Rasmussen and ARG have often been wrong often in this cycle. It's now just a queston of which one is more wrong.

    Heh (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:47:57 AM EST
    ARG did? It will be funny to see howthe Obama folks react to ARG there. ARG is a terrible pollig outfit. A worhty pair to Zogby.

    ARG has Clinton winning Wisconsin.


    Two pollsters to never believe: (none / 0) (#23)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:49:02 AM EST
    ARG and Zogby.

     Rasmussen is usually ok--though it tends to underreport Clinton, I think.

    SUSA is my gold standard, but I don't think they poll Texas anymore.


    Momentum can go both ways... (none / 0) (#140)
    by john5750 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:37:23 PM EST
    Obama has had good momentum so far, but the GOP can't wait to ponce on his Chicago dealings, his failure to vote on the issues, his lack of experience, his short list of accomplishments,
    and his being so naive.  McCain is already treating him like a boy.

    Obama better watch out for momentum.


    FYI...you're late to the party... (none / 0) (#74)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:58:16 AM EST
    that info was diaried and commented on extensively last night -- if you care to check back.

    And the Times Report (none / 0) (#112)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:42:23 PM EST
    was without talking to Lewis, whose spokesperson denied that he had switched his endorsement.  He's considering it, but that's not the same thing.  Presumably, every Super Delegate is watching closely and considering what they will want to do.

    I just read Kos (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:37:20 AM EST
    Aside from the "opinion" expressed I do think that the Clinton campaign needs to be reaching out to all the states left in this time frame.  I know what it is to be ignored politically because the military is such a minority of our population that the pols (even with the D's after their names) have ignored our recent plight because strategically they believe they can afford to.  Historically I don't think it's going to play as well though but for now they are pretty sure they can get away with it.  Even the messiah Obama has ignored us.  Note to pols.......it isn't wise to ignore those who you think you can afford to because the day always arises when you can't ignore them anymore and they are ticked!

    How are you 'ignored' (none / 0) (#78)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:00:14 PM EST

    Mystified and perplexed...


    Military families have been placed (none / 0) (#141)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:28:02 PM EST
    under excrutiating stress and the Dems have enabled that to continue.  If the military voting block was large enough to matter politically no soldier would be doing four tours of duty in Iraq and no soldier would be coming home under the radar with undiagnosed TBI.  We have a friend who is a Captain and survived two IED's who is now displaying symptoms but too afraid to be tested because then what happens to him?  But aren't we told that all soldiers who have survived IED's have been tested.  We have soldiers who were kicked out after their first tours for insubordordination when their prior military survice was exemplary and their family members say that they are suffering from PTSD.  Almost weekly more and more military families are speaking out but Iraq is a situation that has literally eaten our troops and our military readiness alive and the Dems did nothing to really challenge Bush in his unaccountable Iraq insanity as they have FINALLY done about FISA because they didn't have to do anything about the Iraq situation to win this up coming election cycle other than not be Republicans.

    As an Army brat (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:55:53 PM EST
    this has been an issue for me, too, Tracy.  I, too, have looked into it some with the candidates and connected with one of my senators (Patty Murray) who has worked the vets' healthcare issue very hard on several fronts.  Hillary, I know, has done a lot through her office with constituent services for vets on a case-by-case basis.

    The problem is, of course, policy...and getting enough votes to override a g.d. veto...witness the Webb/Clinton attempt to reduce tour time to match home time.  No go.  And yet the Republicans don't seem to be paying for it in big numbers among military families, although it seems to depend on rank, age, etc. and change in attitude about the war and vets is happening everywhere, Obamania aside.

    We need a D president AND a majority in the House and Senate to deal with policy effectively.  And new leadership at the pentagon and joint chiefs.


    It is true that some Senators and some (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:15:12 PM EST
    House members have made solitary stands.  I'm horribly disappointed at the passionless followings they were able to scrape out of both houses.  Murtha also has hollered his ex-Marine lungs out and then I've found him ridiculed for it in the press, yet he knows exactly what those soldiers have been surviving while those who feel so empowered to ridicule him do not and never will.  And at this point I will take any D President and find 1 million instant reasons to be instantly overjoyed.  It has been rough though and the passionless and those who ridiculed have some hard earned Karma to deal with further on down this road just as they ended up having handed to them in the aftermath of Vietnam and the final payments that war requires of this nation............debt, PTSD, veteran suicides, agent orange/depleted uranium and the overseas deaths due to those exposures as well as the American deaths, traumatic brain injury, shredded families and lost military children, truckloads of skeletons in the desert, the loss of morals and values to grieve once the "fight" is over.  And there never were any WMDs.  So sad, so much waste for one stupid small stubborn dispicable little man!

    Could not agree more, Tracy. (none / 0) (#146)
    by oldpro on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:57:33 PM EST
    As I recall, Kos used to support (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by tigercourse on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:40:38 AM EST
    Michigan and Florida when they bucked the part rules. He thought Iowa and New Hampshire were ridiculous and was sure Florida and Michigan would be seated. But since Clinton won those 2 states, his position seems to have changed.

    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:43:22 AM EST
    It appears his position has changed.

    can you show me? (none / 0) (#29)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:55:01 AM EST
    Where Markos, or anyone, changed as you say, after Obama, Edwards, et al, took their names off the ballot?

    I am blown away by those who insist the Michigan vote should count, when Obama, Edwards, etc. weren't even on the ballot.


    Markos still thinks they should be seated? (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:13:00 AM EST
    He thought so before Clinton won.

    He applauded her decision to stay on the (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:14:16 AM EST
    ballot to let the people of MI know they counted to her. It was a front page post after Obama took his name off.

    Yep, here's what he said (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:19:16 AM EST
    "Pledging to not campaign in Michigan is one thing (as stupid as I might think it is), but slapping Michigan voters in the face by taking their names off the ballot, well, that's another thing entirely. They didn't move the primary up. The politicians did.

    "Hillary and Dodd are apparently the only two candidates on the Democratic side unafraid of incurring the wrath of irrational Iowans and Granite Staters desperately hanging on to the final vestiges of their undeserved primary supremacy."

    Sorry, I don't know how to link.


    Obama won Iowa (none / 0) (#53)
    by magster on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:33:10 AM EST
    maybe in part because he pandered to him on the MI ballot issue.  So not necessarily a stupid move by him, because without Iowa he was nowhere.

    And he also said (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:23:29 AM EST
    "What's more, Clinton was the only top-tier candidate to refuse the ultimate Iowa and New Hampshire pander by removing her name from the Michigan ballot. That makes her essentially the de facto winner since Edwards and Obama, caving to the cry babies in Iowa and New Hampshire, took their name off Michigan's ballot. Sure, the DNC has stripped Michigan of its delegates, but that won't last through the convention. The last thing Democrats can afford is to alienate swing states like Michigan and Florida by refusing to seat their delegates.

    "So while Obama and Edwards kneecap their chances of winning, Clinton is single-mindedly focused on the goal."

    Jan. 2, 2008


    Thank you Democratic Cat. (none / 0) (#49)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:28:13 AM EST
    Someone needs to throw those words back in his face.

    save attacks (none / 0) (#65)
    by jdj on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:50:09 AM EST
    for someone on the right who really deserves it.

    Wil you tell that to Markos? (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:56:55 AM EST
    Your omment is hilariously ironic.

    Here is your link to that quote (none / 0) (#54)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:39:08 AM EST
    Refusing to count MI because Obama and Edwards (none / 0) (#136)
    by ding7777 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:11:36 PM EST
    were not on the ballot is a little like Lizzie Borden asking for mercy of the Court because she's an orphan

    Typical kos circular reasoning: (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Jim J on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:45:25 AM EST
    People at my website say Hillary is gaming the system. Therefore, Hillary is gaming the system. Therefore, she is evil, which I already knew from people at my website.

    This is the guy who was adamantly against caucuses until his website became adamantly for them. He was adamantly for full enfranchisement until his website was for disenfranchising Florida.

    At this point I regard all Kos FP posts as Obama campaign PR fluff parroting whatever's on the rec list. He has truly lost his way.

    He was adamantly for closed prmaries (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:49:12 AM EST
    The spirit of the season is upon him.

    Counting the votes (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:42:15 AM EST
    I ask all Democrat's regardless of who they're supporting to think back to 2000. How did they feel when the Supreme Court decided that the vote didn't matter? Hopefully anyone that respects democracy was outraged. I get tired of people having selective memories. Or twisting things to fit their agenda. Facts are facts and damn it the vote has to be the final decision. We went through this seven years ago. You would have thought we were smarter.

    but that argument can be turned completely around (none / 0) (#70)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:55:30 AM EST
    in Michigan.  How can those voters have possibly taken the election seriously when both Obama and Edwards names were off the ballot?  Can you possibly conceive that some Obama and Edwards supporters stayed home because they couldn't vote their candidate?  Or even perhaps some Hillary voters stayed home because she had no competition?

    How can you want to count an election where both main candidates were not even on the ballot?


    Ummm.. (none / 0) (#100)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:32:03 PM EST
    "both main candidates?"

    Your anti-Hillary bias is showing...


    no, I meant: (none / 0) (#108)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:38:14 PM EST
    that it was not the case that "both main candidates (Hillary and Obama) were on the ballot".

    Both, meaning two of them.  The number of main candidates on the ballot was not "two", it was "one."

    Let me be even more plain: when the voter has a ballot that is missing either Hillary or Clinton, the result is clearly invalid.


    Agree that MI is tough to figure out (none / 0) (#119)
    by hitchhiker on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:08:24 PM EST
    how to fix.  It's a fact that Obama took his name off that ballot so that he could point out his loyalty to the primacy of Iowa.  That's why he did it, and it worked out pretty well for him.

    I wish that he hadn't done it; it was a silly insider dog-whistle move that has left us in an impossible situation.


    LOL (none / 0) (#122)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:15:02 PM EST
    It must be just me!  Somehow, it doesn't register as even more plain to be "missing either Hillary or Clinton!" (sic)

    I think I do know what you intended tho...can we agree on "missing either Hillary or Obama?"

    Sigh...more coffee...


    Counting the vote (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:11:09 PM EST
    Neither candidate campaigned in Michigan or Florida. When the tally of votes from the remaining primaries are added up (exclude Mi and FL) we may find that Hilary still will have more total votes than Obama. If that's the case then she should get the nod. I don't want to relive 2000 every election. To hell with the Electoral College and the delegates. Let the will of the people prevail.

    You're only counting the (none / 0) (#105)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:35:41 PM EST

    Of do you have some sort of formula to count 'votes' in caucuses?  That wouldn't work for me.

    We had a caucus last week...a primary next week.

    Five or six times the number of voters will turn out for the primary than did for the caucuses...even though the Democratic Party is not 'counting' the Democratic votes!

    My party is now headed for the nuthouse.  Again.


    Will The Primary Votes Be Published? (none / 0) (#116)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:49:32 PM EST
    If so, when?

    Absolutely. (none / 0) (#125)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:22:13 PM EST
    WA state Secretary of State's website (link at www.accesswashington.gov) Tuesday night (2-19) for first reports.  Then, after election day, there are 10 more days for snailmail ballots to arrive and be counted/certified...so, final tally is on 2-29.

    If Obama doesn't blow out Clinton in the primary, I expect the fight will start all over Wednesday morning.

    Democrats.  Ya gotta love 'em...


    Counting the votes (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:33:11 PM EST
    I said to count the votes excluding Michigan and Florida. Although I am opoosed to excluding anyone, it still may end up with Hilary winning the popular vote. Obama has racked up a lot of state wins but many were in small populated states. For a change, I would like a president that actually won the support of the American people.

    It's Amazing To Me (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:47:10 PM EST
    I'm amazed that all of these people who have such deep, deep concern for the voters and the will of the people seem in such a hurry to call this election and prevent millions of voters from actually voting.

    Presumably, Kos just doesn't mean that the state who have already voted are the only ones that matter.  Shouldn't he be encouraging this thing to continue so that other voters get a say as well?  Or is he simply afraid that those other voters might disagree with him and so let's wrap this thing up right now while Obama is ahead.

    The cognitive dissonance of some folks during this campaign makes my head spin.

    Perhaps Kos does not favor (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:55:21 PM EST
    accepting MI caucus results because he personally urged DKers to cross over and vote for Romney.

    November will come (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:41:05 PM EST
    I'm beginning to wonder if we'll have a Democratic President in November. All this infighting among ourselves isn't going to help the situation. And for all the touting of Obama's ability to bring in people across the aisle, the independants have been going for McCain. (I really think they call themselves independant because the're embarassed to admit to being Republicans). Combine that with ticking off two swing states that probably will decide the election and we could be looking President McCain in the eye. The prospect is frightening.

    Some of us have said everything possible (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by katiebird on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:16:32 PM EST
    Some of us have said everything possible -- there really isn't that much more that can be said.

    If people want to spend the summer listening to Tweety yak about whether FL & MI will be at the convention:  How Hillary only wants them 'cause she won & BO will only let them be there if they don't matter.

    If people don't care about where all that chatter leads during the convention itself ("look down on the floor:  This is historic: Only 48 states"....)

    It' seems obvious to me that it ALMOST isn't about what the candidates want OR what the voters of those states want -- that it's about controlling the CHATTER.


    But that's all been said.  Before.

    Obama up in Popular Vote - with Michigan and Flor (4.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Bear2000 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:39:47 AM EST
    Obama is winning the popular vote, and that's with Michigan (he got "0" votes there!) and Florida included.  Drop those (as, really, you must) and he's crushing her.

    But no, in the end, it doesn't matter. Delegates - and pledged delegates at that - are the most legitimate way to measure this race.

    Frankly, I don't know why Obama supporters are even worried about superdelegates.  They will come his way -  I have no doubt. And if Clinton does manage to wrest the nomination from Obama using superdelegates, she will sink her campaign and do massive damage to the Party.  I doubt she'll do that, but if she does, well, it will confirm what her fiercest critics think about her.

    If he wins the popular vote (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:44:52 AM EST
    then there will be no problem. Heck, if he wins any of TX, OH or FL, he has no problem.

    You mean TX, OH, and PA, right? (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:50:46 AM EST
    Right (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:13:39 AM EST
    Curious... (none / 0) (#99)
    by solon on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:27:50 PM EST
    Yesterday we debated how the popular vote was not reflective of the views of Democrats because there was no standard way to determining the vote.

    Then, you suggested that Super D's should vote their conscience, with which we both agreed.

    Now, you want the Super D.'s to follow the popular vote, which means that they should not vote their conscience but vote on something that does not matter to the nomination process.

    You have failed to be consistent in this process, except maybe if you consider how you dislike the Super Delegates, though you would be more than happy  if they were to vote the way in which you want.


    ActualI did not agree with you (none / 0) (#101)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:32:09 PM EST
    I just chose to drop the subject.

    I realized (none / 0) (#131)
    by solon on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:42:26 PM EST
    that you never agreed. But I am still waiting for you to defend your ideas.

    At no point have you offered a solid argument as to why the Super Delegates should follow the popular vote. At no point have you offered any evidence.

    All you have done is state contradicting assertions  that rest on the values of democracy and liberty and ask that people accept your position.


    Michigan and Florida voters count only if (none / 0) (#1)
    by JJE on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:33:50 AM EST
    There is an actually contested primary.  A primary where nobody campaigns and where the voters are told the results won't count is just a straw poll.  Re-run them if you like, but counting them under these conditions would be an undemocratic sham.

    So certain voters do not matter for you (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:35:25 AM EST

    Yep, Sham elections don't count. (none / 0) (#16)
    by JJE on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:44:39 AM EST
    Only the vote count from a primary conducted in compliance with widely-accepted norms of democracy and the rule of law matters.  Pretending the results of sham elections are a legitimate and accurate expression of voter preference is what banana republics do.

    Additionally, caucuses and primaries are so fundamentally different processes that you can't just aggregate the votes from both and pretend that represents "the popular vote."


    As for cacuuses, they DO violate acceted norms of democracy.

    this ENTIRE nomination process is a violation of accepted norms of democracy.

    Your outrage is quite selective.


    The charge of selective outrage is just ad hominem (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by JJE on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:00:07 AM EST
    You made a claim, and I rebutted it with reasoned argument.  You have absolutely no idea how I feel about caucuses or the entire primary process, and calling me a hypocrite is an insult, not an argument.  Do the anti-trolling rules not apply to you?

    Three necessary but not sufficient conditions for an election to have democratic legitimacy, that render the MI and FL primaries illegitimate:

    (1) Voters have an opportunity to vote for all candidates participating;

    (2) Voters believe their votes may affect the outcome at the time of the voting;

    (2) Candidates have a meaningful opportunity to campaign and make their case to the voters.

    I've made my case reasonably and politely.  If you cannot respond in kind, don't bother.


    An in-kind response: (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:40:47 AM EST
    I do not disagree with your basic conditions...only with your conclusions.


    1.  Undeniably met

    2.  They did 'believe' it.  1.7M Democrats did not vote in this Florida primary because they were bored and had nothing better to do.

    3.  Candidates had the same 'meaningful opportunity' in the Florida case as most of the country does who, year after year, never see the candidates in their states except on television in debates, news, interviews, ads.  And speaking of ads, let's mention the 'national buy' by Obama which just happened to include Florida.  No other campaign had 'inadvertent' ads there...or any other kind.  I haven't researched the 527s but I'm thinking they were active on behalf of their candidates and more than a few citizens blog from Florida, so they no doubt got their share of the anti-Clinton propaganda...it's everywhere.

    Still...she won.

    And that's the problem, really.  If she'd lost, you wouldn't be disputing this, would you?

    The rules are the rules...yes indeed.  And the credentials committee will decide to recommend and the delegates may ultimately vote to seat or not to seat.

    Whatever happens...it will - again - be a major blow to party unity.  So much for the Obama theme.  Thanks anyway.


    Wrong on several counts (none / 0) (#88)
    by JJE on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:08:23 PM EST
    1.  They did not believe it.  Florida Dem turnout was depressed compared to other primaries.  See my other posts.

    2.  Are you seriously contentinding that campaigns in a particular state don't affect the outcome?  If so, the candidates sure are wasting a lot of money.

    And that's the problem, really.  If she'd lost, you wouldn't be disputing this, would you?

    Actually, I would, because I care more that the Democratic party abides by the principle of fair play and precommittment to neutral rules than about any particular candidate.  

    This is the "you're a hypocrite" charge that has no bearing on the topic, as I've explained to BTD.  I would caution you against deploying it, lest someone point out that we didn't hear all this howling about the decision to strip the delegates back when the decision was made.  Amazingly, this only came up after Clinton won Florida.

    It doesn't have to wreck the party.  If Clinton gets the lead in delegates, then go ahead and seat them because they won't flip the outcome.  Or if Obama gets enough delegates that they don't matter, go ahead and seat them.  But if either the superdelegates or the FLA/MI delegates are used to flip the outcome, we may as well concede to McCain in August.


    Indeed (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:20:32 AM EST
    You have absolutely no idea how I feel about caucuses or the entire primary process

    That is evidence of your selective outrage.

    Sorry, THAT is reasoned argument. You do not like that I point out that your outrage is selective. But it is.

    Even now, you have NOTHING to say about the udemocratic nature of caucuses.

    Your outrage REMAINS selective.

    If you can not address my point, then do not bother.


    Accusing someone of selective outrage is ad hom (none / 0) (#55)
    by JJE on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:40:13 AM EST
    You can't defend the legitimacy of MI and FL so instead you attack me.  Either MI and FL are legitimate or they are not.  My personal views on other elections in other states have no bearing on that proposition.  I provided three reasons that MI and FL are not legitimate.  You have nothing to say about them.  Instead you attack me and try to say that I'm a hypocrite.  Attacking the arguer instead of the argument is classic ad hominem.  Do you understand that simple concept?  

    The irony is, if you weren't just reaching for easy talking points to use as personal insults, you'd see that I addressed your (irrelevant) point above, where I suggested above that the caucuses shouldn't count if were are trying to assess the "popular vote".  To put it even plainer for you, yes, the caucuses are undemocratic and should not be counted in an assessment of the popular vote.  Now that that silly talking point is removed from your quiver, how about defending the legitimacy of FL and MI with an actual argument instead of ad hom?


    As OldPro points out in obvious fashion (none / 0) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:07:45 PM EST
    your arguments on Forida are simply nonsense. I join his brief on that.

    But I will not let you turn a conventional debating point, argument by analogy, into a ad hom.

    I compare your outrageabout Florida witrh your LACK OF OUTRAGE about the undemocractic caucuses.

    Now you acept they are undemocratic but you have no objections to them.

    This is selective outrage and reasoning, rendering the moral force of your argument nil.

    Now stop falsely accuing me of ad hominem attacks. I attacked the inconsistencyu of your ARGUMENT.

    You must see that. IF you do not, then there is no point discussing it with you.  


    Actually (none / 0) (#91)
    by JJE on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:13:23 PM EST
    I do object to using the caucuses to measure the popular vote, as I've pointed out.  

    I'm making the argument that apples are red, and you are screaming "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE ORANGES!!  MY GOD, THE ORANGES!!  IT'S IMMORAL TO TALK ABOUT THE APPLES WHEN THE ORANGE MENACE IS AFOOT!!"

    It's basically a concession that you can't defend the legitimacy of FL and MI.  Since you can't argue the merits and have to resort to irrelevant ad hominem, I'll be done with you on this subject.


    Ok let's see (none / 0) (#93)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:17:34 PM EST
    1.7 million voters in the Democratic Primary more than on the Republican primary even though they were told it would not count.

    Personally I did not see any Clinton ads in Fl prior to the primary (doesn't mean there were none) but, I did see Obama ads(which they explained were national) just not blocked out the Fl market.

    Obama was in the ballot as was Edwards Obama 33% Edwards 12% of the votes.

    Both Clinton and Obama came to Florida prior to the primary for fundraisers.  Obama held a press conference after the Tampa fundraiser. Link

    Maybe this sham primary wasn't such a sham in the eyes of Obama.


    Actually the Republican turnout was bigger (none / 0) (#102)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:32:28 PM EST
    Yep, it was. Unlike any other state (none / 0) (#123)
    by JJE on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:17:21 PM EST
    And completely vitiating the claim that the Florida count is represenatitive of anything meaningful.

    No, they don't matter to the DNC and (none / 0) (#27)
    by magster on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:51:23 AM EST
    Clinton and Obama, who signed the pledge, and the Michigan and Florida legislatures who decided that changing the Iowa/NH favortism was more important than holding a real election.  Don't forget that Clinton said last fall that Michigan won't count (By signing the pledge and then demanding that the votes should count anyway, have we seen Pres. Hillary Clinton's first "signing statement").  

    Now the question is how or whether to factor in results from two major illegitimate elections held in spite of the DNC rules when choosing a nominee.  Hopefully one or the other wins by enough to nullify the impact of FL or MI so we can pretend those elections counted.


    Obama and Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:17:45 AM EST
    signed avpledge to not CAMPAIGN there, not that the votes did not matter. Obama had some technical violations of that pledge, but nothing that mattered imo.

    The DNC DID SAY certain voters do not matter, and their performance in this primary season has been atrocious. They very well may cost us this election.


    Campaigningand participating mean what? (none / 0) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:02:26 PM EST
    Taking their name off the ballot?

    How come Obama did not do hat in FL? He could not.

    But let's not play his game again. IT is a worn out point.

    I find the arguments youare going to regurgitate - from memekiller, not banned, tiresome and nonsensical.

    I ask you nicely, let it go now.


    So all the voters who don't get to see the (none / 0) (#97)
    by rebecca on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:24:50 PM EST
    candidates in person campaigning are not participating in a contest that means anything?  Because all that happened in FL is that people had to do what the vast majority of voters do in this country which is to get their information about the candidates from the television, the paper media or the internet.  They had just as much information as the vast majority of voters who never get to see their candidate campaigning for their vote.  

    The idea that if the candidates don't personally show up to campaign for their votes makes those votes not mean anything than we're in for some long campaigns because most voters never get to have candidates personally show up in their area to campaign.  In the GE whole swaths of the country get ignored.  

    This is a silly argument.  With the news coverage going on about this election FL had plenty of information to make their decision on without the personal campaigning by the candidates which is par for the course anyways in much of the country.  


    Funny I Have Never Seen Any Candidate (none / 0) (#129)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:39:39 PM EST
    in person,  avoid campaign commercials like the plague and have been able for several decades to gather enough information on them to cast my vote.  

    you are suspended (none / 0) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:25:37 PM EST
    Do not comment anymore today.

    No Need To Worry That MI Or FL Will Be Seated (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:41:01 AM EST
    Al Sharpton will march to the rescue to prevent the DNC from seating them.

    The Rev. Al Sharpton said he is opposed to the Democratic Party seating delegates from Florida and Michigan at the national convention.

    The New York Post reported that the former presidential candidate and social activist threatened to lead a protest at the Democratic National Committee's Washington headquarters if the group committed the "grave injustice" of seating the delegates. Link

    We might as well declare McCain the (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:43:45 AM EST
    winner in Florida now. We'll have no chance there.

    I'm in Florida (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by independent voter on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:40:24 PM EST
    and I will vote for the Dem nominee regardless of whether are delegates are seated.
    I bet I'm not the only one

    Should be "our" delegates (none / 0) (#111)
    by independent voter on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:40:50 PM EST
    Your not the only one but (none / 0) (#113)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:45:50 PM EST
    I've heard different from other Fl Democrats including my wife who is offended by the "worthlessness" of her vote.  I'll probably convince her by November but how many have spouses so adamant in voting for whoever the Democrats nominate?

    Your not the only one but (none / 0) (#115)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:49:20 PM EST
    I've heard different from other Fl Democrats including my wife who is offended by the "worthlessness" of her vote.  I'll probably convince her by November but how many have spouses so adamant in voting for whoever the Democrats nominate?

    The ever-helpful Rev. Al (none / 0) (#63)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:49:11 AM EST
    never passes up an opportunity for a headline.

    Maybe he can incite a riot when the Floridians show up...and NOW...and my girl gang...



    Beauty contest? (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Alvord on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:32:16 AM EST
    A primary where nobody campaigns and where the voters are told the results won't count is just a straw poll.

    The 1.7 million Democratic voters who turned out to vote in Florida didn't do so because they thought their primary was a "beauty contest". They were voting for the person they wanted to be the Democratic presidential nominee.


    Did you poll them? (none / 0) (#61)
    by JJE on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:48:32 AM EST
    Otherwise, how do you know what they thought?  Seems to me it's an insult to FL voters to suggest that they are so ignorant as to believe that their votes would have a bearing on the Presidential nominee even though it was widely known that they wouldn't.  I give them more credit than that.

    Perhaps they know (none / 0) (#69)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:54:11 AM EST
    more of their Democratic history re seating of challenged delegates from southern states than you do.

    No one knows what they were thinking...including thee and me.

    But they voted.  And Democrats are for 'counting every vote!'  Remember?

    Especially in Florida.

    This is not a difficult concept.


    If Obama Had Won FL, He Would Be (none / 0) (#92)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:17:26 PM EST
    vigorously campaigning to seat FL's delegates and not seat MI.

    He would be completely stupid to do anything else. Somehow or other had this been the case, I think you would find a way to twist his action into somehow proving his integrity and honesty.


    He needs to prove it then. He needs to (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:35:36 PM EST
    tell his superdelegates in states that voted for Clinton that they need to vote for her. He is being a hypocrite if he doesn't. The Obama supporters who don't believe he is just a politician just amaze me.

    Obama Said Otherwise (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:35:54 PM EST
    TAMPA - Barack Obama hinted during a Tampa fundraiser Sunday that if he's the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, he'll seat a Florida delegation at the party's national convention, despite national party sanctions prohibiting it. Link

    He also held a press conference (none / 0) (#109)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:39:11 PM EST
    which was a technical violation as BTD calls them.

    Another easy concept (none / 0) (#124)
    by JJE on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:20:23 PM EST
    Is that the results of elections wherein everyone agrees to abide by neutral rules ex ante, and then the rules are changed post facto, after the outcome is known, are undemocratic and contrary to the rule of law.

    Except when 'the body' (none / 0) (#128)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:34:29 PM EST
    votes to suspend the rules and make a change.

    Happens all the time.

    Hell, I remember a local election ending in a tie which was decided by a coin toss!

    Luckily, when the loser saw the result, he didn't yell out "Two outta three!"


    That is a trivial point (none / 0) (#133)
    by JJE on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:48:37 PM EST
    I'm not arguing that they can't vote to seat the delegates, but rather that the shouldn't do so if it changes the outcome of the election.

    Of course, the ruling body can change the rules, because the system gives them power to do so.  Just as the Supreme Court could lawfully overturn the Florida Supreme Court in 2000.  In neither case would is the decision to do so consistent with principles of representative democracy and the rule of law.  


    Oh. Well, then... (none / 0) (#134)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:55:36 PM EST
    Right (none / 0) (#132)
    by Lena on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:43:36 PM EST
    From the perspective of this Florida voter, we were 1. able to watch/read about the candidates PLENTY before our primary; 2. were were not ignorant and unaware of the contested position of our delegates. Yet we voted in record number anyway.

    Although not statistically significant, everyone I know voted (as per usual) on the assumption that our delegates WOULD be seated. Heck, my county, Alachua, went for Barack Obama. Those Obama voters were not assuming that this was jut a beauty contest.

    We in Florida always knew we would count. That's why we voted in massive numbers. The only question we have is: in what way will we be counted this time? And if we are dissed by the blue party, will our state go red again?


    Where I live (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by hitchhiker on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:58:46 PM EST
    the candidates for president have not bothered to run ads, organize, or visit in any primary within memory -- until this year.

    As far as I know, our results always counted.  Every time.  So I don't know how to understand this  claim:

    It is tough to count the results of contests in which the candidates didn't participate.

    Voter participation is voter participation; sometimes it even happens where no candidate has "participated".  I thought BTD's brilliant solution posted a couple of days ago was a good answer.  Count half the delegates as they're allocated from the primaries in both MI and FL, then hold primaries in late April/early May to determine the rest.  


    MI maybe, FL don't agree (none / 0) (#34)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:10:22 AM EST
    There was a real vote in FL, all names on ballot. No campaigning, true, but it doesn't seem that strange to say people voted.

    Florida had huge turnout. (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by tigercourse on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:27:27 AM EST
    Not compared to other states (none / 0) (#71)
    by JJE on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:56:18 AM EST
    Of Florida, New Hampshire, and SC, only in Florida did more Republicans vote than Democrats.  It's absurd to claim that the absence of campaigning and knowledge that the election was essentially a straw poll in Florida did not depress turnout.

    Not following you (none / 0) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:00:24 PM EST
    Florida is the most Republican of all those states. It stands to reason it would have more Republcians vote.

    The amazing thing is that the margin was so close.


    Florida is more Republican than South Carolina? (none / 0) (#126)
    by JJE on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:23:02 PM EST
    Hardly.  Here:

    New Hampshire:
    Democrats: 284104
    Republicans: 233381
    Reps as % of Dems: 82%

    South Carolina:
    Democrats: 529771
    Republicans: 442918
    Reps as % of Dems: 84%

    Democrats: 1684390
    Republicans: 1920350
    Reps as % of Dems: 114%

    One of these things is not like the others.  The obvious conclusion is that the lack of campaigning knowledge that the delegates were stripped depressed Dem turnout.  If you have another hypothesis I'd be interested to hear it.


    Don't we need to know (none / 0) (#144)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:03:53 PM EST
    how many Dem eligible voters and how many Rs in each state to gauge the turnout?

    Got those numbers?


    They broke all records. (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:50:40 AM EST
    Many people never vote.

    Just so you know.  It's just not a good argument in this case.

    Numeracy is an important skill.


    Levin And Nelson On MI And FL (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:01:19 PM EST
    Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) dismissed the possibility in interviews on Tuesday. Levin and Nelson said caucuses would effectively void the primaries in each of their states, and are pushing to have their delegates receive full voting power at the convention.

    "You can't undo an election with a caucus, especially one where 1.75 million Florida Democrats voted," said Nelson, who filed an unsuccessful lawsuit last year seeking to overturn the national party's decision to strip Florida of its delegates.

    Levin had similar thoughts. "It would not be practical or fair to hold a caucus," Levin said. "You've got 600,000 people who voted. You can't just throw out the votes of 600,000 people." Levin said the state will appeal to have its delegates restored by the party convention's credentials committee this summer....

    Asked about the fact that Clinton appeared on the Michigan ballot and Obama did not, Levin noted that it was Obama's choice to withdraw his name.

    "I was disappointed that he did," Levin said. Link

    Voters matter but so do rules (none / 0) (#2)
    by sef on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:35:13 AM EST
    Obama & Edwards took their names off the ballot in Michigan.  To count Michigan would be to punish their good behavior.

    IYO, why should HRC's bad behavior in Michigan be rewarded?

    Hillary had no bad behavior (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:37:17 AM EST
    She did nothing wrong.

    I do not think much of your claim that Obama behaved well in Michigan, he behaved self inerestedly.

    But I am curious, are you willing to accept the Florida count as relevant? Not to delegate counts, but to super delegate consideration.


    yes, I am (none / 0) (#30)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:57:56 AM EST
    I am plenty willing to accept the Florida vote (although I think that, too, is somewhat unfair as neither candidate campaigned there).

    But am I willing to accept it (to "compromise", if I can use that dirty word).

    But I can't understand why a vote where one of the main two candidates wasn't even on the ballot should be counted.


    I agree with you (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:15:40 AM EST
    That is what made it a smart SELF INTERESTED move by Obama.

    I am sure if he coud have he would have taken his name off the FL ballot.


    awesome! (none / 0) (#67)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:52:54 AM EST
    So now we're even criticizing people upon rampant speculation?  "He would have if he could have?"  Is that any more or less legitimate to claim that Hillary would be fighting tooth and nail against Florida had she lost?

    Is arguing on non-reality hypotheticals productive at all?  Is it supposed to prove a point?


    So NOW taking their name off the ballot (none / 0) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:58:32 AM EST
    or saying they would have is a criticism?

    Before we needed to rewqrd "good behavior."

    I wish you folks could make up your mind.


    "you folks" (none / 0) (#135)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:56:54 PM EST
    Who's "you folks"?  Don't lump all of us together.  Some of us are making different arguments than others.  I never mentioned the "good behavior" argument.

    I am saying that your speculating as to what would have happened had something else, that didn't happen, happened, and then you are criticizing your own conclusion about would have happened.  (It's just as valid, then, for someone else to say, "hey, Hillary would be fighting to prevent Florida had she lost it.", right?)

    Wouldn't it be a great start to limit our criticizing to things that have actually happened?


    Wouldn't MI have been a good Obama state (none / 0) (#77)
    by AF on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:59:05 AM EST
    Had there been a campaign?  As Bill Clinton might point out, Jesse Jackson won there in 1988.

    If Obama taking his name off the ballot was self-interested, it was because an election without a campaign always favors the establishment candidate.  Which means Hillary's keeping her name on the ballot was also self-interested.


    The FL vote is not irrelevant (none / 0) (#59)
    by AF on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:43:34 AM EST
    But neither is it directly comparable to the states where candidates were allowed to campaign.  There need to be two tallies -- popular vote with and without FL.  Neither should be ignored.

    I can see the argument for counting... (none / 0) (#7)
    by mike in dc on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:38:48 AM EST
    ...Florida in the popular vote total.  But why Michigan?  Clinton was the only major Dem on the ballot.  How would that be even remotely equitable?  
    Even if we did do that, would it be remotely accurate to count all her votes and ignore the 45% "uncommitted" vote without trying to estimate how many of them would have voted for Obama?  
    It just seems like a really hinky kind of "fairness" argument.  

    Fine by me (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:46:22 AM EST
    I believe MI should revote anyway.

    And count Florida. Another potential solution.


    Well.....actually.... (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:03:43 PM EST
    there was a campaign to vote 'uncommitted' by John Conyers and others.  Those votes get delegates, don't forget, and can be lobbied by your candidate now.  If he's not doing that I'd be verrrrry surprised.

    March 29... (none / 0) (#95)
    by mike in dc on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:20:33 PM EST
    ...is the selection process in Michigan.  Clinton has a slight edge on the committee involved, but I assume there will be heavy lobbying on both sides.

    It is the rules comm. (none / 0) (#138)
    by sef on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:24:06 PM EST
    that will decide whether to seat or not seat both delegations.  I strongly suspect that the delegates will be split almost 50-50 by the rules comm. so that the net impact won't help or hurt either candidate.  The reality is HRC will net no more than 20 delegates if the Florida vote stands and the uncommitted go to BHO.

    Something like this (none / 0) (#8)
    by magster on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:39:10 AM EST
    makes the debate question you raise much more real.

    Obama -8 in poll, but + 6 in projected delegates in Texas.

    I am skeptical of that finding (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:45:28 AM EST
    But a part of me wants it to happen.

    Didn't the first 4 early states (none / 0) (#10)
    by Josey on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:40:18 AM EST
    also violate DNC rules by moving up their primaries/caucuses?

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:43:45 AM EST
    They did.

    Joe Klein Kos, Matt Yglesias Broder, etc. (none / 0) (#31)
    by koshembos on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:58:54 AM EST

    A futile dream? (none / 0) (#33)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:02:22 AM EST
    Can we stop bashing the "other" based on what we think they would do if certain scenarios happen one way or the other?

    Can't we, instead, focus on the issues, and hope and pray, that for the sake of the Dem party, that for the sake of the entire country and those who cherish their civil liberties, that one of the two main candidates finishes ahead in both the popular vote and the delegate vote?

    The trashing I've seen of Obama here, and of Hillary elsewhere, should put all good Dems to shame.  My wife and I (who support different Dem candidates) are really disgusted by what we read here about Obama, and what we read elsewhere about Hillary.

    (or is "hoping" for less partisanship verbotten here?)

    There have been no attacks whatsoever (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:11:50 AM EST
    on Obama's character.

    I agree with him on almost every issue.

    I have problems oth his political style and have said so.

    I have bashed the Media for its anti-Hillary bias ands its sexism and misogyny.

    Your commnt is outlandish, wrong and offensive.


    "no attacks whatsoever (none / 0) (#64)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:49:22 AM EST
    on his character?"

    Have you been reading the comments?  In the last 24 hours alone there have been comments that he's all fluff, that he's a hypocrite, that's he's purposely injecting race, that he's trying to buy the election, notions that Obama is just a puppet of Kennedy and Kerry, and, no, wait, let me use actually quotes from this blog, just from yesterday:

    • questioning "his true feelings when it comes to poor black neighborhoods"

    • "How incredibly deceitful  this  "Hope" man  is."

    • against Obama b/c "the lies that keep popping up from the pond like dead fish"

    • "Another glaring example of this man's inherent dishonesty. He's the one who'll say anything, do anything to win. He has no ideas of his own, "

    • "he is such a whiner"

    • "Another case of a junior, less experienced man stealing a woman's work and passing it off as his own--and getting credit for it....  If this happened in the workplace, it would be a clear cut case of thievery.

    • "Obama is just an empty suit full of hot air"

    There's plenty more, but I hope this is enough to make my point that "no attacks whatsoever" is not accurate.

    And, BTD, you yourself have used the phrase "what it is with you people" when referring to Obama supporters.  And, yes, you (at least once) used the word "all" in your criticism of Obama supporters.

    What's even more distressing to me, in my plea to lighten up, you tell me to that my "commnt is outlandish, wrong and offensive."

    Yes, the attacks against Hillary have been worse (stunningly appalling with a large dose of disgusting sexism, imho).  I've criticized them, too (elsewhere).  But do two wrongs make a right?

    "no attacks whatsoever"?  Do you really believe that?

    Woe to us . . .


    The commenters do get carried away (none / 0) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:54:11 AM EST
    and I have tried hard t rein it all in.

    Including not epressing my opwn feelings about some Obama supporters.

    NONE of what you quote was written by Jeralyn or me.

    So stop writing that Talk LEft is attacking Obama's character.

    That is a lie.

    But let me put it bluntly, if yu can not abide by this requirement, then do not post at this blog.


    I did not say that "Talk Left" (none / 0) (#76)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:58:33 AM EST
    was attacking anyone's character.  You and Jeralyn do a very good job, imho.

    But as I was in the comment section, I thought it understood that "we" meant "the commenters".  

    I apologize if it was taken wrongly.  But I still stand by my statement: "can't we-the-commenters refrain from attacking the other so much?, etc"


    Jeralyn and BTD are doing an incredible job (none / 0) (#86)
    by katiebird on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:06:25 PM EST
    All bloggers are having a terrible time controlling the tone of comments this year.  Unless it was just removed, there is a death threat in the comments at one of the most respectable blogs and it's been there since yesterday.

    In spite of the furious activity on this blog -- there is nothing like that here.  And if anything like that was posted, it would be deleted immediately.

    I have nothing but praise and thanks for the effort Jeralyn and BTD put into controlling the tone and dialog here at TalkLeft.

    And they still manage to post great articles.


    I agree.... (none / 0) (#106)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:35:52 PM EST
    ... and you're right that all the bloggers have a tough time controlling their commenters.

    But my post was directed at the commenters, hoping that my post would at least cause some of them some introspection to tone it down a bit.

    We are, after all, on the same team.  We all want to end the near-despotic rule of GWB and their GOP-enablers.  And after the convention, we need to work together.

    We have (imho) two incredibly terrific and historical candidates.  One seems more seasoned and able to get things done, one seems more inspiring.  Which is more electable is debatable.  Reasonable people can differ over which is more important and/or how much to weigh their (minor) deficiencies.  But, sheesh, their policies overlap 90%, and each of them is a gazillion times better than the alternative.  Let's build up our own candidate rather than trash the other.  Let's be positive.  We've got to win in November.


    Markos is a radical (none / 0) (#51)
    by Salt on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:32:21 AM EST
    I was thinking this Party shake up coming has possibilities...an Obama Huckabee ticket they deserve each other, all the wing nuts in one place lol I like it.

    if you've been following Markos (none / 0) (#84)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:04:28 PM EST
    ... he wants the Dems to win, first.  He supported Jim Webb (clearly the more conservative candidate), over longtime liberal Harris, in the Va primary, because he thought Webb was the best chance of winning.  Similarly, he supported Jon Tester in Montana (over Morrison) for the same reason.  Markos clearly isn't always right -- although he was indeed correct with Webb and Tester.  And let's not forgot that Webb's razor thin margin over "Macaca" Allen proved to be the difference between Dems being in the majority now in Congress, vs being in the minority.

    When Dems are assured of winning, he supports the more progressive candidate (e.g., Donna Edwards (yay!), over Albert Wynn).

    Whatever you may see it as, I don't see it as "radical" to support guys like Tester and Webb.


    Agree... (none / 0) (#120)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:09:50 PM EST
    Nothing radical about supporting Webb or Tester or other moderate Dems...how could there be?  Moderate is the antithesis of radical.

    RE you other topic...if Markos wants Democrats to win this year, he has a damn funny way of showing it.

    I'm chalking it up to inexperience and hubris but it's a painful learning process...not unlike puberty, I suppose.

    Those damn kids.

    Ruining everything.

    OK...hum along...

    "Why can't they be like we were?
    Perfect in every wayyyy?
    What's the matter with kids todayyyy?"


    Florida and Michigan (none / 0) (#121)
    by Joike on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:15:00 PM EST
    What is your rationale for including Florida and Michigan?

    Candidates were instructed not to campaign in these states.

    I think Clinton was the only big name to appear on the Michigan ballot.

    These were merely straw polls not contested elections even if you try to argue that Obama "campaigned" in Florida by having ads run on national cable channels.

    It is unfortunate that the voters of these two states are being left out of the process, but it is specious to contend that the results of those two straw polls reflect any kind of contested election.

    If we count Florida and Michigan, let's also count the Iowa straw poll from last summer and the poll taken on CNN.com plus my son's 5th grade class Presidential preference vote.

    These voters have been disenfranchised by their own state leaders and by Dean's, in my opinion, over-reaction.  By trying to get more attention for their states, they ended up with zero and, ironically, would have had more influence had they kept their original position.

    What was done cannot be undone.  We don't know what the results of those two races would have been if all candidates had committed resources to the states.  Edwards could have done quite well in Michigan.  

    Those elections would have changed how other elections went since limited resources would have been reallocated to those states.  It is quite possible that Clinton could be steamrolling to the nomination or at least have the numeric advantage in delegates that Obama currently enjoys.

    We move forward without the input of Florida or Michigan in the process.  That sucks, but the same would have applied if Maryland or Virginia had tried to jump ahead.

    The process and timeline of the nomination is well overdue for an overhaul.

    Wrong. (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:28:03 PM EST
    "What was done can't be undone."

    Of course it can.  All they have to do is get the candidates to agree to a brokered solution for the good of the party.  Obama can just 'reach across the aisle' as it were...find common ground...you know, unite us!

    If not, it may not matter who is the nominee..we'll lose Florida when they count those votes in the fall.

    Think big picture.

    Gawd, the is exhausting.


    Markos is just talking stupid. (none / 0) (#139)
    by john5750 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:24:23 PM EST
    Obama voters, including Markos, can be very irrational.  They make up stories about the Clintons and tend to go off the deep end.

    Florida and Michigan should go to Hillary since she won the majority of votes there, even with Obama breaking the rules and running TV ads there.

    Obama is not complaining about South Carolina breaking the rules because he won SC and the DNC has not penalized SC for breaking the same rule FL and MI broke.

    I'm sure if he won FL and MI he would change his tune on those states. Obama and MoveOn are just trying to deprive Hillary of what is rightfully hers, FL and WI.

    "significant states" (none / 0) (#142)
    by frankly0 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:36:36 PM EST
    Sorry to post this so late in the thread, but it's pretty relevant.

    While everybody and his idiot brother has been trashing Mark Penn, Penn's recent statement that Obama hasn't won the "significant" states outside of his home state is pretty fair.

    Go to the Wikipedia entry listing state populations.

    Of the top 8 states, Obama has won only his home state. Hillary has a very good prospect, if polls are to be believed, of winning the other 7, and mostly by very substantial margins (Of course, both MI and FL are included in this calculation -- being a believer in genuine democracy and in not disenfranchising millions of voters, I think it's fair to do so. People who have a pronounced distaste for actual democracy will no doubt beg to differ.) Taken together, those 8 states comprise 47.3% of the entire population of the US. What would it say about Obama if he can't win any of those states outside of his home state?

    Moreover, if you add to the mix the 9 smaller states that Clinton has already won, and subtract out Illinois, then Clinton will have won states that, taken together, comprise 56% of the population. In terms of electoral votes represented by those states, this would give Clinton 280 to Obama's 258. If one adds possible victories in RI and West Va (which, to me, seem pretty tilted Clinton's way in demographics), the total would be about 57% of the population and, in terms of electoral votes, Clinton 289 to Obama's 249.

    Now my calculations importantly assume that Clinton wins Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania. Certainly she's been ahead in those states in the polls -- whether that holds up no one knows.

    But assuming she wins all those states, the argument that Mark Penn is making is in fact very powerful. Not only does it suggest that she is a better candidate for general election, but it also goes a good distance to argue the point that she is the candidate who is the clearest expression of the popular will.