Pelosi's Daughter: Popular Vote Winner Not Important, Pledged Delegates Are

By Big Tent Democrat

Like Move On, Speaker Pelosi's daughter, Christine Pelosi, seems not to care who wins the most votes in this nomination process:

"Many of us are elected by the grassroots of the party," she said, "And I cannot imagine going home in November to those people and try to phone bank for someone who did not capture the [pledged delegate] vote... We were all galvanized by what happened to Al Gore in Florida."

Apparently Ms. Pelosi does not at ALL remember what happened to Al Gore, he won the POPULAR VOTE, and lost the vote of the "delegates" to the Electoral College. Ms. Pelosi has it exactly backwards. I for one would be dismayed if the Popular Vote winner were denied the nomination due to the undemocratic pledged delegate process - with its undemocratic caucus and apportionment processes. That would be a travesty.

< MI/FL: The DNC Changed The Rules | Why Did Clinton Not Fight For Florida And Michigan In 2007? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    it would be a travesty and also (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:23:45 PM EST
    almost a sure loser formula in the general election..

    When I first saw this I though, who cares (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:23:55 PM EST
    what Nancy Pelosi's daughter thinks.  Now I realize she is a Super Delegate because she is a member of the DNC.  No explanation as to how she obtained that position.  

    Actually I think she is a Pledge Delegate (none / 0) (#3)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:24:56 PM EST
    Cronyism...n/t (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:44:15 PM EST
    Shcmoozing with Bush (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:03:14 PM EST
    when she made the documentary about him.  

    Journeys with George (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by mexboy on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:08:28 PM EST
    The documentary by Pelosi, is the worse kiss a** and love-fest over George Bush, by the press that were supposed to cover his campaign.

    She along with the rest of the press were derelict in their duties and gave Bush a free pass writing fluff pieces about him while the press covering Gore turned everything he said into a negative.

     If she had done her duty as a reporter and asked the tough questions, the American public would have been informed about Bush's agenda and maybe, just maybe, we wouldn't be in this mess today.

     I watched the documentary and was disgusted with her and the rest of the "reporters"

    So, it's no surprise that she would say the popular vote means nothing, after all, it didn't mean anything when she helped Bush "win" in 2002.


    She had a crush on him. (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:50:50 PM EST
    It made me sick to watch. (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:55:34 PM EST
    Shame on her! (none / 0) (#151)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:53:14 PM EST
    She's trying to derail Democracy ;)  And I sort of mean that too.  Bigshots unconditionally calling the shots?  I thought that was a Bush administration but it is beginning to look like it could be any administration these days.

    The only solution to a stalemate (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Jim J on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:25:40 PM EST
    between popular vote and pledged delegates is a combined ticket. As unlikely as that is, I don't see any other way out should the nightmare scenario come to pass. I'm all ears.

    they SHOULD overrule the voice of the people (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:28:35 PM EST
    is what you are arguing if that means the Popular Vote winner is denied the nomination.

    Do to someone what was done to Al Gore in 2000 is what you are arguing for.

    By reviewing the votes (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:33:15 PM EST
    Are you UNAWARE that people have popular vote counts NOW?

    People come to vote (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:37:24 PM EST
    in caucuses. Granted many less people, but hey, that is why they are undemocratic, that and the apportionment process.

    But there are actual votes cast in caucuses too.

    But if you arguing that primaries are much more legitimate democratic processes, no argument from me. I HATE caucuses. Hated them LONG BEFORE the Iowa results.


    One is more DEMOCRATIC (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:42:17 PM EST
    That was the word I used.

    You switched it to legitimate.

    It so happens I believe the more DEMOCRATIC system is the more legitimate one, but hey, that's just me.


    and me (none / 0) (#31)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:44:00 PM EST
    Undemocratic means (none / 0) (#57)
    by solon on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:09:05 PM EST
    So it would be fine to employ undemocratic means to justify democratic ends to get a desired result?

    Doesn't the undemocratic nature taint the democratic nature or is that not important?


    Caucuses (none / 0) (#138)
    by mouth of the south on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:40:43 PM EST
    You can argue until you tongue falls out and it won't change the fact that we have ALREADY had caucuses.  We can't go back and change that.  And Clinton blew them off as you are doing and look what that got her!  Stop arguing about the value of the caucuses.  It is done!

    Major Problem (none / 0) (#122)
    by solon on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:12:58 PM EST
    One of the major problems with this process is not the primary/ caucus distinction, it is that states have delegates regardless of the turnout.

    There are virtues within the caucuses system, especially for citizen participation and public debate. Voting itself does not lead to greater civic action within the United States. In fact, voting seems to be the lowest form of citizen involvement since it asks very little of voters and seems to perpetuate s system of rule by elites and citizen apathy.

    There may be a solution for the primary/ caucus problem in terms of awarding delegate:

    States should be allowed to determine their own means for selecting a nominee. However, delegates should be based on voter turnout rather than states having a selected amount before hand. This would mean that states should not have bonus delegates for wining the states but only award based on proportion to those that voted.

    Of course, there needs to be some form of balancing between large and small states as the importance of the vote should not be based on geography. If you decided that delegates should be awarded based on actual turnout, then the smaller states should vote first. You may need to try and arrange a system on both population (fewer people within a state) and region (to cut out travel costs). This way larger states still may have the final say but small states begin the conversation.  Proportional representation should still be the norm for the states.


    Liberty of Conscience (none / 0) (#19)
    by solon on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:38:05 PM EST
    Before John Lewis switched his vote, you believed that the Super Delegates should vote their conscience? Once he changed, and as others defected, you have changed your mind.

    We are still waiting for your defense of the "popular vote" and how you account for the different methods by which states determine who receives the delegates?

    And, what happened to liberty of conscience for the Super Delegates?

    I would just like a principled account of why the popular vote should matter, regardless of what candidate anyone here supports.


    Lewis says he hasn't switched to Obama (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:41:10 PM EST
    from Clinton.

    You simply have no understanding (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:43:14 PM EST
    of what I have written.

    I simply say that your characterization of my position is false and that I have no desire to discuss the matter with you.


    Your position... (none / 0) (#38)
    by solon on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:49:01 PM EST
    Is this: "I for one would be dismayed if the Popular Vote winner were denied the nomination due to the undemocratic pledged delegate process - with its undemocratic caucus and apportionment processes."

    Yet, you have brought up that Super Delegates must vote their conscience, which does not support this. You have also failed discuss how states employ different methodologies that  alter the "popular vote."

    If you do not want to debate this point fine, but you do your readers a disservice by (1) not making a coherent principled argument on the matter, (2) failing to discuss why your argument is inconsistent, and (3) failing to offer evidence for your claims.

    You have similar discussions on other threads, make ad hominems against other uses, and suspend those who disagree. But you still do not answer the questions.

    All I am asking is for an intellectual debate on the matter. I have not attacked you; I have just attempted to understand your position.


    Suggestion: read BTD's posts and his (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:54:05 PM EST
    comments to those posts and you will see that he has discussed the issues you state he has not discussed.  

    For the past two days... (none / 0) (#48)
    by solon on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:59:46 PM EST
    We have posted on this subject matter and when I have asked BTD about certain aspects of the nomination process, he has not provided a consistent account nor answered my objections.

    I am not trying to be partisan supporter for one candidate; I am trying to study the issue through debate.

    It is a disservice to BTD's readers to make inconsistent arguments. He if chooses to support a candidate, then after every claim, just state "because I support this candidate."


    I'm suggesting you go back further (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:16:04 PM EST
    than two days.  I've been here lots longer than that have a pretty good idea what the answers to your points are.

    The popular vote matters (none / 0) (#132)
    by mexboy on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:30:06 PM EST
    because it clearly says the majority of people want X candidate to be the president.



    Oh, boy, a repeat of 2000... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by SandyK on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:34:40 PM EST
    all over again.

    I thought Dems were behind the popular vote to win elections now. Now this concensus is changed??

    Need discipline, or this election is going to tank like Gore and Kerrys'. Have to stick to a concensus and not break it over a duel between two popular candidates. As those dissed will be fighting against each other than their opponent in the GE.

    Have to get the votes and keep them. Intra-party squabbles is also how independents and moderates can shoo, too.

    Pull it together.

    Pledged votes (none / 0) (#130)
    by mouth of the south on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:28:38 PM EST
    Our Constitution says that the popular vote is not as important as the electoral votes.  That is how it has been throughout our history.  Now I would love it if the Constitution were changed to make the winner the one who gets more popular votes.  If it is good enough for the GE it ought to be good enough for the primaries.

    Both candidates.... (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:47:26 PM EST
    should get together with party leaders, put their aspirations for power aside, and change the freakin' rules to nationwide popular vote.  Right now....not next time.  

    It's the fairest most democratic way to pick a leader.  Who cares who it may benefit of the two, it's the right thing to do.  Power to the people...

    I Believe the Standard Is Clear (5.00 / 7) (#44)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:56:10 PM EST
    Whatever count gives the nomination to Obama = democratic and fair and the will of the people.

    Whatever count gives the nomination to Clinton = stolen election and the thwarting of the will of the people.

    And so now we see the true commitment to democracy and the voters of people who claim to lead the party and the netroots.  They are no better than the vote suppressors and cagers in the GOP.  In fact, it's exactly the same thing that drives it - a fear that those lowly masses, the "people" will not make the right choice and by right choice, I mean whoever the elites back.  And so it has always been in this country.  

    I've said it before and I'll say it again - let the voters vote and the winner with the most votes, to the extent it's significant enough difference to be reliable given some of the counting issues, be the winnner.  

    I'm a Clinton person, I will get over it if she loses the nomination to Barack Obama.  I will not get over it if he gets the nomination by Bush v. Gore-ing her.

    I've said all along that I would vote for any D in November, but this is the one thing that might make me reconsider that.  Oh, I'd still never vote for McCain, but, honestly, if the Democratic elites steal this election from the voters, I'd say the Democratic party has made it perfectly clear what they think about the value of my vote.  Why bother giving them a vote they don't think is worth counting.

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:59:43 PM EST
    Coming from Pelosi's daughter makes it particularly rank.

    I'm Sorry To Say That I'm Moving In The (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:02:41 PM EST
    same direction on this.

    Yellow Dog Democrat (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:25:09 PM EST
    The really sad thing is that I'm a yellow dog Democrat.  I'd vote for just about anyone with a D after their name.

    But I'm going to find it very hard to vote for a party - much less volunteer or give money - where the leaders appear to be engaged in an effort to ensure that the popular vote doesn't count.  Frankly, it would be much easier if they just let the SDs do their own will, at least that would be in keeping with the rules.  But this attempt to make a NEW RULE, which seems to change daily btw, aimed deliberately at disenfranchising voters could seriously test my good Dem status.

    And I have to think that if a yellow dog Dem like me feels this way, that less loyal dems and independents (and yes Clinton has such supporters) aren't going to be all that thrilled either.


    I have heard a lot of people saying (none / 0) (#95)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:36:14 PM EST
    the same thing, BDB--lots of dyed in the wool dems who feel like their party is being taken from them.  It's one thing when the republicans bend us over, quite another when folks from our own party do it.

    And When Those People (none / 0) (#101)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:39:47 PM EST
    Claim to be taking back the party on behalf of the people...

    Popular vote (none / 0) (#135)
    by mouth of the south on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:34:21 PM EST
    It must be that you are a Clinton backer.  You know she can't win the pledged vote because she has blown that by not running a 50 state campaign.  So now you want to forget the pledged votes and go by popular vote, which, by the way she is also behind in.  She might have a chance to catch Obama in the popular vote but not in the pledged vote and that is why you are so desperate to have the nomination decided by the popular vote.

    Yes, I'm a Clinton Backer (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:05:15 PM EST
    But I'm one who has repeatedly said that the SDs should back the popular vote winner to the extent it is a significant enough lead that it can be determined with confidence, otherwise they can vote their conscience as far as I'm concerned because the race will be too close to have a clear winner among voters.  I believe this is right if that leads to Barack Obama becoming the nominee every bit as much as I believe that if Hillary Clinton should regain the popular vote lead and become the nominee.

    Here's my question to you, if I'm a Super Delegate why should I, as a matter of principle, choose the pledged delegate leader over the popular vote winner?  Why are pledged delegates more important than actual voters?  I believe it's voters and not pledged delegates to the Democratic Convention that the nominee will need in November, is it not?  

    So tell me, if neither candidate can get to the magic number with just pledged delegates (I agree if Obama could do this, he'd be the nominee, same for Clinton), why should pledged delegates matter more than voters?  


    What way is that MO Blue (I am confused here) (none / 0) (#65)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:13:18 PM EST
    I've been thinking about how liberating it is (none / 0) (#56)
    by katiebird on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:07:22 PM EST
    I've been thinking about how liberating it is that I live in Kansas (where seems wildly unlikely we'll to go Democratic).  If I happen to "get the flu" on election day -- it probably won't matter to much.


    Not that I'm planning on it.  But in the heat-of-emotion, a girl can dream -- can't she?


    Sheesh (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:00:12 PM EST
    People can make whatever arguments they like, but to suggest that there is something sacrosanct about the "pledged delegate count" is just silly.

    Gratification (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:05:16 PM EST
    I am sick of the full frontal assault.  Netroots and all can go take a hike.  Got my name removed from all the whole lot of them, DFA etc.  I will have to rethink my alliances.  Direct donations to Congressional candidates, these groups are whacko.    

    One more thing from me on 20 (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:33:08 PM EST
    It is funny to me that a committee of the Democratic party would interpret the rules in such a draconian manner.  After all, isn't the Democratic party and the DNC ( at least in the e-mail they send me) always seeking for more fairness in the system?

    Rule 21 (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:38:33 PM EST
    exonerate Florida utterly.

    They ENTIRE delegation should be seated.


    The Other Irony (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:52:40 PM EST
    About the "We absolutely must NOT seat Florida adn Michigan" are some of the same people preaching about the need to nominate the most electable candidate.  Making a bunch of Florida and Michigan voters angry is not a good way to nominating an electable candidate.

    hey, y'all (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:38:32 PM EST
    has anyone taken this out to the next step and realized that Pelosi obviously believes that Clinton will get the popular vote count?

    The argument is predicated on a fact not yet in evidence!  (see, y'all lawyers aren't the only ones who can talk this crap!)

    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:44:16 PM EST
    Me thinks the Obama folks protest too much.

    I know all this stuff is supposed to make me think Obama is a shoe-in, but I haven't felt this great about her chances in a couple of weeks.

    And Clinton isn't backing down on debates in Wisconsin, her new ad is here.


    But the Gov of WI is taking out after her. (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:47:10 PM EST
    see Huff Post.  I thought Cream City sd. HRC has campaigned in WI, not just Bill and Chelsea.

    I think what the Obama people don't really (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:50:31 PM EST
    understand, is that they could win the battle and lose the ultimate war...Very dangerous theory....

    we have all been saying this (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:04:14 PM EST
    for weeks, maybe months.

    I am so sick and tired of losing the White House because of our own stupidity.


    Me too but I also think Karl Rove is behind alot (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:09:39 PM EST
    of this....call me paranoid...:-(

    obama's supporters don't get it either. (none / 0) (#140)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:43:18 PM EST
    i am talking about jackson jr and sharpton. neither one is really thinking it through. they talk first and try and rationalize what they said.

    i haven't been impressed with either pelosi. (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:41:14 PM EST
    the apple doesn't seem to fall far from the tree. i still remember our esteemed speaker's crack about how "they are the leaders". that still makes me angry!

    I would also be upset if the popular vote winner (none / 0) (#6)
    by AF on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:28:32 PM EST
    lost, but if FL or MI provide the margin of victory for Hillary there will be no undisputed popular vote winner.

    I agree, however, that in the unlikely event one or the other candidate wins pledged delegates but loses the popular votes in states where the candidates campaigned, the popular vote winner will have the stronger claim on the nomination.

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:29:51 PM EST
    do you suggest INGORING the voters of Florida?

    talk about doing an Al Gore.

    Pelosi's reference to Al Gore is hilariously obtuse.


    No, I don't (none / 0) (#22)
    by AF on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:39:42 PM EST
    suggest ignoring the FL popular votes.  If Hillary wins the popular vote including Florida, she will have a legitimate argument for super-delegate support.  However, Obama's response that he won pledged delegates and the popular vote in contested elections will also be legitimate.  The super-delegates will then vote their consciences and use one or the other argument to justify it.  

    Whoever wins, it will be a mess, but I can't think of any other solution.  The ones you've floated, all of which involve counting FL and MI votes or delegates in some way, will not satisfy Obama's supporters.  


    I agree (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:41:10 PM EST
    The DNC has created a mess of epic proportions,

    My post is about the stupidity of Christine Pelosi's comments.


    How about this spin? (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:09:54 PM EST
    Politico: "Nearly half the superdelegates are white men."

    The efforts to spin the superdelegate issue really should nauseate any objective observer.


    Those comments are embarrassing (none / 0) (#37)
    by AF on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:48:30 PM EST
    I agree.  I can't tell whether the people making the pledged-delegates-only are disingenuous or dillusional.  I actually wish it were the former, but I think it's the latter.

    Incidentally, the Obama campaign does not appear to be making this argument, to my knowledge.  In an email of today, David Plouffe wrote:

    We firmly believe that the candidate who has won the most pledged delegates -- the result of having more voters in more places supporting your campaign -- will be the Democratic nominee.

    Not should, but will.  I think that's right.  And to be clear, I think that NOT because I am sure Obama is going to win.  Rather, I think that if Hillary gets the big victories in OH and TX that she needs, she may well go on a roll and end up with more pledged delegates.


    The Best Thing (none / 0) (#121)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:11:05 PM EST
    Would be to have a clear popular vote/pledged delegate winner without Michigan and Florida.

    Now, that might not happen, but you're right it still could and so honestly I don't know why everyone is wringing their hands.  They say they are worried about dividing the party but this crap is way more divisive than the elections themselves.


    I agree with this (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:08:59 PM EST
    It is a mess.  

    And I think the only way to deal with it is to continue letting them slug it out, all the way to June if necessary.  Our best hope is that the voters pull Howard Dean's butt out of the fire by putting one ahead of the other in some clear way.  

    Then, I think most Democrats will be able to support whoever the nominee is.  But all of this gaming the system now is just going to leave a bad aftertaste.


    Does "INGORING" leave the decision (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:43:29 PM EST
    to SCOTUS?

    Well (none / 0) (#8)
    by Korha on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:28:38 PM EST
    Because Nancy Pelosi got her a position within the state party, presumably. Half the superdelegates are completely unaccountable to anyone.

    To BTD, I have this scenario. Let's say Clinton has a narrow lead in the overall popular vote counting FL/MI (but is narrowly behind not counting FL/MI) while Obama has a narrow lead in pledged delegates counting FL/ML (and a decisive one not counting FL/MI). Who should the superdelegates go for, in your opinion?

    I think thye get to decide (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:31:04 PM EST
    by who they prefer in that scenario.

    the differences would amount to a virtual tie and then the Super Delegates can legitimately be deemed the fair tiebreakers on this.


    BTD (none / 0) (#27)
    by AF on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:42:15 PM EST
    We agree completely!  See my comment #10.

    But wasn't the Florida argument (none / 0) (#12)
    by beefeater on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:31:57 PM EST
    that Gore wanted to change the rules in the middle of an election? So now some Democrats what to change the rules that everyone should have known about in the first place?

    Which rules are those? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:35:30 PM EST
    The ones that allow Super Delegates to vote as they please? I agree, Pelosi is arguing for changing that rule.

    Or perhaps you mean the DNC's changing of the penalty rules for moving up a primary? I agree, the DNC changed the rules of the game in the middle of it.

    I certainly am arguing for respecting the will of the voters, by giving the popular vote results great weight. I understand that is not in the rules, but it seems one of our most fundamental ones.


    What about it? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:40:08 PM EST
    It allows them to but Rule 12 states EXPRESSLY what is done WITH DELEGATES.

    A fair reading of that is that the additional sanctions would NOT be delegate related.


    It is called rules of interpretation (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:53:38 PM EST
    One of the miost basic is to render meaning and significance to all parts of the rules.

    Your interpretation renders Rule 12 a nullity. What is the purpose of having such a  rule if the DNC could do whatever it wanted anyway regarding the delegates?

    There would be no meaning to Rule 12. It wouldbe as if it did not exist.

    Rules of interpretation requiring AVOIDING such a result whenever possible.

    To read the two rule harmoniously, you must interpret Rule 12 as defining the penalty re: delegates and allowing for additional sanctions NOT related to delegates to be imposed by the second rule.

    This is pretty basic lawyering frankly.


    By imposing the 100% exclusion (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:58:02 PM EST
    not contemplated in rule 12

    Your analogy makes no sense (none / 0) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:05:53 PM EST
    Suppose you have a Rule 12 and then another provision that allows the DNC Chair to overrule ALL punishments. To pardon so to speak.

    The two provisions are not in conflict. One renders a punishment and one allows the DNC Chair to commute such punishment.

    This is not an analogous situation. Rule 12 provides the rule for the penalties regarding delegates. The other rule allows for "additional sanctions." Does that mean more delegate stripping? I say no. Why? It renders Rule 12 a nullity.

    Your analogy does not render Rule 12 a nullity.


    Then you need to read it again (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:12:24 PM EST
    the 50% part.

    Absolutely (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:11:57 PM EST
    Nothing mentioned at all about FURTHER stripping of delegates.

    It makes it clear that the sanctioning authority is NOT about delegate stripping.

    It is about "additional sanctions" not related to delegate stripping.


    Well after reading rule 20 I think (none / 0) (#73)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:17:03 PM EST
    I would prefer BTD representing me in court.

    Actually I read some more (none / 0) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:22:02 PM EST
    FLORIDA in particular has so many defenses regarding the compelled by State law provision that I am confident Florida wins before the credentialing committee if there is an ounce of fairness.

    Did you read the rest of Rule 20? the stripping of Florida's delegates, even 50% is outrageous.



    Does the FL Dem. party org. have (none / 0) (#80)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:23:56 PM EST
    your contact info?  

    No it violated Rule 21 (none / 0) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:30:55 PM EST
    I think it is clear after review.

    This is truly a travesty.


    Florida (none / 0) (#104)
    by americanincanada on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:41:22 PM EST
    What does it say about Florida specifically?

    the Florida Dem Party (none / 0) (#112)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:52:43 PM EST
    did what to your knowledge?

    In my opinion two things (none / 0) (#88)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:28:23 PM EST
    The use of the word shall in 1 a makes that binding and therefore it suggest that by additional sanctions it is meant in addition to the already ordered 50% reduction.

    Section 6 to which section 5 refers does not talk about elimination but of reduction of delegates.

    The committee therefore (in my opinion as that of others more versed in law) violated 1a and misinterpreted the 6.


    Not Quite True (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Dan the Man on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:05:25 PM EST
    and as Rule 20(c)(5) clearly states, it is not at all limited by any language in Rule 20(c)(1)(a).

    It is not limited only by "the preceding subsections."  A succeeding section, section 8, reiterates the requirment "by which categories of delegates must be reduced by fifty (50%) percent."  Since this is a succeeding section and not a preceeding section, Rule 20(c)(5)does not apply. Therefore section 8 requires a fifty percent reduction.


    No Gore's argument was (none / 0) (#17)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:35:47 PM EST
    that not all the votes were being counted.  That's when the Supreme Court stepped in and stopped the recount ordered by the Florida State Supreme Court.  Even though elections are supposed to be a States internal process.

    The moral argument in addition (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:39:04 PM EST
    Gore's moral argument was that he won the popular vote. IN THE NATION.

    Pelosi's reference to Gore is nonsensical.


    Even More Nonsensical (none / 0) (#136)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:37:06 PM EST
    Because this push to end the nominating contest now and decide the winner is also reminiscent of Bush v. Gore.  We don't need to count all of the votes, we should just count the ones we have and decide what that means for electors/delegates.

    So basically, she's right that it is reminiscent of Bush v. Gore, but she just doesn't realize that she's making Bush's argument on Obama's behalf.  Something I predict has the capacity to anger a lot of Democrats, some of whom are probably even planning to vote for Obama because most folks are not wildly disposed to one or the other, most Dems like both.


    I read it differently (none / 0) (#34)
    by dwightkschrute on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:45:34 PM EST
    BTD I think all the blogsphere battles and craziness may be effecting how you're reading this. It seemed to me that Christine Pelosi was conflating pledged delegates and popular vote. Her main gist seemed to be that superdelegates, like herself, shouldn't decide it. The whole reference to delegates was written as "[pledged delegate]" meaning this was the author of the article's choice of words. I think most people think total vote and delegate counts go hand in hand and doubt most outside of the political blogsphere realm have even considered the scenario of a candidate having a higher total vote count but not a higher pledged delegate count.

    Sound like you read it (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:50:18 PM EST
    exactly as I did. Pelosi has conflated the popular vote with the pledged delegate count.

    She got it exactly backwards.


    And I Do Not Give Her the Benefit of the Doubt (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:58:54 PM EST
    When someone off the street makes this mistake, it's perfectly understandable.  Nancy Pelosi's daughter?

    And she's not the first person who should know better to do this, I think it's a deliberate attempt by the Obama people to try to delegitimize any win by Clinton.  

    It's basically a threat to split the party if Obama is not the nominee.

    Now, will anyone call them on it?  I, mean of course, other than you, BTD.


    Suggestion: (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:13:37 PM EST
    a march on Denver, led and organized by Stellaa.

    Heck ya... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:24:07 PM EST
    None of this whimsical modern "pink" and playful rioting.  Real old style molotov cocktails and all.  Do you think we can trick the hipsters into throwing the molotovs by telling them they are the new retro cocktail?  

    Hey, maybe you could get some help from (none / 0) (#93)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:34:28 PM EST
    Bill Ayers!

    "Besides Rezko and Giannoulias, Obama could face questions about his relationship with William Ayers, a former member of the radical group the Weather Underground who is now a professor of education at the University of Illinois in Chicago."


    (there's a little Rezko in there for ya, too, darlin')


    Ha. I was just thinking that too, although (none / 0) (#96)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:36:19 PM EST
    he purportedly gave $200 !!! to Obama's campaign at some point.  Talk about rehab though.  What in patient program gets one from the Weathermen to faculty at U of IL, Chicago?

    hey, 200 bucks was a lot of money back then (none / 0) (#102)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:40:52 PM EST
    it'd be like 400 bucks today!  More if it was Canadian!

    This part is more important, I think:

    "Ayers...served with him from 1999 to 2002 on the nine-member board of the Woods Fund, an anti-poverty group."

    For a principled man, he sure do have a lot of shady friends he hangs around with.


    I anticipate Stellaa will report to us (none / 0) (#105)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:42:33 PM EST
    on the nature of the Woods Fund.  Were they really helping poor people in Chicago or enabling slum landlords?  The people deserve to know.

    Don't feed the obsession (none / 0) (#115)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:05:04 PM EST
    Instructed not to encourage trolls, (none / 0) (#117)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:06:55 PM EST
    find the DNC rules interpretation battle rather esoteric, what else to do?  

    I have a new obsession You will like!! (none / 0) (#124)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:16:24 PM EST
    Jake Tapper has been on this issue for a while, then he spins it perfectly for Obama to give him the Clinton is racist. 1.Check this out: From February 16,2007 Obama Clinton Battle for AA Endorsement 2. Bubba: Obama like JJ 3. This guy Tapper has something going against the Clintons,
    His journalism career began full time as a senior writer for the Washington City Paper from 1998 to 1999, where one of his first stories was "I dated Monica Lewinsky" (where he described his actual date with Ms. Lewinsky prior to the Clinton scandal) and then as the Washington correspondent for Salon.com from 1999 to 2002. He has also contributed to GQ, the Weekly Standard, NPR's All Things Considered, The New York Times, and The Washington Post.
    Part of my theory that Obama thought he could do it without Black vote, then realized he could not so he had to destroy the Clinton love. I wish there was a forensic journalist kind of person.

    Yes you can, be a forensic investigative (none / 0) (#126)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:18:43 PM EST
    blog person.  

    Naw... (none / 0) (#129)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:25:24 PM EST
    It needs nit pickers. But was the Tapper thing common knoweldge? read the Feb 2007 article, it lays out all the fights.

    Now I'm thinking we need to enlist (none / 0) (#103)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:40:56 PM EST
    BTD also (w/o a "I tepidly support Obama" sign) as he has worked out how the DNC violated its rules.  This will only help HRC, correct?  

    Maybe yes Maybe no (none / 0) (#123)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:14:31 PM EST
    at this point or at least in this thread the point is wether the DNC was not violating it's own rules by the 100% strip of delegates.

    But see the post just below this one (none / 0) (#125)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:16:56 PM EST
    and the new one.  The brief is written, I think.

    Not so sure (none / 0) (#70)
    by dwightkschrute on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:15:19 PM EST
    The only thing she didn't do was delineate that it's possible there could be different winners of the pledged delegate count (the ones designated by popular vote) and the total popular vote. A scenario I don't think is on most people's radar as likely.

    It seems her message is very simple, and not necessarily an attempt to argue for one candidate or another. As we both agree, she's conflating the pledged delegate count and the popular vote. But she's saying that voters should decide the nominee and not superdelegates. So if Clinton has more pledged delegates and higher popular vote than Obama the superdelegates should get behind her, and vice versa. The Gore reference is an analogy to support that, total vote vs Supreme Court = total vote/delegates vs superdelegates. She doesn't want to see a candidate win the pledged delegates/popular vote but lose the nomination simply because superdelegate totals put the other candidate over the top.


    what's all the fuss? (none / 0) (#68)
    by Me414 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:14:54 PM EST
    I still don't understand why everyone is up in arms about this now? Where was all this anger about Super Delegates BEFORE any of the primary's started?  Why is everyone screaming to change the rules in the middle of the election?

    This may need to be addressed...after this primary election and before the next one in four years. In the meantime, more can be fixed, like not allowing caucuses which keep the majority of voters disenfranchised because they don't have time to spend  standing in lines and being shuffled from  one place to another.

    And as long as we're at it...where's the outrage about the electoral votes in the national election? I hear the same complaints about that every four years, but there is never a movement to change it.

    Honestly, all this craziness and whining about delegates is doing nothing but making Democrats look like fools, while the Republicans are sitting on the sidelines stirring up the anger or laughing at us.

    Um ok (none / 0) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:19:48 PM EST
    what a comment/

    Dynasty (none / 0) (#84)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:26:32 PM EST
    So, for all those opposed to dynastic politics, why does Pelosi's daughter get to talk about this?  

    exactly (none / 0) (#86)
    by tnthorpe on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:27:42 PM EST
    the notion that the popular vote tally however cobbled together out of the very different systems of caucuses and primaries is some genuine window into democracy is ludicrous.

    The issue should be about translating the huge advantage in Dem turnout during the primary season into a GE reality, not in creating teapot tempests over vote counts that weren't what the primary system was designed (using the word loosely) to produce. The system was designed to produce delegate counts.

    As for the superdelegates, they ought to vote as their individual conscience and understanding directs.

    what's different (none / 0) (#107)
    by tnthorpe on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:43:31 PM EST
    is that no state holds caucuses in the GE. Therefore, there's a consistency across the board that makes the popular vote the single applicable standard for allotting the Electoral College tallies. When SCOTUS stopped the Florida recount, they essentially changed the standard in a highly partisan way.

    Since caucuses and primaries differ so much, acting now as if the popular vote is the genuine democratic standard doesn't make any sense. It's simply apples and oranges.


    so, both caucuses and primaries (none / 0) (#145)
    by tnthorpe on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:53:43 PM EST
    generate delegates, that's what I said. In that case, two different systems are geared to produce a result in common terms.

    They don't equally generate the so-called popular vote count that's being bandied about here as if it actually was what the process was designed to produce. This is why you can't use a caucus to generate a  popular vote count with anything like meaning: that's why it's apples and oranges. Pretty obvious I should think.

    As for you basic contention that a caucus is less democratic, I don't share that position. There's nothing absurd about the caucuses, well, nothing any more or less absurd than with the current political state of the nation. You can believe that they disenfranchise, but that's not by any means a demonstration that they actually do so.

    Finally, the real issue is how to mobilize the huge Dem advantage in turnout during the primary seasaon in the actual GE. Telling the voters of Iowa that they're not as democratic as those in California because of caucuses or whatever seems pretty shortsighted.


    why bother (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:47:31 PM EST
    Every comment thread these days seems to be:

    "Logic!  Logic!  Logic!"

    "No...Obama!  Obama!  Obama!"


    I'm neither pro nor anti Obama (none / 0) (#158)
    by tnthorpe on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:48:18 PM EST
    and your assertion that a raw vote count cobbled together from entirely different systems of democratic participation is somehow the gold standard is nonsense.

    You haven't responded to the basic point about getting the huge advantage in primary turnout mobilized in the GE. This is what all you nattering nabobs of negativity need to do, rather than generate wholly fanstastic scenarios based on irrelevant numbers.

    Of course, if you were to actually focus on the challenge of mobilizing turn out, that would mean that you're serious about winning in November. ARE YOU?


    You are clearly confused (none / 0) (#157)
    by tnthorpe on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:42:54 PM EST
    about the difference between caucuses and primaries, that's your intellectual shortcoming not mine.

    Your comment is frankly pretty weak and your point about counting  raw votes from a system not designed to produce them is sheer fantasy.

    You want to count the tally of an election that didn't happen, then when that very basic fact is pointed out you complain and whine about talking points.

    As for obtuseness, look at your own reiteration of a position that has zero merit as if it were some kind of democratic gold standard.
    Wake up.


    Popular vote (none / 0) (#128)
    by mouth of the south on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:23:21 PM EST
    If you are so determined to have the popular vote be the deciding factor for the super delegates, how are you going to count the people who voted for Obama in the caucuses?  Are you just going to leave them out because caucuses don't count in your mind?  They are somehow not democratic?  But it is all right for Clinton to want the Michigan votes for herself even though the other candidates played by the rules and took their names off the ballot.  She didn't play by the rules and left her name on the ballot.  Somehow we are supposed to forget that little bit of information.  She is losing more and more support every day with these tactics.  Sheer desperation brought about by her thinking she was going to wrap it up on Super Tuesday.  I call that being very dumb and does not speak well for her executive abilities and for her judgment.  

    One More Thing (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:32:24 PM EST
    The rules did not require Clinton to remove her name from the ballot.  The only thing the rules required was that none of the candidates campaign in Michigan and Florida and none of them did.

    Clinton was not the only name on the Michigan ballot, all of the candidates were listed except, I believe, Obama and Edwards.

    Obama voluntarily pulled his name from the Michigan ballot and got Edwards to go along and tried to roll Clinton.  It didn't work. That this strategy came back to bite him is not a reason not to count Michigan.  Both campaigns have made strategic decisions that didn't work out for them in particular states, but that doesn't mean the votes in those states shouldn't count.


    We can debate (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:11:22 PM EST
    the meaning of participation, but I don't think it would be very productive.

    Most of the democratic candidates left their names on the Michigan ballot.  So more candidates believed it was permissible to be on the ballot than not to be.  I also don't recall Obama making the argument that he was not allowed to have his name on the ballot at the time, although maybe I missed that. The candidate who left their name on the Michigan ballot also were not denounced by the Obama campaign, the Edwards campaign or the DNC as having violated the DNC rules at the time.  All of the candidates stayed on the Florida ballot.  I have not heard the DNC or anyone denounce Obama or Clinton or anyone else for staying on the Florida ballot.


    Just to be clear (none / 0) (#134)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:34:12 PM EST
    what I'm saying is that Obama's strategic decision, in and of itself, to remove his name from the Michigan ballot is not a reason not to count the votes there.  There is still the larger issue to be debated.

    Just as I don't think the fact that Clinton didn't contest the Idaho caucuses should mean that Obama wouldn't get to count the votes from Idaho.


    You Can Count Caucuses (none / 0) (#131)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:29:39 PM EST
    It's not perfect but you can count them by looking at the percentage of state delegates that a person won.  For example, let's say 100,000 people participate in State X's caucus.  Obama is reported to win the caucus 62% to 36%, then you give Obama 62% of caucus participants, which would be 62,000 votes, and Hillary 36% or 36,000 votes.  Is it perfect?  No, but neither are caucuses.  

    And as imperfect as it is, I'd argue it's a lot more fair than the pledged delegate system which resulted in Clinton getting one more delegate out of Iowa than Edwards (even though Edwards reportedly had a higher total of the "vote") or Obama getting one more delegate over Clinton in Nevada even though I don't think anyone denies, not even the Obama campaign, that Clinton had more "voters" in the Nevada caucuses.


    You know what's most sad about this... (none / 0) (#137)
    by BrandingIron on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:39:48 PM EST
    ...is that all of this talk is about, basically, taking the freedom of choice away from a voter.  

    A super delegate is a voter.  But unlike you and I, their vote holds more power because they're supposed to know more about the party than the average voter; their vote is supposed to be about keeping the party in check/keep the party away from ideological extremists and inexperience (can anyone say Jimmy Carter?).  At the end of the day, all of this bickering about "Super Delegate should go with the voice of the people!" junk is tantamount to coercing any voter who to vote for.  It's not right.

    I think ... (none / 0) (#141)
    by chemoelectric on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:45:32 PM EST
    I think I agree with BT.

    There is an agreed to metric (none / 0) (#152)
    by kid oakland on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:54:49 PM EST
    about who is the popular vote winner in the General Election. However, that total does not determine the  outcome of the election. There is a clear rule laid down by our Constitution. The winner of the Presidency is the winner of the Electoral College Vote.

    There is, however, no agreed to metric for who is the popular vote winner in a national presidential primary. Further, even if there were an agreed to measurement, it would not count. That's not how we decide the nominee of the party.

    The pre agreed rule is that the winner of the party's nomination is the person with the most votes from delegates at the national convention.

    That's how it works.

    If you want to persuade Super Delegates that YOUR measurement of the popular vote is persuasive and clear, BTD, you should do so.

    Absent that, talking vaguely about the "Popular Vote" as if it's something we can all agree on is deceptive.

    Let me put it this way. If we determined the Presidential nomination by popular vote there would be no reason to campaign outside of the largest states with largest numbers of Democrats.

    Hmmm, sound familiar?

    BTD, you are misleading your readers into thinking that the delegate selection system is actually based on the popular vote.  It's not even close. It's not just "like" the electoral college, it's even more broken down and complex.

    When it comes to the nomination process, there are not simply different weights for the numbers of delegates received by different states (Early states get proportinoally fewer, later states get proportionally more. Blue states in the last Presidential Elections get more, Red states in the last Presidential Elections get less) but there are different numbers of delegates awarded to Congressional Districts within states based on incredibly varied and complex rules. (Remember Bill Clinton claiming the Las Vegas strip caucus goers would have a four to one advantage? They didn't, of course, he was stretching the truth to make a point, but they could have been weighted four to one in one highly unlikely scenario that supported the point he was making.)

    The rules are incredibly complex. There is much to disagree with about the entire process. HOWEVER.

    The rules governing delegate allocation were all known ahead of time by all parties involved. They were agreed to. That is crucial.

    Changing the rules at this point in time would be unfair, idiotic, and guarantee a party divided.

    The nominee should be chosen by the leader in pledged delegates after the states and territories have voted per the rules. AT THAT POINT, Supers can take account of their discretion in this matter, the Credentials Committee can start a process of seating Florida and Michigan and we can move forward, per the rules and processes laid out ahead of time, to unify as a party.

    I am confident that we will be unifying around the nomination of Barack Obama on the basis of his performance in the only contest that matters: the contest for pledged delegates by the pre agreed upon rules.

    Actually it has been the Obama backers (none / 0) (#154)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:00:39 PM EST
    who brought up the subject of subverting the majority when they thought that they would loose the SD count.   Also I have not read BTD misleading anyone on this subject he has made it clear that delegates will decide in many comments.

    The Obama campaign has been consistent (none / 0) (#156)
    by kid oakland on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:34:27 PM EST
    The Obama campaign has consistently argued that this is a battle for Pledged Delegates by pre agreed rules.

    They are cognizent of the fact that Super Delegates, since they are unrepresentative and unpledged delegates who are a part of the pre agreed rules, will look for persuasive rationales in casting their vote at the convention and the MOST persuasive rationale is that the nomination should go to the winner of the pledged delegates.

    There ARE rules governing Super Delegates.

    1. they are unpledged and unrepresentative and unbound
    2. they must cast their vote at the convention after the primaries have concluded, in public, seated with their state with everyone else at the convention.

    Those rules could easily be different. (Ie. they could vote in secret and/or BEFORE any voting takes place).

    The vote is public and takes place after the primaries for a reason. It is a free vote subject to political pressure FOLLOWING the states and territories. Super Delegates are morally bound to vote for the good of the party and well they should they are chosen with that in mind. I am highly confident they will go with the winner of the contest for pledged delegates, whatever the margin.