Pelosi: The Voters Do Not Matter

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

Nancy Pelosi argues for thwarting the will of the people:

Political prognosticators give Clinton more of a chance of catching, or even surpassing, Obama in the national popular vote but Pelosi argued that super delegates should follow the pledged-delegate, not the popular-vote, leader.

"But what if one candidate has won the popular vote and the other candidate has won the delegates?" asked Stephanopoulos. "But it's a delegate race," Pelosi replied. "The way the system works is that the delegates choose the nominee."

(Emphasis supplied.) It is a delegate race. Neither candidate will have won enough selected delegates to secure the nomination. The super delegates will decide this nomination. Pelosi argues that considering the will of the people is illegitimate. In my opinion, Nancy Pelosi has declared herself illegitimate as an honest broker in this race. She clearly is an Obama supporter. Everyone knows this. And her arguments go beyond anything I have heard from Obama or any of his surrogates. She has been awful. She is no elder statesman. She is a hack. And not a particularly good one.

< Final California Delegate Numbers Out | Double Standards >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Democrats are not very good (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:57:01 AM EST
    at choosing effective leadership.

    democrats don't have effective (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:17:42 AM EST
    leadership. we need a spine transplant.

    They would (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:41:28 AM EST
    rather be bipartisan... it's the buzzword for this election year.

    it is a continuation of their lack luster (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:57:52 PM EST
    performance in congress since 06 don't you think.

    Democrats fear Success (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by BlueMerlin on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:27:26 PM EST
    Maybe that's why so many of us are unhappy with Bill Clinton.  He actually won two presidential elections.  He actually presided over a prosperous and relatively peaceful time in our country's history.    

    Once again we find ourselves on track to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and I just have to wonder:   What odd small tucked-away part of the Democratic psyche is feeling relieved?


    Absurd (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Grey on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:02:01 AM EST
    And, by the way, also the opposite of what she and others said during the FL fiasco of 2000.

    The will of the voters is expressed by their actual votes and not by a representation of it.  That is a faulty argument, as is the other one she's making about the Superdelegates; they are supposed to make an independent judgment.  You love the rules so much, Nancy?  Well, those are the rules, too.

    one thing this race has taught us (5.00 / 9) (#6)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:03:31 AM EST
    is that dems are every bit as stupid, savage and arrogant as repubs.

    Which, believe it or not, came as a surprise to me.


    Ditto (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by tek on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:10:41 AM EST
    It's so depressing.  It's like there's no where to turn for leadership in this country.

    Pelosi is following the pack.  IMO, The D. C. insiders are behind Obama's run and they're determined to get him as the nominee.  Also very depressing.  Either we'll have another Republican or Obama, whom I do not believe will push a liberal agenda.

    Monaco, anyone?


    Pelosi is NOT following the pack (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:13:00 AM EST
    NO ONE, not even Obama, has said do not follow the popular vote.

    Indeed, the Obama camp rightly argues Obama now leads in the popular vote.

    Pelosi is a hack to be sure, but a lousy one.


    I think more generally... (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:00:08 AM EST
    ...and Stephanopoulos alluded to it at the beginning of This Week, that Pelosi simply thinks her life will be easier with Obama in office.  She knows full well the pledged delegate count isn't gonna change so her comment re: delegates over popular vote assures that Obama is the nominee.

    If that's her take, then why not just say the race is over?  The veneer of objectivity has worn through quite some time ago...


    Kathy, (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:11:39 AM EST
    It came as a surprise to me too. In fact the last 8 years have surprised me. I have been outraged so often I think my output of outrage has been seriously depleted.

    I would love to see Hillary Clinton in the White House. Admittedly somewhat because she's a woman but mostly because I think she is the best candidate.

    If ever I had seriously thought that voting JUST on gender was a smart move Ms. Pelosi has cured me of that for all time. We always knew there were as many female pinheads as there were male pinheads. They just weren't holding important elected office.

    Ms. Pelosi shows that disenfranchising voters isn't just for Republicans of either gender anymore.


    Pelosi is a disappointment (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:25:19 AM EST
    to me in so many ways, not least of all this one.  Wasn't she saying a mere week ago that super d's should hold back endorsements?  And now she gives this, a tacit endorsement.  Surely, the woman has advisors telling her how hostile the environment is out there, and that even innocuous comments are being conflated into warning shots over the bow.

    I dunno, I guess the point of the women's movement was that there would come a time when gender solidarity was unnecessary. My feeling with this current nomination race is that we're at least another 200-300 years away from that.

    I guess that Pelosi is taking it "off the table."


    a bitter disappointment! (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:18:57 AM EST
    pelosi has shown she isn't ready for prime time. what a pathetic excuse for a politican and leader(not).

    What? (none / 0) (#14)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:11:49 AM EST
    Not sure about stupid as, because in the end they have the sense to vote democratic.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

    The best measure we have is the popular vote.


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

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


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

    Please stick to the facts in the future.


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

    Absurd n/t (none / 0) (#134)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:06:17 PM EST
    After The Party Starts To Worry About (none / 0) (#135)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:10:18 PM EST
    disenfranchisement of voters in MI and FL and the loss of their votes in November, I might take this argument under consideration.

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

    What Arrogance (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:08:40 AM EST
    She is not only discounting the voters in favor of the superdelegates, she is at best assuming the voters are too dumb to notice her bias, or worse she doesn't care what they think.

    Legitimacy (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Foxx on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:26:13 AM EST
    For the chair of the convention to make such a biased strong-arm attempt to determine the nomination damages the legitimacy of her candidate. That's what I wrote her.

    Ditto for Dean, Brazile re Florida and Michigan.

    Why are so many of the party "leaders" behind Obama? And so willing to screw Clinton?

    Do they really hate the Clintons? Perhaps think they are outsiders who had no right to the presidency?

    Perhaps they want a weak president they can control?

    But how can they possibly think he is electable? We are looking at another Dukakis. They don't have their ears to the ground.

    The big mistake we are ALL making is to look for leaders. None of these people are going to make any changes unless WE lead. Which means getting off our asses in mass numbers. Sigh. I had other things I wanted to do.


    The biggest reason... (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:33:49 AM EST
    ...they are for Obama?  They claim to be tired of "defending" Clinton, so instead they throw her under the bus and move on because she's just too divisive...

    I keep waiting for the day when Dems quit being such wussies in the face of Republican attacks.  Quit taking it all personally, chalk it up as partisan BS not worthy of a response and get about your business.


    I, for one (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:39:16 AM EST
    am sick of losing.  The thing that has made me most furious in all of this (at least the non-Obama things) is the piece that I forget who wrote to Clinton after she won Florida.  He charged her with being "unseemly" for going to the celebration party in FL for the "beauty contest."

    I dunno, I don't think it's unseemly to win anything.  Are we really that stupid in our liberal wussiness that we would rather trot along the high road than get in the gutter and win?


    Part of what I hate about being a Dem... (none / 0) (#123)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:49:14 AM EST
    ...is the ridiculous guilt complex many of them get in running roughshod over the competition.

    Can't you be for the little guy without being a little guy?


    this is why Kerry (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:54:25 AM EST
    lost so many core dems.  And why Clinton is getting them back.

    We want someone to fight for us.  The repubs are not just going to roll over; if anything, having a dem president will make them fight even harder.  


    what good is a "fighter" (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by JJE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:30:59 PM EST
    who usually loses?

    The problem... (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:09:12 PM EST
    ...is that every time a Dem comes out swinging, s/he ends up with dozens of corner coaches saying they should back down, or don't make us look bad by bloodying them up, or don't sink to their level, etc.

    We are who's been holding us back.

    In a nutshell, I'm for Clinton simply so she can bring back some 'fight' to the Dem party.  


    Wait Until They Have To Start Defending Obama (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:16:04 PM EST
    and try and offset the Republican's theme of Democrats "Hate America." Previews of this film are currently being shown on the media..

    That's (none / 0) (#13)
    by tek on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:11:47 AM EST
    what seems so depressing about the Dems this election.  I don't think they care any more about the people of this country than the neoCons did.

    No (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:19:26 AM EST
    The neocons are in another league. Pelosi doesn't come close to that kind of arrogance. She may think that the little people are stupid, but she is not sending them to their death and laughing about it. Nor is she a torture lover, or warmonger.

    but maybe it fits better here:

    ... one point on which I think every single person, regardless of policy or candidate preference, would agree.
      The nominating process is horribly flawed.

      From that point though we venturte back into dissagreement as to what are the flaws, their relative importance and desirability of various measures to "correct" the flaws.

      Also, we have the reality that it's not simply a matter of dictating "fixes." We have issues of state autonomy both in terms of the "philosophical" desire for states to be free to arrange their affairs as they choose and the "legal" in that state laws which must be enacted by legislatures and approved by governors can and do limit the ability of a party organizations to align with national party proposals.

      Given all of that (and more, really) what would be some of the most desired changes in your minds?

      -- All delegates apportioned proportionally based on popular vote totals in closed primary elections?

       If so, (and if not feel free to offer other suggestions) What about scheduling? in wat order should the states hold primaries? Who should decide that? what should be done about states that due to either state party or legal actions attempt to ignore the established schedule?

       Additionally, what should  be the procedure with regard to delegates being bound to vote for the candidate to which they were allocated by the primary? should they be categorically bound through the first ballot at the convention? Should they be subject to trading/assignment by the candidate to which they are allocated if that candidate drops out and looks to do a litle horse trading? should they become "free agents" if their candidate withdraws? etc.

    My solution is simple (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:17:15 AM EST
    Closed primaries with the order of the primaries to be decided by lot.

    If we stick to proportional allocation of delegates, then the proportionality will be strictly by the statewide vote. And that proportionality should be exact.

    All such delegates must be bound to the candidate they represent through a first ballot.

    No superdelegates.


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:26:56 AM EST
    That solution would mitigate the effects of gerrymandering which has produced some very unbalanced delegate counts.

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:28:56 AM EST
    and, if possible, proportional allocation of delegates should be thrown over the side along with the caucuses.  I see no reason to not go with popular vote myself.

    If we don't have strict proportional (none / 0) (#43)
    by Deconstructionist on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:33:37 AM EST
     allocation what do we have?

      Winner take all? Isn't that the same thing that with the electoral college we argue allows the popular vote to be overridden? Now, there are arguments for favoring that (Primarily, tilting the balance of power more to the small states than sheer numbers of people would dictate, which was part of a compromise in establishing the Union, but should the Party be motivated by the same factors?)


    small state power (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:39:58 AM EST
    I have long been disgusted that small, homogenous states like IA and NH get "first in nation" status, and basically can cut off a viable candidate at the knees.  And, if you watch any footage of caucuses on YouTube, it looks more like a cheer-off than an election.  A national primary day in which every state votes is the best way to find a candidate who will be viable in the ge, as the ge more closely resembles that model.

    They can do their caucuses after the fact, and Pelosi can count their participation since she doesn't seem to have anything better to do.


    Do you not worry (none / 0) (#57)
    by Deconstructionist on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:44:26 AM EST
     that a national primary day would be prone to a "snapshot victor" (for lack of a better term) than a candidate who was evaluated and prevailed through  a lengthy process.

      It would also pretty much necessarily dictate an even more negative nomination campaign because everyone would feel need  to go after everyone else and there would be no incentive to wait and see how things shake out before choosing targets and weapons.


    But the presidency itself (none / 0) (#64)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:47:18 AM EST
    is decided by voting carried out in a single day. I don't see why deciding a primary this way is dangerous.

    It's "dangerous" in several respects (none / 0) (#90)
    by Deconstructionist on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:08:45 AM EST
     if by "dangerous" we mean it lessens our chance to win the GE.

      1) the nomination race is not a 1 on 1 battle from start to finish as is the general. This raises several problems, as i said before it requires everyone to consider attacking everyone else right up to THE DAY where contest decided over time weeds people out before they attack or need to be attacked. Secondly it keeps us more divided organizationally until the day after THE DAY because fewer hopefuls will drop out before a single vote has been cast and their staffs, voulnterrs, advisors AND MONEY will remain in the more diffused state than occurs when people drop out over time and these resources inevitably gravitate to stronger candidates.

      Hugely, though you create the strong possibility of a nominee annointed with far less than a majority and a much harder task to then bring it altogether and prepare for the general-- and that's not even addressing what I mentioned above that the "winner" might well have got the most votes on the THE DAy but in fact be the least likely candidate to attract enough votes from tjhose who supported others.


    You raise some good points (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:19:43 AM EST
    A primary does require some form of multiple voting to weed out the multitude of candidates and reach some sort of consensus.

    This can happen either by having states vote at different times, having delegates vote multiple ballots, having voters themselves vote repeatedly, or some combination thereof.

    Multiple votes by the voters only would be ideal, but probably too unwieldy, so I would agree that some system that staggers the vote over time is still needed, just not the current system.


    One time (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:38:07 AM EST
    One time, one vote.  First, second and third choice.  The candidate with fewest votes allocated to second etc.....

    That's a possibility (none / 0) (#117)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:40:39 AM EST
    I'd have to think about it some more.

    now that's an idea worth discussin seriously (none / 0) (#127)
    by Deconstructionist on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:59:52 AM EST
    I'm not sure by what you mean by "one time." Do you mean each state holds one primary election but different states hold them on different days or do yo mean a National rimary Day. I'd remain opposed to the latter because many of the reasons I've previously listed would still apply.

     The casting of ranked votes for multiple candidates would though significantly reduce the odds of nominating a plurality candidate with no realistic prospect of competing in the general.

      If we counted only #1 votes in the first instance we'd either get a majority winner or we'd could then count the #2 votes. If someone then had a majority of voters selecting them 1st or 2nd we'd be unlikely to have a non-starter. I'm not so sure that would be the case if we had to go to #3s but that might not be likely to occur often.

      On the other hand, that system is not as flexible to account for changed dynamics as is having a nomination election by delegates at the convention and might be less likely to to choose the strongest candidate in years when no one got a majority.

      On balance, i still would prefer the retention of delegates and the requirement of a majority victory among them at the convention but having the allocation strictly reflect the popular vote by district.


    One needs to be careful with this (none / 0) (#154)
    by Andy08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:58:48 PM EST
    because it is very easy to game the system and produce something very far from the will of the people.

    Take a look at this simple description from the
    Americal Mathematical Society:  Is Voting really Fair?

    You can try it yourself, go ahead and vote following this method  here  here

    (click to play; it takes 2 seconds)

    It is complicated....


    I'm sure the mathemiticians (none / 0) (#155)
    by Deconstructionist on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:14:46 PM EST
      actually understand the huge difference in applyingh these methods to intraparty races (such as primaries) as opposed to races that could not possibly exist in which multiple memebers of each party are on the same ballot.

      I get your point, but that site presents  an exceedingly bad example with which to illustrate it.


    Sure (none / 0) (#160)
    by Andy08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:22:52 PM EST
    up to some point. However it reflects the dangers in a complex issue.

    My post was in response to waldenpond above One time one vote " who seemed to suggest a process this article warns about.

    Game theory is a highly sophisticated branch in mathematics. In voting it is not just statistics that enter, you have very complex combinatorics and much much more. add to that political moves like gerrymandering and there is a big headache....

    I was pointing out to the many variables and comlexities of the prolblems.


    I guess i should outline (none / 0) (#120)
    by Deconstructionist on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:42:05 AM EST
    my preference,to the extent it was not implied in my original post.

    1. Closed Primaries

    2. strict numerical proportional allocation of delegates by congreaaional district.

    3. No super-delegates or anything similar.

    4)Scheduled primaries between 2/1 and 5/1, with a group of races every two weeks-- with the order and grouping established by a committee made up of state party leaders and designed to reflect several things, including : 1) Electoral demographics 2) allocation of resources so as not to increase the advantage of the "money" candidates too early in the process 3) Logistics-- make sure all candidates simply have time to visit and campaign in all states if they choose,

    1. All delegates bound by rule to the candidate to whom they were allocated by the primary through the first ballot, regardless of whether that candidate has withdrawn (or died for that matter).

    2. If no candidate receives a first ballot absolute majority, then all delegates become free agents only beholden by choice to the candidate to whom they were allocated on the first ballot.

    what's wrong with assigning (none / 0) (#55)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:43:34 AM EST
    delegates as a percentage of popular vote?  Or just going by the popular vote numbers nationwide?

    Leave out all the gerymandering which makse some votes count more than others and are basically undemocratic, with a small d.

    No wonder Republicans call it the Democrat party since there's only vestiges of democracy in the way candidates are selected.  It's not worthy of being called the Democratic party now.


    I don't think it's wrong. (none / 0) (#62)
    by Deconstructionist on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:45:59 AM EST
      YOU said you wanted to see proportional allocation  "thrown over" along with caucuses. Did you misspeak.

    No, you misunderstood (none / 0) (#96)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:17:22 AM EST
    By proportional, I meant the gerrymandered mess that is in place now.

    do you then mean (none / 0) (#102)
    by Deconstructionist on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:22:41 AM EST
     that you oppose the aspects of this system that make allocation of delegates disproportional to popular vote? That's a fairly major difference from what you said.

    Not really different (none / 0) (#114)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:39:49 AM EST
    The clue is in this sentence.

    I see no reason to not go with popular vote myself.

    What's currently called "proportional allocation" is what makes the delegate count potentially different from the popular vote.  You're right in that the current definition of "proportional" is in fact disproportional.  That's what I would be against.


    It couldn't be much more different (none / 0) (#121)
    by Deconstructionist on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:45:16 AM EST
     than what you said originally which was that you wanted to see proportional distribution "thrown over."

    That would mostly (none / 0) (#33)
    by Deconstructionist on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:23:55 AM EST
     be my preference, but I'm not sure random lot assignment of order would be prudent even if it was possible. What if by random chance we had a close year with an incumbent leaving and the lottery put a large disportion of Red and/or very small states first? Would the fairness arguments (which are debateble themselves) outweight the practical ones?

      I also don't quite get your position on apportionment. Are you suggesting you don't really prefer proportional allocation but want it precise if we do have it or that you would prefer something else? (If so, what?)


    I agree with this (none / 0) (#39)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:29:16 AM EST
    I think this is a more equitable solution.  

    I don't think that proportional by district is terrible.  They are simply trying to get everyone's voice heard.  But does convolute the situation.


    Isn't the point (none / 0) (#42)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:30:49 AM EST
    of delegate allocation in congressional districts to reward dem-skewing districts?

    Sometimes (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:45:41 AM EST
    That was the plan in Texas.

    In Nevada and other states, it was the exact opposite.


    While that may be arguable (none / 0) (#119)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:41:59 AM EST
    even then it's dumb because it leaves you always fighting the last election.  Should strip out all those gerrymandered schemes.

    The problem I see with that... (none / 0) (#40)
    by zzyzx on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:29:55 AM EST
    ...is that it could lead to a candidate with little appeal outside of the Democratic core.  That wouldn't be enough to win an election.  

    It's probably more obvious to see the effect from the outside.  If the Republicans had had a closed primary, it would be between Romney and Thompson, neither of whom would be able to break 40% outside of the south.  

    I like the mixed system because it makes a candidate demonstrate the ability to win over the core voters (closed), win over Independents (open), and figure out how to create a good GotV ground game (caucuses), all of which are important in November.


    On the other hand (none / 0) (#46)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:36:01 AM EST
    as it stands, we will likely end up with a candidate that wasn't voted for by the majority of the Democratic core.....

    Also, GOTV is just as much for primaries as for caucuses.  


    A closed primary (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:38:58 AM EST
    I think your objection is illogical.

    Oops (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:45:00 AM EST
    My comment is illogical.

    But I reject your concern.

    IF the will of the people matters, then accept it.

    IF it does not, then do not hold primaries at all.

    Let the party elders choose.


    Heh, ignore my comment below then. (none / 0) (#70)
    by zzyzx on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:53:59 AM EST
    I think we've all been thinking a lot about the nomination process this year and coming up with our theories about it...

    The one thing that I really like about the convolutedness of our system is that it tests the candidates.  The job of being President isn't easy.  Sure, we want someone who agrees with us, but we also want to know that they'll nominate intelligent people and have the ability to handle complex situations; Bush's real problem isn't that he's a conservative (although that doesn't help), it's that he's an incompetent conservative who couldn't manage a Pizza Hut.

    The primaries aren't just a way of choosing a candidate; it's a way of publicly testing them.  Give them a somewhat convoluted system with many different tasks to manage and see how they do.  Sometimes you can learn something about a candidate by how they handle the process.


    The convolutedness (none / 0) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:55:20 AM EST
    is a virtue? Ummm, no.

    illogical how? (none / 0) (#60)
    by zzyzx on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:45:26 AM EST
    I explained my logic.  Where does it go wrong?

    For that matter, I like the Superdelegates too, but in a role as an emergency stop cord.  If, say, Rezko completely blows up in July and Obama is polling at 10%, it's good to have a mechanism to say, "Yes, we voted for this person but now everyone wishes they could have their vote back."   It would be used exceedingly rarely in my world, but it's a useful tool to have.


    I corrected myself (none / 0) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:54:35 AM EST
    IT is logical. But wrong.

    Dem voters worry about (none / 0) (#54)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:42:21 AM EST
    how to appeal to Independents.  I do think they look at electability. So closed primaries wouldn't just result in the person who appeals most to the base itself.

    You need Superdelegates (none / 0) (#80)
    by ding7777 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:00:53 AM EST
    for flexibilty...

    What if a leading candidate's "unelectable behavior" (think Spitzer or Gary Hart for example)is revealed only after all the primaries?


    that sure makes sense, hence the (none / 0) (#103)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:23:24 AM EST
    democratic "leadership" won't do it. since they don't make sense. they don't represent us anymore but think about what their big donors want.

    Regional primaries in rotating blocs? (none / 0) (#115)
    by zyx on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:40:31 AM EST
    John Dean suggests something like that.  It would simplify campaigning.  What do you think of that?

    I see disadvantages, but I do see advantages, too.


    Regional primaries (none / 0) (#124)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:53:24 AM EST
    work strongly in the more seasoned candidates' favor.  Obama has shown when he has to concentrate on large states or a series of large states rather than a couple at a time, he can't do it.

    I favor "grouped " primaries (none / 0) (#148)
    by Deconstructionist on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:41:21 PM EST
     scheduled over a 3-4 month period, but not with the grouping based on regions. That would magnify many of the problems because if it's a flaw to have a states influence distorted by placement, the problem is worst if we distort by a "region."

      Who benefits when the region going first is dominated by Republican leaning states. who nenefits if the region going first is NE or the Deep south.

      Group them, but have each group incluude states selected for, among other reasons, the fact they reflect some soert of demographic balance.


    Leadership Void (5.00 / 6) (#18)
    by jere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:13:00 AM EST
    Nancy Pelosi is one of many reasons the Dems will likely lose the GE.  Many like me will leave the party.  Others will not vote.  This election has been a disaster due in part to the lack of strong leadership in the party.  They has squandered the huge opportunities they had to draw a line in the sand and make a statement about fighting for Democratic values after the 2006 elections.  Instead, the Democratic hand wringing over trying not to divide the party has, well, helped to divide the party.  Nice work Nancy!  

    I Have Already (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by AmyinSC on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:34:31 AM EST
    Ripped off a letter to her on this very topic - her disastrous leadership beginning with tabling impeachment for a president who could NOT deserve it more, and then this, along with other things.  So, agreed to Tere and Kathy.  And I told the DSCC guy who called me the other night that I will NOT give money to an organization that funds people like Pelosi, Jesse Jackson, Jr., and John Lewis.  No way, no how - stop calling me.

    I might add, if she is so all-fire determined to have the supers go the way of the delegates, why hasn't she endorsed Clinton?  Why haevn't Senators Kennedy and Kerry, along with Gov. Patrick, endorsed Clinton??  Just wondering...


    How (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by sas on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:45:19 AM EST
    did you send her a letter?  I"d like to do the same.

    Also, she said the party would come together in November.  What planet is she living on?  I don't see that happening at all, unless the ticket contains both candidates.  Maybe she's saying that because it is the line of a standard bearer, but this party is not coming together.

    Supporters of these two candidates can't even have lunch together.

    Here in PA I've had to argue with people to just sit out the election in November, rather than vote for McCain.  

    It is going to be ugly.  It is personal, and people are not going to get over it.


    Here's the Link... (none / 0) (#66)
    by AmyinSC on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:49:22 AM EST

    The letter I sent is at the Hot Topics Section of TaylorMarsh.com, under Pelosi and the Superdelegates by RevAmy, if you're interested...


    I emailed her (none / 0) (#67)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:49:52 AM EST
    through the Speaker's website (since she is my Speaker, but not my Representative).  Just google Speaker Pelosi and you'll get there.  

    However, the email was returned.  I don't know why, but I'll try again later.


    Thanks! (none / 0) (#78)
    by AmyinSC on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:56:15 AM EST
    I emailed her there just now, as well.  The link is: http://www.speaker.gov/contact/

    You need to (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:06:46 AM EST
    use the "chain" button to insert a link.

    Then after the link is in your comment section ... insert some words between ">< at the end... it took me some time to learn how to link!!



    Sorry... (none / 0) (#116)
    by AmyinSC on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:40:33 AM EST
    And thanks!  Still kinda new to all of this...

    Suits their own choice (none / 0) (#48)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:39:39 AM EST
    the standards apply to whichever candidate they have not publicly declared for.  Some will pick their district, their state, the nation for their criteria.  If none of those fit, they could come up with a demographic that would be better represented by one candidate or another.  Their choice tells how they will vote at the convention.

    I Understand... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by AmyinSC on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:46:25 AM EST
    That that is how it is SUPPOSED to work, but that is not how Pelosi is trying to frame it.  As BTD has said, she has gone even further than Obama (who knew THAT was possible???).

    And as we all know from the machinations of Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. with Black Caucus members, for example, it doesn't matter if one has made a PUBLIC proclamation - they will still try to get them to switch...


    I agree (4.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:16:40 AM EST
    and I say that as a dem who is seriously considering declaring independent and sitting out the next election in protest.  I have sent back all the DNC solicitations that have been littering my mailbox and told the eager college students asking for money for the dem party to get off my doorstep unless they want to be shot.  Pelosi just puts another nail in the coffin with this statement.

    it's the new rulez (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:21:17 AM EST
    Making arguments that super delegates are bound by some arbitrary set of rules.

    It is evidence that Obama transcends traditional politics by creating transcendent rules.

    The most troubling (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Andy08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:22:21 AM EST
    aspect of this is that she is not just another surrogate. As Speaker of the House she is (automatically) the permanent Chair of the Convention in August. It was her duty as such to remain neutral in fact and in "appearance".
    She can no longer be the Chair of the Convention; it would be a travesti given her comments.
    I think it is important that she gets the message that she has croosed the line. I have emailed her
    (as Speaker of the House; linked above) expressing
    my contempt.

    Send an email to Pelosi (none / 0) (#149)
    by Andy08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:41:39 PM EST


    She needs to know the travesty of her comments to the democratic process.

    She will chair the national convention,no less....


    So what does Harry Reid say (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:26:22 AM EST
    about all of this ;-)?

    How big of a hack is he?

    Yep, the Democratic establishment will get their candidate.  Fine with me, except I really wish they wouldn't spend my taxpayer dollars on primaries, then.


    For me (none / 0) (#65)
    by Step Beyond on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:48:17 AM EST
    Reid's hack status was cemented when he signed the cover letter urging candidates to sign the 4-state pledge.

    Pelosi's argument is incoherent (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by frankly0 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:41:57 AM EST
    The argument Pelosi is suggesting is actually incoherent.

    If the rules, or the spirit of the rules, could only be respected only if the superdelegates were to vote according to the pledged delegate count, there would be no need of superdelegates. The entire point of superdelegates as a class is to override, if necessary, the pledged delegate count. There can be no other justification for introducing them as a class.

    In short, the very existence of superdelegates by itself refutes Pelosi's argument.

    Exactly ! (none / 0) (#150)
    by Andy08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:42:54 PM EST
    Is there a difference between a "hack" (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:55:51 AM EST
    and a "pol"?

    A hack (none / 0) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:05:48 AM EST
    is a totally obvious pol.

    The polls (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Foxx on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:07:02 AM EST
    If one candidate or the other has the momentum and a significant lead in the polls that will/should be the deciding factor. Hillary's problem right now is that she doesn't have that.

    She needs to win not only PA but some other states.

    The popular vote is problematic because there are so many different ways to calculate it. But if one candidate has an obvious lead in the popular vote that also will/should be the deciding factor.

    None of which has anything to do with who will beat McCain (Hillary, given allthe Obama scandals) or be the better president (Hillary hands down). How I wish that is how they would make their decision,.

    Let's be clear (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:17:42 AM EST
    Obama is the likely nominee.

    But how about letting the voters vote?


    MI and FL (none / 0) (#91)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:11:04 AM EST
    The irony ... the irony ... (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:00:13 PM EST
    Pelosi heads the body of congress which is supposed to represent the will of the people.

    Sending the highest ranking woman (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:01:29 PM EST
    Supporting Obama to argue why and how Hillary should NOT get the nomination. Anyone else think this is not just a coincidence? So will she be the point person for this from now to the convention?

    Hack (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Demi Moaned on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:35:21 PM EST
    I'm from San Francisco, and I've been saying that for years. She's a machine politician of the old stripe from a machine-controlled city. Her entree to elected office was totally back-room.

    BTD Opines (1.00 / 0) (#141)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:17:33 PM EST
    She is no elder statesman. She is a hack. And not a particularly good one.

    Wow. What was your first clue and why has it taken 14 months for you to see it?

    What You Call The "Popular Vote" Is Not (1.00 / 1) (#142)
    by AdrianLesher on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:23:52 PM EST
    Unless I am mistaken. Isn't it true what you call the popular vote is only the popular vote in the primary states, with no extrapolation of the popular vote in the caucus states?

    I would personally leave (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:57:25 AM EST
    Dowdian psychoanalysis out of this.

    I deleted Angel's comment (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:58:11 AM EST
    It was sexist.

    A large factor that reduces (none / 0) (#7)
    by mikecan1978 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:04:35 AM EST
    the influence of the popular vote is that the caucus states don't contribute to the popular vote and yet they do contribute to the delegate total....to just judge by popular vote alone is to discount that caucus states also have voters that picked one candiate or another.   Obama has many more caucus states.....if those caucused had been primaries, Obama's lead would be easily over a million voters.

    where do you get that number? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:07:22 AM EST
    Because, TX and WA both had caucuses and primaries.  Maybe you should look at those numbers before you make your assertion again.

    This is incorrect (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:08:21 AM EST
    Saying so doesn't make it so (none / 0) (#41)
    by mikecan1978 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:30:30 AM EST
    How, those causus delegates represent a portion of the electorite......they'll be part of the popular vote in November.  The million numebr was a low estimate by me.

    this has beeen shown (none / 0) (#132)
    by SarahinCA on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:02:39 PM EST
    to be false.  BTD wrote this up and did the math.  In fact, Clinton's deficit would be reduced significantly were the caucus states actually primary states,

    Precisely (none / 0) (#137)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:11:59 PM EST
    Saying it does not make it so.

    I have done the math.

    I KNOW you are wrong.

    My readers know it too.

    I point out tho them that your claim is incorrect. They know why. You have nothing to back your claim. I have written the basis of my view. My readers are familiar with it. No need for me to repeat myself here.


    If those states had been primaries instead of (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by plf1953 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:00:43 PM EST
    caucuses, Obama would have far fewer delegates as the popular vote margin would have been much closer than the causcus vote margin.

    In fact, its quite conceivable that the popular vote margin would have gone to Hillary as it did in TX.

    Hillary could easily be ahead in both delegates and popular votes if this were the case.

    Your logic is quite faulty.


    While I don't thes (none / 0) (#12)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:11:19 AM EST
    sorts of arguments matter whatsoever to the SDs, I have no idea why you think Pelosi would say anything else.

    She is a senior leader of the Democratic Party.  If she were to suggest that popular vote is more important the delegates should be implicitly admitting that the Democratic primary process was flawed and unfair.  

    She may be in the bag for Obama, I don't know.  But this comment does not show that that to be necessarily true.

    But tit does (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Grey on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:13:48 AM EST
    Because the rules also say that superdelegates are supposed to exercise independent judgment, so there is absolutely no reason for Speaker Pelosi to say that they must go with the elected delegate "leader."

    That was such an unfortunate typo...so sorry! n/t (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Grey on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:14:19 AM EST
    Freudian Slip Maybe???? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:20:32 AM EST
    Unfortunate maybe, but funny as all get out though.

    unfortunate, but funny (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:21:16 AM EST
    I wonder, if by some crazy chance Clinton gets the delegate lead, will they be making this same argument, or will it suddenly be all about the popular vote lead (or whatever Obama has at the time).

    Because anyone who has been paying attention has seen the goalpost pretty much dancing around with each new election day.

    I remember George Snuffaluffagus saying before Super Tuesday that Obama had to win some big states to stay in the race.  He only won IL, his home state.  The next day, George was talking about how exciting it was that Obama was challenging Clinton head on.


    I laughed so much (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:40:06 AM EST
    my husband had to come in to see what was so funny. Brought tears to my eyes from laughing!!

    Coffee... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:42:12 AM EST
    It was funny.  I choked a little.

    Sure there's a reason (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:17:53 AM EST
    Because she supports Obama.

    She should (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Andy08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:48:47 PM EST
    say nothing. That is her duty.
    What she said was totally irresponsible and
    a well known talking point/argument Obama has been

    Whether she agrees with it or not she had to remain neutral, she is not another Representative....

    She had the obligation and duty as chair of the convention (being speaker)
    not to say anything at all that could be even perceived as favoring one candidate over the other one.


    jeez (none / 0) (#15)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:12:01 AM EST
    It's early for me.  That should read "While I don't think these sorts of arguments"

    I am not surprised by your comment (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:14:48 AM EST
    IT is a pattern with you. But I ask you this - find me ANYONE ELSE, anyone, who has said what Pelosi said. No one has. Not even Obama.

    This is the same as her statements that Clinton and Obama can never run together.

    As I said, I have come to expect this from you.


    That's nice (none / 0) (#31)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:22:14 AM EST
    I'm glad you've come to expect these sorts of comments from.

    You want me to find other politicians who have said that the SDs should vote for whomever has the delegate lead?  Really?  


    I did fiind them (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:39:54 AM EST
    Sherrod Brown.

    See my previous post on the subject.


    I did not read your quote of Brown (none / 0) (#147)
    by Deconstructionist on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:31:21 PM EST
     at all to mean that.

     It seemed to me he listed several factors only one of which was popular vote and basically what he said would be fairly read to mean that he'll vote for whomever he decides  when he decides.


    Just as sexist Angel (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:18:11 AM EST
    You go write that somewhere else. Not here.

    Comment deleted.

    I apologize. I guess I'm just not getting it (none / 0) (#34)
    by Angel on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:24:08 AM EST
    this morning.  

    Pelosi's is (none / 0) (#44)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:33:55 AM EST
    the weakest argument on how supers should vote of the lot. Superdelegates should be deciding based on the best interests of the party.

    Many factors come into play in considering what's in the best interests of the party, including, popular vote, which states were won and lost, electability, etc, but I can't see how delegate count would ever trump popular vote in such considerations, or why it should even be high on the list.

    Delegate count is a based on popular vote and is a poor approximation of it, given the arcane and arbitrary rules used to derive the delegate count from the popular vote. And even if delegate count were a closer approximation than it is, there's nothing about delegate count that makes it a better indicator of electability in a given state than popular vote.

    of the popular vote, then the delegate leader would necessarily be the popular vote leader.

    Since it is not the case, then the pledged delegate leader is not the last word on the will of the people.


    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:49:59 AM EST
    Delegate count is never more than an approximation of the popular vote. Under current rules, it's a poor approximation. But even if it were a very good approximation, it would never be a BETTER indicator of popular will than the popular vote.

    Yep (none / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:53:57 AM EST
    Some of you are losing me. (none / 0) (#74)
    by Deconstructionist on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:55:09 AM EST
      are people suggesting we do away with delegates altogether and simply award the nmination to whoever receives a plurality of votes nationwide?

      Aside from the extreme unlikelihood, of that occurring how does that work in a year when no candidate receives a majority?

      If A ends up "winning" a 5 person race with 28% of the vote, does A get the nomination even if half  the other voters (36%) despise him to such an extent we are doomed to the greatest landslide loss in history?



    I would be for that myself (none / 0) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:06:49 AM EST
    but, you would not be in favor of that (none / 0) (#95)
    by Deconstructionist on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:12:58 AM EST
     and the NAtional Primary Day others have advocated, would you?

    No (none / 0) (#99)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:18:26 AM EST
    I oppose a national primary day.

    OK, (none / 0) (#107)
    by Deconstructionist on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:29:18 AM EST
      that's more sensible then, and while I do not forsee the "big shots" doing away with a perk (being a delegate whose existence matters to who wins at least to some extent) they dominate in obtaining it obviates SOME of my concerns.

      You still though have the possibility of the "winner" being a person who received far less than a majority of Primary votes cast and being the person least likely to receive the highest proportion  of possible votes on election day.

     I'm usually the "purist" here but I'm not convinced that a system which while the "most democratic" would raise a huge possibility of eliminating the chances of actually winning elections.


    The same way... (none / 0) (#89)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:08:27 AM EST
    If no candidate gets a majority, the winner goes the same way as the Presidential race - to the plurality.

    I don't see your point.


    To elaborate a bit more (none / 0) (#75)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:55:12 AM EST
    my point is I can't think of any situation where delegate count should trump popular vote count as a factor in a superdelegate deciding how to vote.

    The argument that the winner is determined by a majority of delegates so the superdelegates should decide based on delegate count means that the existence of superdelegates is entirely superfluous.


    Of course (none / 0) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:06:32 AM EST
    Delegates... (none / 0) (#111)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:37:18 AM EST
    ...are nothing more than a proxy for popular vote.

    It's like saying you'll measure the richest man by the size of his house instead of his bank account.


    I think you mean (none / 0) (#133)
    by Deconstructionist on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:03:11 PM EST
    "should be" not "are."

    Figure Of Speech (none / 0) (#72)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:54:47 AM EST
    Is about all she amounts to.
    Superdelegates should be deciding based on the best interests of the party.

    But as far as Pelosi is concerned, sheis the party in a metonymic sort of way.


    Best Interest (none / 0) (#81)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:02:14 AM EST
    Pelosi has decided it is in the best interests of the party to have Obama.  She's just starting her argument now instead of at the convention.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:06:45 AM EST
    But she should be honest about it, i.e. she should be making an argument for why it's in the best interests of the party to pick Obama.

    Of course that would expose her has an Obama partisan. So rather than do that she is dishonestly supporting him via a spurious 'delegate count' argument.


    There is something fundamentally flawed in the (none / 0) (#73)
    by Salt on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:55:00 AM EST
    Rhetoric of Dem Leadership and it feels arrogant and reckless and uniformed or they are working some math that we cant grasp.  They seem to believe that they will dictate the nominee and that regardless of the wishes of those who participated in the Primary with a nod and a wink, thinking I guess that we chicks will just follow the nose ring, that thinking is inaccurate at best.  I also believe it's now too late now, the Party seems to have crossed a line with their careless mindlessness and have offended, what must they have been thinking that they would just shout the Country down by calling them names.  That saying about Dems and shooting the foot is understated; a loaded semi automatic assault weapon aimed and released severing both feet while draining the entire body of blood is more descriptive.  

    I'm out here scratching my head today saying did the DNC, Pelosi, Dem Party Leaders want to lose in Nov throw the race is that their agenda, is the country going to hit such bad times they don't want to have ownership for the hard work that going to be required to turn the country, like the political strategy on Iraq, true there is no glory in that no Party gain. Could this be what's happening because that's the only winning Dem outcome I can see now?

    Hubris on their part is amazing (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:33:28 AM EST
    The Democrats were elected in '06 based on the campaign promises that they would try to stop the endless war in Iraq and achieve some change in the direction of the country.  Have they done that?  NO!

    I would argue that they haven't made a hard honest effort, other than some floor rhetoric.  It wasn't necessary to pass legislation cutting off funding to stop the war.  All they had to do was not pass continued funding or pass funding at a lower level.  Couldn't even do that.  They are worthless and undeserving of further support.

    Now they seem to think that women absolutely have to vote for them.  Why?  What's the gain in continuing them in power?  I would argue not enough.


    And many women will agree (none / 0) (#163)
    by Salt on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:58:34 PM EST
    Pelosi - 2 Worthless facts (none / 0) (#88)
    by seabos84 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:08:19 AM EST
    I should say --

    2 sets of facts that prove her worthlessness --

    2. I started getting sick of her since 'impeachment is off the table' and I've seen so little since then, that, she has become worthless and analysizing her has become worthless and


    1. her delegate arguement is great for beltway elitists - I honestly htink she'd be singing the same tune for hillary?  she is so wrapped up with the sold out conventional wisdom of DFH's ruining the world, anything that doesn't support the Imperium is bad.

    a plague on her house.


    She showed her hand big time (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:12:33 AM EST
    with her comments about the Iraq war protestors camped on the sidewalk in front of her house.  A distraction, she sd.

    kathy, (none / 0) (#110)
    by cpinva on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:35:32 AM EST
    the big difference between the repub's nasty, savage, etc, and the dem's is that the dem's manage to be far more self-destructive in the process.

    plurality vote: if "A" only receives 28% of the vote, and five others share the remaining 72%, it is posited that "A" is so disliked he/she shouldn't be the nominee. i disagree. what it shows is that "A", of all the candidates, received the largest single # of votes, and candidates "B" through "F" weren't liked enough to get them. "A" logically gets the nomination.

    Obama is the likely nominee.

    do you play poker by chance BTD? poppa needs a new pair of shoes! hehe

    It's true (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:47:25 AM EST
    one need only stroll through the blogs to see how destructive some elements have been.  Dem on dem violence at its worst.

    The irony ... the irony ... (none / 0) (#126)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:59:47 AM EST
    Pelosi heads the body of congress which is supposed to represent the will of the people.

    I think she might be classified ... (none / 0) (#162)
    by chemoelectric on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:01:24 PM EST
    ... as a fraudulent adviser. Which means she is destined to be encased in flames in the Eighth Circle of the Inferno.

    She’d better bring some lotion or something.