home

Endorsing The Tweety Solution For MI/FL

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:00:11 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

On Hardball, Tweety Matthews came up with this novel solution for Michigan and Florida:

Both candidates agree to full revotes in Michigan and Florida and both candidates agree that the winner of the national popular vote will be the nominee of the Democratic Party.

I second that motion Chris. Tweety thinks Hillary would turn that down. He is so wrong. She would take it in a heartbeat. OBAMA will say no no no to that one Tweety.

< If The Dem Race Goes To The Convention, It Will Be Obama's Doing | SUSA Polls on Electability >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Endorsing The Tweety Solution For MI/FL | 160 comments (160 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    That suggestion (5.00 / 16) (#1)
    by cloudy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:03:14 PM EST
    actually sent a shiver up my leg!

    I wish I'd been sitting on a towel when (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:26:09 PM EST
    I read that.  Holy crap, talk about a total disconnect--unless, could it be...has Tweety turned into a Clinton supporter?  Otherwise, what a freakin' idiot.  I'm sure Obama won't answer the bat phone after the show tonight to tell Chrissy what a wonderful job he's doing.

    This would be a pot o' gold for Clinton.

    [ Parent ]

    It was his way (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:09:57 PM EST
    He thinks Obama should give her the option as a way to shut her up.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama doesn't hand out the options (none / 0) (#155)
    by Friday on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:49:51 PM EST
    or make the rules. He's running in the same race and agreed to the same rules as Hillary.

    It's just that Hillary is 200 delegates behind and won't be able to get the nomination without a couple of massive wins in late-stage do-overs.

    [ Parent ]

    142 delegates...actually (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:07:46 PM EST
    according to the CNN count.
    "Wit has truth in it; wisecracking is simply calisthenics with words." Dorothy Parker
    [ Parent ]
    A lead of 171 in pledged (none / 0) (#179)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:11:47 PM EST
    delegates according to the site you link to....I was surprised it was so high.....It was a lead of 159 in pledged delegates before Ohio and Texas....Obama has gained ground....

    Your number takes into account the Super Delegates...

    [ Parent ]

    No (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by echinopsia on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:11:29 AM EST
    She could take it to the convention and win on superds. Just like Obama will have to do, no matter how many delegates they get between now and then.

    [ Parent ]
    Perhaps dancing with Ellen (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:46:23 PM EST
    made Tweety realize that we need a woman president?

    Or, alternatively, Tweety is so sure that everyone hates Hillary as much as he does that he thinks there's no way she'll win the popular vote.

    Or, alternatively, he mixed up popular vote and delegate count. You know, like McCain mixed up Al Qaeda and Iraqi extremists.

    [ Parent ]

    Better put an ice-pack on it (none / 0) (#135)
    by Gabriele Droz on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:45:33 PM EST
    Quick.

    [ Parent ]
    Al Gore (none / 0) (#150)
    by diogenes on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:34:04 PM EST
    What we really need is for the superdelegates to pick the real dream team, Gore-Obama.  Gore has fewer negatives than Hillary, and Obama's black supporters will be less angry at ticket than if he is coerced into Hillary-Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    You're kidding me (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by Friday on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:51:26 PM EST
    Obama's black supporters will be less angry

    Tell me you're kidding me.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't understand (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by standingup on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:33:26 AM EST
    and am getting rather tired of the theory that the party should be more concerned with angering Obama's supporters.  Are Hillary's supporters less important to the party?

    [ Parent ]
    Your dream... (none / 0) (#168)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:42:18 AM EST
    my nightmare.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama has been the one to frame the pledged (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by tandem5 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:05:15 PM EST
    delegate count as "the will." If anybody is against the national popular vote metric its Obama.

    agreed (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by heineken1717 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:11:08 PM EST
    Obama loves that Hillary won New Hampshire, Nevada, and Texas, but didn't win the delegates. Obama loves that his Idaho win cancelled out Hillary's New Jersey win. The delegates go against the will of the people, which is perfect for him since his bubble has burst and his campaign is crashing down.

    [ Parent ]
    And winning Idaho in November (none / 0) (#141)
    by shoephone on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:58:07 PM EST
    is such a shoo-in for the Democrats.

    NOT.

    [ Parent ]

    Look at the numbers... (none / 0) (#175)
    by ROK on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:31:42 AM EST
    With FL and MI as is, he is still winning the popular vote.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't see how that fact impacts (none / 0) (#181)
    by tandem5 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:25:10 PM EST
    the truth of my original comment.

    [ Parent ]
    Really? (none / 0) (#182)
    by ROK on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:18:13 PM EST
    Obama might be framing the del count as the "will", but when he's winning the popular vote as well (and probably will hold it) it simply does not matter how he's framing it.

    So, he has the popular vote and delegate count. What does Hillary have that gives her the right to claim that she has that "will"?

    [ Parent ]

    but again I don't understand how that impacts my (none / 0) (#183)
    by tandem5 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:47:39 PM EST
    original comment - especially now that you admit the possibility that it is true that he "might be framing the del count as the 'will'."

    It does matter how he is framing it when it comes to the context of the topic of the larger thread which is that Chris Matthews assumed that Clinton and not Obama would be opposed to solely considering the popular vote total in determining the nomination. It may be ultimately irrelevant, as you point out, in the end, but it doesn't change the inherent strategies that each candidate has taken in proving their claim to the nomination and my point of contention was simply that Matthews essentially assigned the wrong strategy to the wrong candidate.

    [ Parent ]

    Why did he question if Hillary would take it? (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by TalkRight on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:06:59 PM EST
    but never questioned if Obama would have the guts to take it...

    Because He Doesn't Know What He's Talking About (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by BDB on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:14:50 PM EST
    Tweety is an idiot.  This is a good idea, but he's only proposing it because he has no idea of what is actually going on in the campaign or the world generally.  

    [ Parent ]
    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:18:52 PM EST
    Which is why if I was the Clinton campaign I would shame him with it.

    [ Parent ]
    It's just so ridiculous (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by dk on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:30:34 PM EST
    because that was always the Obama strategy because it mirrors what Axelrod did for Deval in Massachusetts.  He worked the state Democratic convention delegates to endorse Deval Patrick before the primary as a way to give him more credibility against the state attorney general, who was, at first, the establishment candidate.

    This whole delegate game and being too clever by half with the rules, that is how Axelrod plays.  Now, on the one hand I guess I can't condemn him for it, because pretty much that's just politics.  But when you see the media being so clueless (or willfully blind, as long as the alternative is Hillary), it boggles the mind.

    [ Parent ]

    Because Tweety (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:28:09 PM EST
    suffers from a terminal case of Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

    [ Parent ]
    Because his audience would freak (none / 0) (#133)
    by catfish on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:34:42 PM EST
    this was his way of siding up to making the case for Hillary before his audience was ready for it.

    [ Parent ]
    How accurate are the estimates (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Manuel on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:07:05 PM EST
    for caucus states where the total isn't available?  And what would you use for WA?  What is the margin of error in the PV calculation?
    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:08:25 PM EST
    We do not need estimates. The actual votes are available in Iowa and Nevada and Washington primary.

    Maine is the only open issue, but the Maine Dem Party says it knows how many people voted so they should have the votes too.

    [ Parent ]

    RCP (none / 0) (#20)
    by Manuel on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:21:02 PM EST
    It would be nice if RCP had figures with the WA Primary.

    [ Parent ]
    They accept that their nuimber is (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:24:44 PM EST
    overstated by 50k.

    [ Parent ]
    This is the main concern with the popular vote but (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by tandem5 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:27:03 PM EST
    one can certainly make a very educated estimate with Caucuses included.

    It has always been by contention that if there is a difference in outcome between the popular vote and the pledged delegate count - that's when super delegate discretion should truly be utilized. I can't think of a more valid reason for super delegates to stop and evaluate the big picture.

    Of course if I could overhaul the whole selection process I would have all the states hold their elections on the same day and use the overall popular vote as the deciding factor (no delegates) - How anti-republic of me.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama won the WA primary too. n/t (none / 0) (#142)
    by shoephone on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:00:23 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Barely over 50%. (none / 0) (#170)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:54:54 AM EST
    Nowhere's near the ratio at the caucuses...which have yet to play out, delegatewise.

    [ Parent ]
    I would accept that (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:08:13 PM EST
    and agree with BTD's analysis.

    Me too n/t (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Coldblue on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:10:22 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I would too (5.00 / 6) (#45)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:49:27 PM EST
    Olbermann is on TV right now complaining about how Clinton is still trying to get a re-vote in MI "just to make Obama look bad."

    Yeah, Keith, and your point is?

    Olbermann covers the DKos writers' strike next.

    [ Parent ]

    I no longer subject myself to Olbermann (5.00 / 6) (#46)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:51:22 PM EST
    And I've given up tilting at windmills on dkos, though I'm not on any kind of strike.

    Markos's pronouncement that the diaries there are now as good as he's ever seen. . . wow. NO COMMENT.

    [ Parent ]

    I haven't been tilting (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by Lahdee on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:59:51 PM EST
    windmills over a orange, but I have stopped going over for everything except the community stuff and even then there's a measure of dailyobama.

    Yep, and Olbermann is starting to concern me. Just exactly what about "Politics" pisses you off Keith?

    [ Parent ]

    Check out Alexa (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Gabriele Droz on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:49:51 PM EST
    http://alexa.com

    and do a search on Daily Kos, to see where this is going.

    [ Parent ]

    interesting (none / 0) (#147)
    by white n az on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:17:10 PM EST
    seems to be tracking Obama numbers and the economy...

    [ Parent ]
    I watch Olbermann only occasionally now (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:01:07 PM EST
    I was hoping to hear something on McCain, and he did cover McCain's continued -- and possibly deliberate, rather than demented -- conflation of Al Qaeda and "other extremists" being trained by Iran to go into Iraq.

    I didn't pay attention to most of the rest of it.

    [ Parent ]

    Wow, I missed the reference to kos (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:02:47 PM EST
    He actually said the diaries at Orange are as good as they've ever been?  Wow, they must have gotten a whole lot better in the last four weeks, because last time I tried to get passed the titles on the rec list, I became nauseated.

    [ Parent ]
    Kos being, ahem. . . (5.00 / 5) (#61)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:04:32 PM EST
    here

    this last week has been the most consistently good the diaries have been on the site, perhaps ever. I don't say that lightly. In fact, I've never said that before. It's been positively incredible and, to be honest, humbling for me that so many incredible writers and thinkers have decided to share their wit and wisdom with this community.



    [ Parent ]
    Is that a not so (5.00 / 6) (#75)
    by leis on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:23:24 PM EST
    subtle slam against Alegre? And people really think anybody NOT in the tank for Obama is going to go back to that site after the primary is over?  

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, Kos thinks the scab diaries (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:46:52 PM EST
    are better than the union's.

    Because whatever they say, they are pro-Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    It's far more damaging (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:54:26 PM EST
    if we just take him at his word. Kos's taste is so bad that he thinks these diaries are good.

    heh.

    [ Parent ]

    Wow (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by akaEloise on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:48:06 PM EST
    You found a whole paragraph in which Kos didn't mention his forthcoming book.  That's hard work!

    [ Parent ]
    Kos is an O-list blogger now. (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:07:53 PM EST
    Yuck.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't care a fig about Kos (none / 0) (#99)
    by zyx on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:00:03 PM EST
    but Jon Swift sure did write a good one about him and his.

    Carved up Kos but good with a rapier.  I like that sort of thing.

    [ Parent ]

    He's Pandering (none / 0) (#159)
    by Commander Vimes on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:05:24 PM EST
    He's pandering to get his 'hits' up.  What a crock, i quit that place long ago when he did a misogynist hit piece against another blogger.

    [ Parent ]
    I found that quite amazing also. (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:35:24 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    You saw that? (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Joelarama on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:29:48 AM EST
    Best diaries ever?  I just said "wow."  Man, it sounds like a Tony Snow press conference.  This is Bush-level denial.

    The sheep who are the most active users at Daily Kos may eat that up.  But no one who is "reality-based" will buy it.  If there's anyone left.  

    [ Parent ]

    HE IS OFF MY TIVO (none / 0) (#93)
    by delandjim on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:54:28 PM EST
    I put him on tivo in 2004 I took him off last week. I can't stand him and it took up memory on tivo.

    MSNBC doesn't even hide how much they love Obama. Amazingly  Scarborough is not too bad and the new one with David Gregory isn't too bad. Although Rachel Maddow doesn't hide Obamania.Too bad I really her.

    [ Parent ]

    I've never been comfortable ... (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:10:57 PM EST
    with Olbermann.  He's always been too hot for the media, in my opinion.  And though I sometimes agreed with him his mix of Walter Winchell and Howard Beale rubbed me the wrong way.

    Plus his show isn't journalism.  It's just a lazy clip show.  Most of the show is taken up with promos of things he's going to do in a few minutes, and cheaply made bumpers.  And then there's the endless videos of monkeys riding dogs or whatever.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by zyx on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:11:51 PM EST
    In January my cable company dropped MSNBC from my midlevel package, along with one or two others I haven't missed.  I was kind of upset for a couple of weeks.  Then I read about how Matthews and Olbermann were covering the campaign, Chris's thrill up his leg, the guys sitting with their arms crossed and big scowls on Clinton-win days...screw 'em.  I'm not paying twelve bucks more a month for that.

    [ Parent ]
    Same here...don't miss it. n/t (none / 0) (#172)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:02:01 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    yeah that was pretty silly (none / 0) (#140)
    by commonscribe on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:57:47 PM EST

    unless he was referring to the smattering of non-candidate diaries somehow slipping through... but I think not.

    [ Parent ]

    Olbermann is complaining... (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:43:50 AM EST

    Olbermann is on TV right now complaining about how Clinton is still trying to get a re-vote in MI "just to make Obama look bad."

    Isn't that what political opponents are supposed to do? And even if that is her reason it's still the right thing to do. If someone does the right thing for the wrong reason and it causes a good result for the people, that's fine with me.

    Olbermann has become a total doofus.

     

    [ Parent ]

    I jumped for joy when I heard him (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by jes on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:54:05 PM EST
    say it. I can't believe Rachael Maddow thinks he is so astute. More kissing the ring, I suppose.

    [ Parent ]
    TV jerks (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by TalkRight on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:25:09 PM EST
    First the KO on MSNBC is just full of @@@ and now..
    Rolin Martin on CNN answering how does Obama defend against 527 bringing his Rev Pastor:

    Well I think democrats will bring in the point that pastor who endorsed McCains is against Catholics

    I think I should take the plug off this cable.. and save myself the pain and monthly bill!

    had the same thought re: cable (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:57:43 PM EST
    but baseball starts not a moment too soon! lol!~

    MSNBC is OFF my watch list though.

    on McCain's anti-Catholic pastor, the Catholics seem to not have a problem voting for Clinton  ;)

    [ Parent ]

    It was rowdy (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:13:37 PM EST
    Those guys were pissing Roland off.  Campbell Brown had to cut it off.  She looked really uncomfortable.  It was jarring.

    [ Parent ]
    1 hour Andersoon Cooper with Obama (none / 0) (#130)
    by TalkRight on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:30:21 PM EST
    what's the point???????

    FREE RIDE I GUESS


    [ Parent ]
    Something else not to watch, Thanks :-) (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:33:32 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Anderson is traveling (none / 0) (#149)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:30:49 PM EST
    with Obama now.  CNN takes care of their guy.  They have a rough time when he's not doing well.  Jack has to post loaded ticker questions for his crowd to respond to so he can read Hillary-hate on his show.  Somehow not even that cheers him up.

    [ Parent ]
    It's just as bad (none / 0) (#35)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:35:46 PM EST
    on satellite. :-)

    [ Parent ]
    I still think (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:40:09 PM EST
    Revotes 4 months after when the votes were supposed to take place are a bigger betrayal of the rules than votes that took place 5 days sooner than they were supposed to.

    Florida seems in the mood to have Jan. 29 count.

    They'll vote again if they have to, but I guess it's not their first choice in all this.

    revotes are the only way to do it (none / 0) (#143)
    by commonscribe on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:00:37 PM EST

    if this is really about the voters speaking, revotes are the only way.


    [ Parent ]
    I don't think Clinton should agree (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Foxx on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:53:59 PM EST
    I want the super delegates to have complete freedom. Suppose Obama leads slightly in one calculation of the popular vote but is tanking so badly in the polls it is clear he cannot win?

    Also of course, everyone would have to agree on how to caluclate the popular vote. Good luck.

    I disagree (none / 0) (#60)
    by cloudy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:03:40 PM EST
    and I support Clinton.  Popular vote should be counted for all Primaries and all Caucuses in states that did not hold Primaries.  For all 50 states.  If Clinton is still behind after this, Obama should be the nominee.  SDs overruling the will of the people is not only disastrous for the party, it's hypocritical in light of Bush/Gore.  I think she only has an argument if she is within a certain % and FL and MI are not being counted.

    [ Parent ]
    Popular Vote and PA (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by PennProgressive on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:01:07 PM EST
    Of  course Hillary will accept this.Clintoncamp is  focusing more and more on popular vote. This afternoon in Wilkes Barre (Northeastern PA)Bill Clinton said that a solid victory in Pennsylvania will be critical since that will help her significantly to be  the popular vote winner.

    Also, perhaps  it is  not OT ( I apologize if it  is) the rally with  Bill Clinton had a significant number of African American voters in attendance. We spoke  to some of them. Thhey are very strong Hillary supporter. So Clinton's AA support in PA as reported by PPP and noted in TL last night may be  real.

    Governor Bredesen of Tennessee just offered (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Dancing Bear on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:01:08 PM EST
    a Super Delegate  pre-convention where they basically discuss the implications and decide how to settle Florida and Michigan. Rather than just the DNC who would not represent the will of the people who already voted.

    He is uncommitted even though Tennessee went totally for Hillary.

    His argument is that if Supers vote for who won their areas and the uncommitted weigh in it would still be the will of the people without favoring one over the other. Like a Super caucus to decide how to handle FL and MI.

    Little sketchy on the details because Cambell Brown kept interupting and shooting everything he said down. Was that Kool- aid in her cup? I don't know.  But it made sense and I hope BTD sees this because I am not a real fact monger and he is.

    It seemed to make sense though,  plus I live in Nashville and it would be cool to have here. Large AA population, blue dot in red state.  Diverse.

    Oh, and Al Gore lives right down the street from (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Dancing Bear on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:14:30 PM EST
    me and many Dems are waiting for him to weigh in.

    [ Parent ]
    Bredesen better be a HC SD after the (none / 0) (#74)
    by Teresa on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:23:06 PM EST
    strong vote she had here.

    Before I say hi to you, are you a Vol or a 'Dore? :) (I'm all Vol)

    [ Parent ]

    I'm a Dore,lol. (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Dancing Bear on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:31:17 PM EST
    I work at Vanderbilt. But you can't live in TN and not be a Vol also.

    I think he will come out for HRC but I think that many of them will do so in a block to show support the way all the AA ones crossed over or renegged on her to support BO.

    We are a 4 seed in mens and women's NCAA. The ladies kicked our behinds but we beat Bruce Pearl in Nashville. Do you think Bruce and Pat Summit are an item?

    Al Gore needs to speak up.  People from the party begged him to run so I think many will listen. He went to Vandy,lol.

    [ Parent ]

    Just teasing you. I live in Knoxville so I (none / 0) (#80)
    by Teresa on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:37:10 PM EST
    have to be a Vol plus I was born with orange blood.

    I go back and forth with Gore. At first, I thought for sure he'd endorse Obama but now I don't think he'd approve of leaving out MI and FL. I guess he is working behind the scenes to come up with some plan.

    Good luck in the tourney! I'll be pulling for all SEC teams. And Bruce and Pat are just really good friends.

    I hope BTD gives us a tournament open thread the next few days (hint).

    [ Parent ]

    Another couple of Vols? (none / 0) (#144)
    by TN Dem on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:03:14 PM EST
    I'm in Maynardville...small world!

    [ Parent ]
    Long-suffering Vandy fan here. (none / 0) (#151)
    by nashville on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:36:00 PM EST
    but I also root for the Razorbacks. Seems like there are lost of Tennesseans around here. Wasn't it great to see our state do so mething right for once!

    [ Parent ]
    Indeed (none / 0) (#164)
    by TN Dem on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:09:56 AM EST
    It was!

    [ Parent ]
    If you work in the party there (none / 0) (#153)
    by rilkefan on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:44:10 PM EST
    You probably know my mother.  Small world, sort of.

    [ Parent ]
    Pipe dreams (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:08:08 PM EST
    As usual, I wish I had some of what Tweety is smoking. I think it is pretty clear that any 'solution' that relies on revotes in MI and FL is just not going to happen.

    As usual on MSNBC Hillary is the bad guy.  I find myself literally running for the remote sometimes when I try watching them. Like just now, Dan Abrams starts out with the headline - Obama gives major speech on Iraq!!!!  To be fair, I wasn't watching the last two days when Clinton gave speeches on Iraq, so maybe he did the same thing then.  Somehow I doubt it.

    They barely covered it. (none / 0) (#65)
    by Dancing Bear on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:12:37 PM EST
    They were too busy talking about the amazing speech and how we will all be united because of it.

    Tweety is for McCain and I am not sure why he is offering solutions that might favor the will of the people. But at least it's an offer or a solution of sorts.

    [ Parent ]

    Uggh (none / 0) (#70)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:16:00 PM EST
    As usual, I wish I had some of what Tweety is smoking.

    That's the last thing I'd want to smoke.

    [ Parent ]

    New punch line for Obama on Hillaryis44 (3.66 / 3) (#68)
    by TalkRight on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:14:44 PM EST
    Barack Obama:

    God Damn Florida, God Damn Michigan
    Good idea... (2.00 / 1) (#11)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:12:59 PM EST
    Send the "super delegates" back to their day jobs, power to the people.

    Power to the people (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by lilburro on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:24:08 PM EST
    or power to the people who organize ...some people?  

    Power to the people with time on their hands!  <snark>

    I'm sure some of the Super Ds love the attention.

    [ Parent ]

    Not Power to the people (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:41:12 PM EST
    Power to the loudest most obnoxious people threatening to leave the party if they don't get their way.


    [ Parent ]
    Donna Brazile (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:20:05 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Power to all people.... (none / 0) (#178)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:09:14 PM EST
    no qualifiers except party membership (where required) and US citizenship.

    Flipping a coin is preferred to letting the "super delegates" pick the nominee in a backroom in exchange for promises of cabinet positions.

    [ Parent ]

    I saw that (none / 0) (#2)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:03:15 PM EST
    He said Obama should say here is the option and to shut up with all the messing around.

    You do know that (none / 0) (#9)
    by jcsf on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:10:47 PM EST
    The popular vote lead that Obama has is currently 800,000?.  Not including Florida and Michigan, assuming you do a revote.

    Clinton's lead in New York, at 40 to 57 her favor, only gave her a 317K lead.  While Ohio was a 229K lead.

    Now, if things really start to go badly for Obama - Penn by 25, FL by 25, tied in NC, and just continue to go downhill - that's the only way Obama loses the popular vote.  

    As we keep saying, the popular vote also tends to discount the caucus states.  

    At any rate, I don't know why Obama isn't agreeing to Michigan.  I wish he would.

    the caucus vote should be discounted (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by heineken1717 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:13:42 PM EST
    less people voted, therefore the will of less people is represented. One person one vote is (or should be) a foundation of democracy. Of course, the stupid electoral college and the more stupid Democratic Party delegate allocation system try to undercut this, but we should strive for it. The fact that a tiny Idaho caucus cancelled out a huge New Jersey primary is proof.

    [ Parent ]
    And that (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by DaleA on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:30:00 PM EST
    Vermont and Wyoming get the same number of delegates.

    [ Parent ]
    If he wins the majority (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:31:53 PM EST
    of the popular vote fair and square, that's OK by me-- although I will have to go out and get pretty drunk.

    We're not sitting around here looking for ways for HRC to win, but for things to be done fairly and for Democratic Party voters to decide on the best nominee, not just a subsection of the ones with the most free time to go to caucuses and the ability to yell the loudest.

    [ Parent ]

    How convenient to cite only the best stat (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:39:29 PM EST
    at your link -- where another of many other ways of citing the popular vote total, and the one most relevant to this discussion about including FL and MI, puts Obama ahead by only 80,000 votes, or 0.2%.

    [ Parent ]
    I cited that in the context of revotes (none / 0) (#53)
    by jcsf on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:58:40 PM EST
    Clearly, if we have revotes, then FL and MI, as is, won't count.

    [ Parent ]
    750,000 (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:14:46 PM EST
    Not counting Florida and Michigan.

    [ Parent ]
    Absolutely not (none / 0) (#19)
    by jcsf on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:19:49 PM EST
    You don't get to choose WHICH votes count.  Look, you are already:

    a. Ignoring delegate counts
    b. Ignoring Clinton's double standard on this issue, from late 2007 to now
    c. refusing to have any accountability for MI and FL for jumping the gun.
    d. Ignoring the fact that, while the percentage change would have been closer, in all likelihood, the caucus states WOULD have gone to Obama, by a large margin.

    And on top of this, you want to ignore the projected votes of caucus members, in IA, NV, ME, WA??

    No, absolutely not.  If THAT is your "fair" or "right" solution, you have no concept of what those terms mean.


    [ Parent ]

    Excuse me (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:24:19 PM EST
    The PRIMARY counts the popular vote period.

    I am telling you what the popular vote is.

    Just as in Texas, it is the POPULAR VOTE, the one that has 3 TIMES AS MANY PARTICIPANTS, that counts in the popular vote.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm not counting the Texas caucuses (none / 0) (#26)
    by jcsf on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:26:54 PM EST
    And the number is clear, right there on RCP - +813,945 for Obama.  

    So why 750,000?

    [ Parent ]

    RCP With FL and MI (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Manuel on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:39:16 PM EST
    Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA*    14,191,430 47.6% 14,000,566 47%    Obama +190,864 +0.6%

    is closer to what it would be if revotes were held.  And this is likely to change after PA.

    If Obama were interested in clarity and legitimacy, he would favor revotes.  It does semm that is interested in running out the clock.  If Clinton comes close without revotes, the SDs will have one tough decision.


    [ Parent ]

    More likely? (none / 0) (#42)
    by jcsf on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:42:51 PM EST
    Really?  Counting numbers where Obama doesn't get a vote?  That's a "more likely" outcome, where people DO get to vote for Obama?

    You disqualify yourself on this.

    [ Parent ]

    He chose that. (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by ineedalife on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:22:46 PM EST
    Obama took his name off the ballot. That was his strategic choice. Just as Hillary made strategic choices, and did not campaign in many states like Idaho and Kansas, allowing Obama to run up the score. She is living with the consequences of her decisions. He should live with the consequences of his.

    [ Parent ]
    "Strategic" choice? (none / 0) (#154)
    by jcsf on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:49:08 PM EST
    The same choice that Edwards made?

    No, there was an agreement made between the candidates and the DNC, and then Clinton left her name on the ballot anyway.

    [ Parent ]

    DNC had nothing to do with the (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:54:01 PM EST
    Michigan ballot.  The campaigns got together on their own.  Clinton, Dodd, Kucinich, and Gravel were on the ballot in Michigan.


    [ Parent ]
    Taking names off was not part of the pledge... (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:27:05 PM EST
    Nothing in any of the signed pledges called for removing their names from the ballots.

    It was a strategic move on the parts of Obama and Edwards. And frankly, I thought it was a stupid move to have done so.
    "Wit has truth in it; wisecracking is simply calisthenics with words." Dorothy Parker
    [ Parent ]

    RCP uses the (none / 0) (#33)
    by cloudy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:33:52 PM EST
    Washington caucus numbers.  If you read the fine print they say it should be about -50k if you use the WA primary numbers instead.

    [ Parent ]
    Fashion show primary? (none / 0) (#40)
    by jcsf on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:40:51 PM EST
    With the delegates already determined?

    No, no, no, 1000 times no. That is NOT a good example of popular will, when the caucuses had ALREADY been held.  The more meaningful contest had already happened.

    [ Parent ]

    Just over 32k (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by cloudy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:15:12 PM EST
    people participated in the Washington caucus. ~690k participated in the Primary.  Beauty contest or not, how do you justify not counting the significantly larger number of votes?

    [ Parent ]
    Caucuses are the most ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Dancing Bear on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:00:54 PM EST
    part of the Democratic party.  They disenfranchise more voters than any other part of voting (because caucusing is not voting).

     We are given the right to vote. Caucusing is an invention of the party and a dumb one at that.

    I work with more people than caucused in many states.Mosh Pit politics disenfranchise older voters or voters who work for a living and can't take a day off to intimidate the other candidates supporters.

    [ Parent ]

    Sez you...the voters disagreed. (none / 0) (#173)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:09:27 AM EST
    They voted anyway.

    I did both...voted in the primary and went to my caucus and so did lots of other people.  In fact, the Obama camp had a huge GOTV for the primary, very fearful of the outcome.  Turned out they were right to be...they barely got over 50%.

    You don't get to decide which of my votes was more or less meaningful than the other.

    [ Parent ]

    These points are debatable (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by Manuel on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:29:55 PM EST
    a. Ignoring delegate counts

    Delegate counts aren't any better indicators of the people's will than PV.
    b. Ignoring Clinton's double standard on this issue, from late 2007 to now

    This is irrelevant for deciding what is fair.
    c. refusing to have any accountability for MI and FL for jumping the gun.

    They have already suffered damage.  I don't see the impetus for any state to want to be in this position ever again.  Also, you can exact a delegate penalty if you want.
    d. Ignoring the fact that, while the percentage change would have been closer, in all likelihood, the caucus states WOULD have gone to Obama, by a large margin.

    Where is the evidence for this? WA shows the opposite.


    [ Parent ]
    How so? (none / 0) (#37)
    by jcsf on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:39:17 PM EST
    How does a fashion show primary, with delegates already elected, show that?

    This is what I mean.  I get the context of "popular votes", it's important.  But then popular vote totals gets manipulated.  In this case, by not mentioning the context that the delegate contest had already been decided by caucuses - so again is a BAD INDICATION OF POPULAR VOTING.

    Not to mention, as a counter-example, take Wisconsin. If a caucus had been held there, you WOULD NOT have had a 192,000 vote differential, but a much much smaller vote differential - only those who came to participate in the caucuses.

    Hawaii would have been an example of this.  If Hawaii would have been a primary, while the spread would have been reduced, the vote total would have been MUCH larger in the differential between Obama and Clinton.

    [ Parent ]

    OK How about TX? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Manuel on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:45:38 PM EST
    It isn't a given that a caucus can be projected in a straightforward way to a primary. The point is that delegates do not represent "the will of the people" any better than PV.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not disagreeing (none / 0) (#50)
    by jcsf on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:55:24 PM EST
    Especially with states that had close popular votes.

    If someone was TRULY interested in the popular vote totals, there would be a RANGE given -

    a. Estimate range of turnout in caucus states, if there had been a primary - probably based on last election plus say 30% more.
    b. A "spread subtraction range" given to each caucus state, whereby, say, in the caucus states, a 10% post to Clinton is given (or some range, maybe depending on the state).

    Instead though, we have these declarative statements about "the popular vote", which elide the issues here - and then, in the case of Washington, really ignore the reality of the situation.

    [ Parent ]

    The reality of the situation (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by badger on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:48:12 PM EST
    is that in WA, everyone had the right to choose the Dem ballot and vote for their candidate - that's what an election is.

    You don't get to change the numbers because you have some excuse, like "the weather was bad" or "my supporters were too lazy to vote" or "it was only a beauty contest". And in WA, the actual primary balloting tracks the state polling pretty closely, so the lame excuses don't really seem to apply in the first place.

    What's a travesty is not allowing people's votes to count in the first place - nobody in MI or FL had the right or ability to cast a vote that counts under the current arrangement.

    But if you want a single excuse, it's that the DNC and state parties screwed the entire nominating process by placing largely irrelevant states first and protecting that privilege at any cost, excluding MI and FL, allowing states to run any kind or combination of contests they want, and generally operating a process that makes the "will of the people" impossible to determine.

    In a fair and reasonable nominating process, people wouldn't be making all of these lame voter psychology arguments. This isn't psychometrics - it's an election and there isn't any reasonable methodology in an election besides counting the votes that were actually cast - all of the votes.

    IMO, there isn't any way to sort this out but to let it go to the convention, hopefully with all 50 states having their full complement of delegate representation when the nomination balloting begins.

    [ Parent ]

    Choosing which votes count (none / 0) (#30)
    by rilkefan on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:30:03 PM EST
    Not FL and MI, apparently.

    a.) Superdelegates could agree to make this result happen via delegate counts, so this is a silly complaint
    b.) plain false, and totally irrelevant anyway
    c.) read up on the history in FL - and of course a revote in MI makes everyone whole, as Dean admits
    d.) not sure how BTD wants to handle this - see my comment on rescaling (#13).

    Re e.g. WA, they had a primary - you want to ignore their votes.  This proposal screws fewer voters.  A simple procedure to equally weight the primary and caucus votes would be obviously fair and no doubt would be endorsed by those suggesting this.

    [ Parent ]

    No, I'm saying REALLY reflect popular will (none / 0) (#55)
    by jcsf on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:00:08 PM EST
    On top of everything else, don't distort the votes we DO have.  

    [ Parent ]
    It will nattow substantially (none / 0) (#131)
    by delandjim on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:31:07 PM EST
    I'm thinking it will narrow a lot after Pa. I also think that the N.C. result may tilt to Hillary also. I know there is 21% AA population but there is a lot of the rural areas that seem to tilt Hillary. W.V. small but should really go big to her, I'm thinking Ind. about even.

    [ Parent ]
    Therre is that possibility (none / 0) (#157)
    by jcsf on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:52:12 PM EST
    We will see.  

    If Penn goes 25%, certainly that possibility.  And more recent polling makes that possibility more likely.  Up to recent polling that possibility was remote, and STILL unlikely, based on the pop. vote, that Clinton can make it up.  But, if there's a run, and states start swinging hard to Obama, it is possible.

    In the so-called pop vote, of course.  Which again, doesn't accurately reflect caucus states populations.

    [ Parent ]

    And how many (none / 0) (#167)