Is A "Coup" By The Superdelegates Breaking The Rules?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:26:55 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This:

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Writing approvingly of a TPM post I lambaste here, Markos writes:

The Clinton campaign has realized that the rules don't work in their favor, that if we follow the rules as agreed upon before the first caucus vote was cast in Iowa, that they have no chance of winning. . . . Again, as I noted before, the only way Clinton can win this race is with a coup by superdelegate . . .

Kos uses the pejorative term "coup" to describe the Super Delegates not voting for the pledged delegate leader. Let's leave aside the issue of whether the word "coup" makes sense here - and let's focus on whether the rules allow this. The answer is obviously yes, they do. It seems to me that it is Obama supporters like Markos who are complaining that the rules MAY NOT favor Obama. It is they who are whining that the rules permit Super Delegates to pick a nominee who is not the pledged delegate leader. I do not like the rules either. But for a different reason. They allow Super Delegates to pick a nominee who might not be the popular vote leader.

More . . .

If Obama is the pledged delegate leader and the untainted popular vote leader, then I will be up in arms if the Super Delegates deny him the nomination. But I do not claim for a second that this violates the rules. It clearly does not. The whining about the existing rules comes from Kos and Josh Marshall and other die hard Obama supporters. THAT is a fact.

In essence, what some Obama supporters are arguing for is CHANGING the rules so that the pledged delegate leader is the nominee. Maybe we can adopt that rule for the next nomination fight. But we won't for this one. Instead, JUST LIKE the Clinton campaign, the Obama campaign and its online supporters are arguing for what they think the Super Delegates should do.

What bothers me is they are pretending they are not. It is disingenuous of them. I am arguing for my views as well. For making the popular vote the deciding yardstick. But I admit the rules do not mandate that my yardstick be followed. Obama, his news network NBC, and his legion of blog followers pretend they are standing for the rules. They are not.

< Detroit Mayor Charged With Perjury and Obstruction | Memo to SuperDelegates: There is No Frontrunner, the Race is Open >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Is A "Coup" By The Superdelegates Breaking The Rules? | 125 comments (125 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

markos was dishonest? (5.00 / 6) (#1)
by Turkana on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:33:20 PM EST

knock me over with a feather.

not the first time he's called it a coup, either.

expect him to lead (5.00 / 4) (#2)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:35:19 PM EST

teh convention walkout if they lose.
no matter how they lose.

[ Parent ]

: would that be (5.00 / 9) (#3)
by Turkana on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:36:20 PM EST

a strike or a boycott?

[ Parent ]

Disingenuous not dishonest (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:37:50 PM EST

Just a political hack for his candidate.

It was a weird post. As was Josh Marshall's.

Critical thinking skills are in short supply these days on the blogs.

[ Parent ]

Maybe you can time share yours. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:39:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]

They have them (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:41:01 PM EST

I misspoke. They have put them in storage for the duration.

[ Parent ]

you know (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:48:23 PM EST

soemtimes when I put things in storage for a long time they no longer fit when I take theme out for a spin.

[ Parent ]

: and when you take the road more traveled (none / 0) (#114)
by hellothere on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:51:10 PM EST

you can't go back and change it either. when we make bad choices, forces are set in motion that can't be altered. that is a theme of course in literature, but it is also true.

[ Parent ]

I'm blown away by the results. (5.00 / 2) (#71)
by Burned on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:25:22 PM EST

To me this primary is almost a perfect test of critical thinking in politics. There are so many great big shiny blobs of obvious bias to conquer, and so few even making a stab at it.
I don't think I will ever put as much trust in political blogs again.

This one's likeable enough though. :)

[ Parent ]

this one may have been merely disigenuous (5.00 / 5) (#12)
by Turkana on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:41:24 PM EST

others have been worse.

i didn't read this post. there are less than a handful of fpers there that are worth reading, and he's not one of them.

[ Parent ]

There is a solution suggested by a Superdelegate (5.00 / 1) (#93)
by dotcommodity on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:31:32 PM EST

The Choose or Lose plan, essentially forcing all of the Superdelegates to make their decision public on June 4th, the day after the last primary.

I have given up on them from seeing their disingenuousness about when rules must be followed and when they must not.

For instance check out some of these responses to my attempt to lay out for them Gov. Bredesen's Choose or Lose plan: !!!! an example of changing the rules to benefit Democrats! Yikes!

Sigh... turkana, and so many others: I miss you over there. (its a comfy site, so I'm loathe to leave - but so empty now)

[ Parent ]

Empty? (5.00 / 1) (#100)
by Fabian on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:15:39 PM EST

I think that is a good adjective to use.

Outside of my hotlisted diarists, I usually only stop by long enough to skim diaries. I wonder if I really was as accepting the various narratives as people seem to be now. Trying to break free of any given narrative is an uphill battle now, even the weakest, most insipid ones.

It's like cable, hundreds of channels but nothing is on.

[ Parent ]

mmm, hotlisted diaries (5.00 / 1) (#109)
by dotcommodity on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:38:30 PM EST

thats what I mean about the more comfy amenities...tough times for the rational

[ Parent ]

I'd love for Meteor Blades (none / 0) (#110)
by Fabian on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:42:43 PM EST

to write an election diary - only if he wanted to, of course.

He's one of the few that I still respect completely there.

[ Parent ]

: clammyc also, still (5.00 / 1) (#111)
by dotcommodity on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:44:38 PM EST

speaks for the rational

[ Parent ]

or just crashing the gate (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Lahdee on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:56:55 PM EST

just to crash the gate. Gotta defend the philosophy after all. Credibility, heh.

[ Parent ]

I've been surprised by Markos (5.00 / 2) (#55)
by mexboy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:31:31 PM EST

I always had a high opinion of him.
I took DK out of my bookmarks a while back and no longer visit their site.
Oh, well. Live and learn.

[ Parent ]

Yeah. Me neither. I don't want him to get money (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by derridog on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:00:03 PM EST

from my hits. I used to think very highly of him and liked to read his posts. I remember when he started to think that maybe he'd support Obama. At that time, he was still reasonable and could look at both sides and make insightful analyses. What happened? Maybe he needs an exorcism.

[ Parent ]

: What happened was (none / 0) (#83)
by desert dawg on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:41:41 PM EST

he realized he couldn't walk into Rick & Ann's or the French Hotel wearing a Vote for Hillary button.

[ Parent ]

Kos is corrupt, a joke (none / 0) (#121)
by doyenne49 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:53:08 PM EST

He has sold his credibility for an Obama win. He is a clown.

[ Parent ]

I disagree (1.00 / 1) (#101)
by TheRefugee on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:19:21 PM EST

it isn't "hack for a candidate" it is hack for a principle. Kos is about getting his type dem elected using any means necessary. This isn't a one time thing. This is Kos' anti-DC type taking on the dreaded DLC. This is Kos' getting to put his admiration of GOP campaign methods to use.

Kos', "thinking skills" are going to be in perpetual hibernation whenever such a contest emerges...he has said so numerous times, inc. his book, that the win is what matters and not the how. (in sentiment, not the actual words)

[ Parent ]

I always wondered (5.00 / 1) (#102)
by Fabian on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:41:06 PM EST

what his(kos') philosophy would look like in action.

How DO you get enough clout to actually take on the establishment without becoming it?

I don't think you do. The Left blogosphere resembles the right wing noise machine more every day, with the talking points, the top down structure, the echo chambers. It may be remarkably effective, but is it productive? If we merely lurch along from contest to contest, from one narrative to another(quite possibly contradictory) narrative, from one carefully choreographed outrage to another, then are we grassroots or astroturf?

[ Parent ]

: Do you think Kos will have any clout in (none / 0) (#112)
by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:18:51 PM EST

one year?
Obama won't touch him, and neither will Hillary.

[ Parent ]

But.... (none / 0) (#125)
by dskinner3 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:01:57 PM EST

Kos is about getting his type dem elected using any means necessary.

I don't see how BO can be "his type." HRC has just as good if not better "progressive" track record.

He followed the momentum, and is now stuck defending his choice at all costs.

[ Parent ]

A certain degree. . . (5.00 / 3) (#16)
by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:47:48 PM EST

of dispassionate logical ability is required for someone's false or inaccurate statement to attain the level of dishonesty. Markos' statement isn't even dishonest. It's just demented, like so much that's said in the blogosphere these days.

[ Parent ]

: that is the nature of an echo chamber (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:49:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
: Heh (none / 0) (#44)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:15:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Okay. So let me get this straight. The rules say (5.00 / 4) (#59)
by derridog on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:56:14 PM EST

that Florida and Michigan should have their votes discounted because they "cheated" by having their primaries early. The rules also say that the Superdelegates can vote for whomever they wish and that the whole purpose of the Superdelegates is to keep some personality cult from succeeding at the risk of losing the GE.

If the first rules are absolute, shouldn't the second rules be also?
It's interesting. Kos used to be part of the "reality-based community." What happened to that idea?

[ Parent ]

BDB over at Corrente has a trip down mem lane (5.00 / 2) (#69)
by blogtopus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:22:57 PM EST

Clinton was the only top-tier candidate to refuse the ultimate Iowa and New Hampshire pander by removing her name from the Michigan ballot. That makes her essentially the de facto winner since Edwards and Obama, caving to the cry babies in Iowa and New Hampshire, took their name off Michigan's ballot. Sure, the DNC has stripped Michigan of its delegates, but that won't last through the convention. The last thing Democrats can afford is to alienate swing states like Michigan and Florida by refusing to seat their delegates.

Guess who said that in JANUARY?

[ Parent ]

: I know. I remember him saying that. (5.00 / 1) (#75)
by derridog on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:33:53 PM EST

He was very reasonable and insightful in those days. Then he must have been bitten in the neck by a vampire. That's the only thing I can think of that would explain it.

[ Parent ]
: I just don't remember IA and NH (none / 0) (#78)
by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:36:31 PM EST

Dem. parties crying. Did they really, or is that just the DNC's diverionary meme?

[ Parent ]

I"m repeating myself, but (5.00 / 5) (#6)
by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:39:06 PM EST

the comment I made in the last thread fits here:
Why shouldn't the LAST primaries carry more weight than the first? It's very unusual for the later primaries to be competitive. If Obama gets crushed in those states isn't that a stronger message than early primary victories? I see no reason why the SD's can't weight later primaries higher; that is a legitimate political calculation.

That is an argument for the SDs (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:40:15 PM EST

I imagine we will hear it from the Clinton campaign.

[ Parent ]

walter shapiro (none / 0) (#13)
by Turkana on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:43:04 PM EST

has some interesting thoughts on that, today.

[ Parent ]

It seems to be that expecting the SD's to (5.00 / 4) (#18)
by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:48:43 PM EST

blindly follow the lead of the pledged delegates goes exactly against the intended purpose of the SD's. In fact, you might say it violates the spirit of the rules. (cue outrage over violating the spirit of the law)

[ Parent ]

: funny thing is (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:50:49 PM EST

I think the supers might agree with this.

[ Parent ]

This is an undemocratic argument (none / 0) (#26)
by andgarden on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:55:01 PM EST

but if I were a super, I would sure as Heck consider it.

My goal is to win, after all.

[ Parent ]

if you could show me one thing that has (5.00 / 5) (#30)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:58:22 PM EST

been domocratic about this process I could be a lot more worried about this.

[ Parent ]

I think this hand-wringing about (5.00 / 1) (#87)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:51:55 PM EST

the super delegates being "undemocratic" is kind of ridiculous since for the most part this is a representative democracy.

I think our primary process has a lot of bugs, but complaining about representatives representing the interests of the party and the voters seems silly to me unless of course we want to disband Congress and hold national elections on every possible decision.

I mean every election we have is only a "representative sample" of the electorate. There are plenty of people who don't even bother to vote. Look at the caucus system - there are only a handful of people who participate in those. In the end, they are only representative of the people in their state - as are the people who go to the election booth.

People's voices in this democracy always have been and always will be weighted towards level of participation in the democracy.

IMHO, super delegates should do what they think is right and if I have a problem with it, I'll do something about voting them out of office at some point. So should the regular delegates... There will come a time as there always does at every convention when everyone is asked to line up behind the presumptive nominee and cast their vote for him or her. That's called not being sore loser and moving forward looking at the big picture. That's democracy as we know it...

[ Parent ]

Yes. I agree in part. I don't think this process (5.00 / 1) (#88)
by derridog on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:58:49 PM EST

has any pretense of being representative though. However, the fact that it isn't gives the lie to the idea that it's horribly undemocratic for the superdelegates to vote their consciences. Why is Superdelegates voting as they please any different from nine of John Edwards' pledged delegates suddenly deciding they are going with Obama? Or what about the fact that, in many caucus states, hardly anyone gets to vote in comparison to primary states? Not only that, but, as it stands, Wyoming's 7000 Democratic voters count more than the 1.7 million Florida and Michigan ones. How fair is that?

[ Parent ]

: The Senate is "not fair" and was (5.00 / 1) (#106)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:14:47 PM EST

designed to be "not fair" as a check to the more rough and tumble House which was designed to be a filter for the even more rough and tumble electorate. The idea was that ideas and people if they were good enough would survive these bodies and if they didn't, they might not have been good enough to begin with. At the same time, things that needed to be done - things that might not be publicly popular at a given time - could be done.
The reality is that if the representative element of this primary system is to be rejected, it should be rejected top to bottom. There should be no convention of elites at all. It should be a simple majority vote calculation, but if that policy were to be put into place - or if we went back to winner take all - the big states would decide everything. This democracy wasn't actually designed to cater entirely to the majority - in fact it was designed to allow the minority to be relevant if not a key part of the decision-making process. That frustrates people, but the alternative is mob rule which is undesireable.

[ Parent ]

They can consider that (none / 0) (#35)
by ruffian on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:05:13 PM EST

and I'm sure they will. They can consider anything they want - they can consider the FL and MI results too.

They just have to be able to take the heat for what they decide. But given the fact that these are Democratic elected officials we are talking about, well, I don't ecxpect them to buck what they see has the popular will, meaning who is making the most noise at the time of the convention.

[ Parent ]

Explain myself better (none / 0) (#46)
by ruffian on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:18:01 PM EST

I mean that if they think the majority of Democrats want to nominate Obama, they will do it, even if they think he is a riskier choice for November. They would rather take the chance on losing the election than take the chance on antagonizing their constituents.

Which in this year makes them truly super - as in superfluous - if they are not going to exercise independent judgement. Their purpose for existence is to stand up to BTD, for example, if it means a clearly better shot at winning the election.

Of course, as the other thread says, we have no clear way of knowing about the better November matchup, at least not now.

[ Parent ]

: trust the s delegates? i don't. (none / 0) (#115)
by hellothere on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:00:51 PM EST

color me naive! i actually thought that after we elected the dems in 06, something was going to be done. it wasn't. i thought that the primaries would have candidates battling out for the winner. i have seen no leadership from the dnc and favortism toward obama. now why should i expect any different at the convention? i can't play the game anymore that somehow they will see the light and do the right thing. personally to me there seems to be this great big stampede for the nearest cliff. sorry to be down about this!

[ Parent ]

Hear hear! (none / 0) (#37)
by zyx on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:06:45 PM EST

she cheers, from a late-voting state!

[ Parent ]

Because that would disrespect IA (none / 0) (#52)
by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:27:04 PM EST

and NH?

[ Parent ]

It was the desire of the DNC to (5.00 / 7) (#65)
by litigatormom on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:18:37 PM EST

not only "respect" but protect the primacy of NH and IA that got us into this fix in the first place.

Well, the DNC did protect their primacy. After MI and FLA (and SC and Nev) moved their primaries up, the DNC decided to allow SC and Nev to do so, and disallow MI and FLA (because somehow SC and Nev would allow African-Americans and Latinos more of a voice in the early primaries, but MI and FLA wouldn't). And then NH and IA, not satisfied with the DNC's actions, moved up their contests even earlier, and the DNC allowed this.

Once NH and IA were allowed to move their primaries up still further, making them the very first contests no matter what, any rationale for disallowing all of the MI and FLA votes disappeared. Nevertheless, the DNC stuck to its guns, even though the ROOLz provided for a far less draconian punishment: giving each delegate chosen in the primaries a 1/2 vote (instead of zero votes).

Having imposed a penalty in excess of that provided in the ROOLz, the DNC arguably forfeited its claim to the moral high ground, especially since NH and IA ended up first no matter what. The ROOLz do not require, or even encourage, SD's to vote either for the holder of the most pledged delegates, or the candidate who won their respective states (Kennedy and Kerry for Clinton, anyone?). The ROOLz permit SD's to vote for whomever they please, for whatever reason they choose. You can argue about what those reasons ought to be, but none are excluded by the ROOLz.

If it had been intended for the pledged delegates to merely anoint the pledged delegate leader as the nominee, there would be no need for SDs -- all delegates would be pledged, and on or the other of our two remaining candidates would almost necessarily end up with a majority of them. However, because (as the "legislative" history shows) the SD's were created to act as a counterbalance to the pledged delegates if appropriate, they can consider any factor not excluded by the ROOLz, including the results of polls, results of late primaries, results of "disallowed" primaries, perceived "electability" issues, etc.

Clearly, the lead in pledged delegates should be a very important factor in any SD's decision, as the total popular vote should also be. But the ROOLz do not exclude any other factors, so it cannot possibly violate the ROOLz for any SD to cast his/her vote after considering other factors as well.

[ Parent ]

I was snarking. Didn't mean to (5.00 / 1) (#82)
by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:38:43 PM EST

get you fired up!

[ Parent ]

I fire up easily these days! (none / 0) (#84)
by litigatormom on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:41:47 PM EST

At least I've pretty much stopped watching Olbermann, so I don't have to yell at the TV.....

[ Parent ]

: Me too, and I don't watch TV (none / 0) (#86)
by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:45:07 PM EST

except for debates and baseball (coming soon).

[ Parent ]

That is exactly why all the sudden HYSTERIA (none / 0) (#119)
by kenosharick on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:15:44 PM EST

by most left leaning blogs and the MSM to get Hillary out- and to keep the narrative that it is over in the public's mind.

[ Parent ]

Number of Democratic Candidates... (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by Exeter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:45:17 PM EST

...that have ever won the nomination in the modern era without the most popular votes?!? ZERO

I calculate that Clinton will win the popular vote even without counting Michigan and Florida. If that happens and they GIVE it to Obama, it will mark the first time in the modern democratic party nominating process that they have ever given the nomination to someone other than the popular vote winner.

huh? Was 1968 part of the modern era? (none / 0) (#20)
by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:49:48 PM EST

I read that Humphrey was in the low single digits in the primaries. The caucuses nominated him.

[ Parent ]

Well, I think it's a special case... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Jerrymcl89 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:54:58 PM EST

... when one of the leading candidates dies during the campaign.

[ Parent ]

Modern era = post 1972: (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by Exeter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:05:29 PM EST

From a Rhodes Cook column:

Ever since the current primary-dominated era of nominations began in the 1970s, every Democratic and Republican nomination has gone to the candidate who received the most votes in the presidential primaries.

Huh? (none / 0) (#54)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:29:16 PM EST

I thought the modern era (modernism) started in the early 1860s.

[ Parent ]

Oh... (none / 0) (#62)
by Exeter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:05:17 PM EST

...I see what you're saying. OK, how's this: "Since they modernized the process in the 1970s and took things out of the hands of the smoked filled back rooms and into the voters...

[ Parent ]

Except maybe they didn't. (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by derridog on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:20:03 PM EST

: Right! (none / 0) (#77)
by Exeter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:35:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Makes Sense (none / 0) (#67)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:21:28 PM EST

I thought I missed something and Modernism had been redefined.

[ Parent ]

That was because Humphrey entered late (5.00 / 3) (#81)
by litigatormom on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:38:25 PM EST

Humphrey only entered the race after LBJ withdrew in March. It took him a while after that to actually get in. By that time, most of the primaries were over. There was no way he could have held the popular vote lead by the end of the primaries. Or the delegate lead, for that matter, unless you assume that whatever delegates LBJ had gotten would automatically go to him.

It's not clear what would have happened if Bobby Kennedy hadn't been assassinated. He didn't have enough delegates to clinch the nomination after his win in California (the last primary, early June); he too had been a late entrant, getting in after McCarthy's early successes. I'm not even sure he led in the "popular vote." But Bobby had the "Big Mo."

[ Parent ]

and we all remember how well that (none / 0) (#24)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:53:02 PM EST

convention went?? well I remember anyway.
I dont think we need a 40 year celebration of 1968 in from of the democratic convention.
or maybe it is exactly what we need.

[ Parent ]

: Yeah. I remember too. I miss the Yippies. (none / 0) (#64)
by derridog on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:17:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]

When all is said and done (5.00 / 5) (#31)
by sickofhypocrisy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:58:25 PM EST

the DNC REALLY needs to change the rules. This is just ridiculous. Between caucuses that disenfranchise a good chunk of our base (single moms, shift workers, the elderly, anyone who simply doesn't have two freaking hours to ) to the crazy science of delegate distribution that is so confusing you need a PhD to decipher it to the hybrid primary/caucuses (TX). Why all the effing math? Why not do it like the republicans? Winner takes all. It's beautiful in its simplicity. I hate it when they do something better than we do.

They do also (5.00 / 3) (#32)
by waldenpond on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:58:41 PM EST

realize that the regular delegates are pledged not bound? I just had to drop that annoying factoid in that some pretend is also not a rule.

: shhhhh, pass it on (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:09:58 PM EST

also
I think I must have had a stroke from the way I am typing. perhaps I should just shut up until my hand eye coordination returns.

[ Parent ]

and as to kos (5.00 / 3) (#43)
by andgarden on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:14:13 PM EST

may I be the first to point out that he is in favor of some kinds of coups? When he argues that Illinois and New York should redraw their congressional map to eliminate their Republicans (an effort I support, btw) how is that any less of a coup than what he describes?

It is not. kos is just arguing for his favored candidate.

Storming the Gates (none / 0) (#49)
by ruffian on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:19:52 PM EST

Yes, strange choice of words by the author of a book called "Storming the Gates".

[ Parent ]

: Crashing the Gates (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by ruffian on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:27:50 PM EST

Sorry, I knew that didn't sound right!!!

[ Parent ]

Sure The Rules Allow Them to Pick Who They Want (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by kaleidescope on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:26:17 PM EST

And the rules also allow Barack Obama to give a speech at the convention that calls them racists and to lead a walk out of the convention.

To the extent someone was the front runner and between the end of the primaries and the convention that person was caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy, then, obviously, it would make sense for superdelegates to "pull a coup."

But to snatch the election away from the front runner when there was no such "incapacity" -- especially an African American front runner -- would begin a civil war in the party.

That is Markos's point and it is a good one. What possible reason would superdelegates have to vote for Clinton and override the popular vote and the pledged delegate vote? Because in their wisdom a intra-party civil war would be good for it?

It's funny how people who get all whiny about democracy being so important that caucuses are "horribly undemocratic" now argue that unelected superdelegates should vote for anyone for any reason, including whether they like a candidate's tie.

If that's the case, then, I suppose, the superdelegates aren't bound by the choice between Obama, Clinton or Lieberman.

They're free to vote for Gravel or Edwards.

The rules allow that (5.00 / 3) (#56)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:31:58 PM EST

Obama speech? Really?

[ Parent ]

People who argue that caucuses (5.00 / 2) (#58)
by andgarden on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:38:04 PM EST

are undemocratic do not tend to argue that they should be ignored or manipulated to fit some other result.

The argument for ignoring the January election in FL is weaker than the argument for ignoring ALL caucuses.

[ Parent ]

Those are the rules. If you are for changing the (5.00 / 3) (#85)
by derridog on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:42:28 PM EST

rules, why don't we start by re-enfranchising the 2.7 million voters from Florida and Michigan?

The superdelegates ARE allowed to vote for Gravel and Edwards, if they want. So are the regular delegates, as I understand it. Also, I would say that, if Obama is prepared to destroy the party and walk out if he doesn't win the election by the RULES, then he shouldn't mind then (if he uses such threats and bullying tactics to win), if the Hillary supporters don't vote for him in the GE. Believe me, there are strong feelings on both sides, a point Obamaites always seem to miss.

[ Parent ]

Obama could make that speech (4.75 / 4) (#73)
by litigatormom on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:30:55 PM EST

But would he?

It's worth noting that the mirror image speech by Pat Buchanan in 1992 -- the infamous "culture war" speech -- was a significant factor in the defeat of Bush Senior. The GOP didn't forgive him for that. Do we really think Obama wants to relegate himself to running as a third party candidate? I don't think so.

The more likely scenario would be that Obama follows the Teddy Kennedy script from 1980 -- refusing, literally or figuratively, to "shake hands" with Hillary, and then not doing anything to encourage his supporters to vote Democratic. That would be harmful to Clinton's chances in the GE, to be sure, but again, it would probably be more harmful to Obama's future ambitions. No matter what Michelle Obama said, I do not believe that this is a one time opportunity to make Barack Obama president.

[ Parent ]

My Point (none / 0) (#94)
by kaleidescope on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:38:00 PM EST

What people CAN do under the rules isn't necessarily what they SHOULD do or what makes sense for them to do.

How many superdelegates want civil war?

[ Parent ]

I agree (5.00 / 1) (#97)
by litigatormom on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:43:27 PM EST

What people can and should do are different. I'm sure that SDs don't want civil war. Obama supporters, however, are not the only ones who might be alienated by the way this all plays out.

[ Parent ]

: i also don't take kindly to threats such (5.00 / 1) (#117)
by hellothere on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:09:22 PM EST

as those made by brazile to walk out of the convention if she doesn't get her way.

[ Parent ]

My Point (none / 0) (#99)
by kaleidescope on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:47:10 PM EST

How many superdelegates want civil war? Will igniting an intra-party civil war make Ms. Clinton electable?

It is what Sartre described as "bad faith" to posit Ms. Clinton a stronger general election candidate while ignoring what a superdelegate-override that nominated her would do to the political environment in which she'd be running.

If Obama is ahead in popular votes and pledged delegates come convention time, and if the superdelegates handed the nomination to Clinton in the absence of some kind of Obama "incapacity" (dead girl live boy), how do you think African Americans and many of Obama's other supporters would react?

It would make Hubert Humphrey's 1968 nomination in Chicago look like a cake walk.

Do you honestly believe that HRC would be electable after that?

[ Parent ]

: nonsense (1.00 / 1) (#103)
by TheRefugee on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:47:50 PM EST

we are all tossing out strawmen when pertaining to who would defect after the SDs name the nominee. None of us knows a dang thing at this pt. We are all full of shite as it were.
But the argument that the SD's have no choice but to vote for the pledged delegate leader is a hollow one. As so many have pointed out they have other factors to consider. Have Obama's poll numbers plateaued? Are they falling? Are Hillary's higher than ever? What do swing voters think is more important, the economy or comments made by Jeremiah Wright....etc. Every poll taken during the year is going to be examined, parsed over, and weighed. Primary numbers in key battleground states are going to be examined, parsed, and weighed. Primary numbers in trend blue states will be eyed. The fiasco of MI and FL will be studied. If they look at all the poll numbers, how candidates did in swing states, etc then the candidate they choose will be the one they believe can win in November. Pledged delegates be damned. Popular vote be damned.
I think we all need to back away from supposition, myself included. I think we all need to stop wringing our hands on who will or won't defect and by what numbers. I've been guessing and supposing a lot lately and acknowledge the fact that it needs to stop. The people fomenting the idea of a party split are media-types and blog-owners like kos. The poll numbers actually aren't showing a monster bailout regardless of the nominee. But really we don't know and won't know until the nominee is actually named. Are blacks permanently poisoned against Hillary? I don't know. Are "typical white persons" put off by Obama? I don't know. Is Wright a deciding influence on voters? I don't know. Will Obama threaten a primary challenge in 2012 if he is passed over? I don't know.
For me, I'm going to withdraw from the guessing game until after the convention. Besides, I'd rather talk about basketball or how Obama is a lying, conniving, no account.....hah

[ Parent ]

if ambition rules a politican and it does, (none / 0) (#116)
by hellothere on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:06:53 PM EST

then yes bo will run again.

[ Parent ]

BTD, you should make your tagline.. (5.00 / 4) (#89)
by alsace on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:03:37 PM EST

"I read Kos, so you don't have to."

In preparation, I just deleted it from my feeds.

If Hil (5.00 / 1) (#92)
by tek on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:04:05 PM EST

ends with big wins, I don't see how she can be discounted.

You are (none / 0) (#4)
by Jgarza on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:36:27 PM EST

going to argue what ever you think give Clinton the best chance, you are consistent in that.

yeah (5.00 / 6) (#7)
by Turkana on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:39:07 PM EST

btd is such a contrarian that he voted for obama, but will make any argument on behalf of clinton. either that or some people can't abide any honest argument that doesn't promote the necessary and inevitable annointment of the chosen one.

[ Parent ]

: Must be really tough to remember (5.00 / 1) (#79)
by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:37:20 PM EST

to shill for Clinton when you really favor Obama but are required to keep it quiet.

[ Parent ]

That's interesting (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:39:37 PM EST

The best argument for Clinton actually is that the Super Delegates should vote for who they think has the best chance to win in November.

But honesty is never something you strive for.

I have told you this before but it bears repeating, we have better Obama commenters now. You should let them do the arguing for the Obama point of view.

[ Parent ]

I certainly (5.00 / 3) (#21)
by Claw on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:49:56 PM EST

Disagreed with the way you handled your Obama/Clinton passport connection post, but you are right on the money here.
If Obama has the delegate and the pop. vote lead and loses, I'll go nuts. I'd even go so far as to say that if Clinton isn't within 100 delegates of Obama, it would be a terrible mistake for the SD's to go with her. It would not, however, be against the rules. Markos shouldn't pretend otherwise. Great post.

[ Parent ]

Query (none / 0) (#38)
by delandjim on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:09:02 PM EST

What is your opinion if she has popular vote lead and he has delegate lead BUT neither has 2025?

[ Parent ]

Then (none / 0) (#57)
by Claw on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:36:26 PM EST

I think we're in for an ugly fight. I think she needs to be within 100 delegates AND have the pop. vote--assuming she becomes the nominee--to avoid a really nasty mess, AA's and other Obama voters staying home (even though that would be stupid) and awful media coverage. Your take?

[ Parent ]

Why 100 delegates? (none / 0) (#61)
by ChrisO on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:03:08 PM EST

People throw around delegate numbers as if they have some objective meaning. Right now Obama's lead is one half of one percent of the current delegate count. If his lead is, say, 125 delegates, it will be less than a half-percent. What is magic about that number?

[ Parent ]

Math correction (none / 0) (#63)
by ruffian on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:08:52 PM EST

In case it matters to your point, 125 delegates is about 3% of the delegate total (4050 if you don't count FL and MI)

[ Parent ]

They are damn close to one another (5.00 / 4) (#74)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:32:46 PM EST

and the Obama's claim that they have some sort of overwhelming lead in this race reminds me a lot of Bush claiming he had a "mandate" after the 2004 election. A couple of percentage points does not a mandate make...

[ Parent ]

i love mandates (1.00 / 1) (#104)
by TheRefugee on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:10:03 PM EST

i won a mandate once...to report to jail on....

But I digress, Bush's mandate was obvious. He won fair and square, carried OH--fair and square, won by several EV's---several! Looking back, it was a landslide, epic.

Obama is the 'will of the people'. Caucus states like my own POS state and others should not be ignored or dismissed as "some little unimportant state". If you can't see that Idaho is every bit as important to a Dems electability as is say, FL, then I feel sorry for you. If the will of Kansas democrats is ignored now we might never hear from them again. The will of the people is behind Obama. Get on board! Well, unless you look at popular vote, and the disenfranchisement of two states. I mean Obama has won so many states how come he isn't far and away the "peoples popular choice?" Never mind I say, if you ignore MI and FL and the close tally in popular vote Obama most definitely has earned the will of the people! Not only that but he is "a good enough and strong enough candidate and gosh darn it people like him"!

[ Parent ]

What in the world makes you think (5.00 / 1) (#107)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:21:33 PM EST

that I don't value Democrats in Idaho? Where exactly did I say that?

And if you think that Bush had a mandate other than to govern a country that was divided almost equally, then I don't think you really understand the premise and structure of our Democracy. The fact is that "majority rule" was never the intention of the Founding Fathers and if had been then states like Idaho would actually be totally irrelevant.

... Again... "and" "the will of the people" in a Primary contest is a real overstatement. The will of approximately half of the small percentage pf Democrats who chose to participate does not "the will of the people" make.

[ Parent ]

: sorry, should have posted the snark tag. (3.00 / 2) (#122)
by TheRefugee on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:04:55 AM EST

was trying to be funny...guess I missed...sorry for the confusion.

[ Parent ]

Sorry for the delay in replying (none / 0) (#123)
by Claw on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:05:36 AM EST

I think 100 delegates is an important mark because it seems to have taken on a real importance for voters (most of whom are not well informed enough to know that it is, as you point out, a very small lead). Unless she's way ahead in the pop. vote or within 100 delegates, it will look to many like the democratic party has robbed an African American of the nomination and we will lose many AA voters for a generation. I'm not just talking presidential votes, I'm talking local. I think if she can narrow his lead to less than 100 the pundits actually will point out that he's only slightly ahead in delegates. If not, I think we'll have to deal with a much different and much more toxic narrative...
One that could possibly lead us to Prez McCain...which is the LAST thing I want to see.

[ Parent ]

thats a certainty already (none / 0) (#95)
by dotcommodity on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:39:04 PM EST

that neither will have 2025. They are too close, neither has pulled out ahead far enough.

[ Parent ]

based on what? (none / 0) (#27)
by Jgarza on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:56:53 PM EST

i ahve never seen any good evidence that she is a stronger GE candidate.

[ Parent ]

What evidence would you like to see (5.00 / 2) (#33)
by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:00:37 PM EST

What could anyone possibly show you that you would find convincing?

[ Parent ]

: nothing would convince him (5.00 / 5) (#41)
by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:11:59 PM EST

he's here just to push for Obama.

[ Parent ]

I've always been of the opinion... (5.00 / 4) (#47)
by Jerrymcl89 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:18:16 PM EST

... that Hillary has a certain level of built-in support and built-in opposition, and I think it's strong enough to make her electable, though only narrowly. The main thing about her is that after sixteen years in the public eye, opinions of her aren't really going to change by more than a few percent. Whereas what people see when they look at Obama is substantially different from what they saw a month ago. He's a higher upside/higher risk candidate.

[ Parent ]

My feeling is (5.00 / 2) (#70)
by magisterludi on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:24:12 PM EST

if Hillary were elected, she would work really hard to deliver results in her first term to win over more supporters for a second term, much like she did in NY. I think the pressure on her to deliver would be quite intense, too, more so than Obama or McCain.

[ Parent ]

: Not just the pressure put on her (5.00 / 3) (#80)
by nycstray on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:37:53 PM EST

but the pressure she will put on herself.
I do admire the way she went into her first term with all the media focus. She ignored it and rolled up her sleeves and was willing to learn and work.

[ Parent ]
: i don't agree. i see intense pressure (none / 0) (#118)
by hellothere on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:14:13 PM EST

on obama to deliver. he made promises of unity, etc. everyone will be tapping their feet, waiting, waiting all the while the economy is going down the tubes and iraq? people become bitter and angry waiting for the good times that don't come.

[ Parent ]

are you kidding? (1.00 / 1) (#105)
by TheRefugee on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:13:56 PM EST

she is stocky, has a barrel chest and you can see her biceps thru her blazer. Obama is a skinny pencil necked bantamweight...she'd kill him in arm wrestling.

or did i miss the point?

[ Parent ]

Not my point (none / 0) (#42)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:14:02 PM EST

Whether it is true or not, and I am on record saying it is NOT true, it is the most effective argument Clinton has NOW.

If she can take the lead in the popular vote, imo, now impossible because Obama blocked the FL/MI revote, then that will be a strong argument as well.

[ Parent ]

But as you have said (5.00 / 2) (#45)
by andgarden on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:15:11 PM EST

if the reason she cannot take the lead in the popular vote is that Obama blocked revotes, we are up you know what creek.

UGH.

[ Parent ]

: there was a very interesting post on this (none / 0) (#48)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:18:16 PM EST

at the end of the "Endorsing Richardson's Statement On Ending The Dem Contest" thread

[ Parent ]

Popular vote lead (none / 0) (#68)
by themomcat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:22:52 PM EST

I'm not so sure about it being impossible for Clinton to take the popular vote lead. Obama may have blocked a re-vote in FL and MI but he has not blocked them from being seated at the convention. That final consideration, I believe, is up to the the Regulations committee and the delegates as a whole. They may have a different perspective about disenfranchising the Democrats in two very large states that may be crucial to taking the White House.

[ Parent ]

: I wish he would have fought for a re-vote (none / 0) (#76)
by nycstray on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:34:22 PM EST

it would have given him some integrity (imo), and helped us in Nov. For whatever reason Clinton fought for the re-vote, come Nov, the Dems in those states may not care (about the reason). We'll be running against a Republican and depending on who we have running . . .
I have to wonder how much voice he'll give to seating the delegates and when. . . .

[ Parent ]

well that is something supers should factor in (none / 0) (#96)
by dotcommodity on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:42:40 PM EST

in that even though the ROOLZ rule out