home

Dean Supports Letting The Voters Decide

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:03:26 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Via Daily Kos (whose take on this is decidedly different than mine), DNC Chairman Howard Dean seems to support letting the voters decide who will be the Democratic nominee:

"I think it would be nice to have this all done by July 1. If we can do it sooner than that, that's all the better.

Indeed, July 1 seems a realistic and fair date to have resolution of this contest. By then ALL states and territories would have held their contests, Michigan and Florida could have their situations resolved (I still hold out hope for revotes in Florida and Michigan) and the Super Delegates will have had ample time to make their decisions. By July 1, we will have a pledged delegate leader, a popular vote leader, and some insight into the electability of the respective candidates.

More . . .

It will also make clear that the Super Delegates will decide the nomination, debunking the myth that the contest is one for who is pledged delegate leader, as opposed to a contest to reach 2025 (or 2214 when FL and MI are included.) It will also allow for the realization of what I believe is obvious - that we must have a Unity ticket.

This is leadership from Howard Dean. I wish he had demonstrated more on Florida and Michigan, but his leadership on this is welcome.

< McCain Brings Romney Along for Western Fundraisers | Gore: No Need For "Party Elder" Intervention In Dem Race >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Dean Supports Letting The Voters Decide | 158 comments (158 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    At least (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:06:34 AM EST
    he's willing to let the voters in all the states have their primaries first. Unlike Leahy who today called on Hillary to concede now.

    and dodd, yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Turkana on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:08:01 AM EST
    made clear he wants to shut it down.

    [ Parent ]
    They're being good surrogates (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:25:53 AM EST
    I don't begrudge them that.

    [ Parent ]
    I disagree (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by AF on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:29:31 AM EST
    Nobody associated with the Obama campaign should be calling for Hillary to drop out.

    [ Parent ]
    No question it's a bad strategy (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:31:37 AM EST
    but they're carrying the message given. . .

    [ Parent ]
    Not necessarily true (none / 0) (#46)
    by AF on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:37:15 AM EST
    Nobody else is saying it.  

    Big-shot surrogates tend to go off on their own from time to time.  See Ferraro, Geraldine; Richardson, Bill; Rendell, Ed.

    [ Parent ]

    Quit? (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by flashman on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:48:59 AM EST
    Nobody else is saying it.

    Except for the pro-Obama MSM and netroots.  With thousands of demi-surrogates talking up the point, Big-shot ones aren't quite as necessary.

    [ Parent ]

    Please, let's stop (none / 0) (#126)
    by AF on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:33:12 AM EST
    Blurring the distinction between the campaigns and their unaffiliated supporters.

    [ Parent ]
    Not My Intention (none / 0) (#164)
    by flashman on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:19:13 PM EST
    to blur those lines, but the fact remains that very powerful news organizations, having much influence on the perception of the electorate, has been calling for Hillary to quit prematurly.  I don't think it's wrong to point that out in a discussion about how voter's should decide.

    [ Parent ]
    Possible (none / 0) (#50)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:40:50 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    But shouldn't they be good Democrats first? (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:50:33 AM EST
    ...At least Dean is seeing that. And if the Democratic leadership wants me to be a good little soldier and vote for the candidate I don't now support...they need to lead by example.

    [ Parent ]
    I (none / 0) (#118)
    by tek on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:24:08 AM EST
    begrudge anyone who claims to be a Democrat and then works to thwart democracy.  Of course, it's not hard to figure out why Dodd is sweating bullets.  He voted with the Republicans to impeach one of his own.  Traitor.

    [ Parent ]
    Who did Dodd votet to impeach? (none / 0) (#152)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:57:18 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Leahy would know a thing or two about (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by tigercourse on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:15:26 AM EST
    concession.

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly! (none / 0) (#23)
    by doyenne49 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:21:19 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Sort of, (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by HeadScratcher on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:17:19 AM EST
    Considering that Sen. Clinton is pushing the notion that pledged delegates aren't really pledged at all it doesn't seem necessary to have any voting to begin with since the delegates should choose the candidate regardless of the vote...

    [ Parent ]
    "Pushing the notion"? You don't know (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:19:34 AM EST
    that it's true?  It is.  A pledge is not binding, and no delegate is bound to vote against their conscience and judgment as to the best candidate.

    So your comment says nothing about Clinton or the rules, but it sure says a lot about someone's bias and ignorance.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually, a pledge is binding (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by AF on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:31:30 AM EST
    If you are a person of your word.  A pledged delegate cannot in good conscience vote for anyone but the candidate she promise to vote for.

    [ Parent ]
    Except in IA apparently. (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:36:23 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Bunk (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by badger on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:07:20 AM EST
    You're clearly told (and more than once) when you're elected a caucus delegate that your vote is bound for the first ballot and you're free to vote however you want after that. That's what you promise.

    I was a Dean delegate 4 years ago, my wife is a Clinton delegate now.

    [ Parent ]

    So you agree (none / 0) (#125)
    by AF on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:31:24 AM EST
    That pledged delegates are bound on the first ballot.

    With two candidats left and the overwhelming desire among super delegates to get this resolved before the convention, it's hard to see this going to a second ballot.

    But sure, if it does, all bets are off.

    [ Parent ]

    Nope -- pledged is not bound (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:08:17 AM EST
    And rules say that "delegates elected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them" -- which do not stop voters from changing their minds owing to intervening events and their delegates from reflecting that.

    Plus, even pledge rules only apply to the first or second rounds of voting, depending upon state rules.

    [ Parent ]

    Pedantry and ad hom (none / 0) (#67)
    by Moopsy on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:51:26 AM EST
    not a very worthwhile comment from you.

    [ Parent ]
    Silliness. See above. (none / 0) (#101)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:09:06 AM EST
    Or we would not have had our 1952 nominee -- or might be in a situation of nominating a dead candidate, a convicted candidate, etc.

    [ Parent ]
    You ignored AF's point (none / 0) (#112)
    by Moopsy on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:16:46 AM EST
    in favor of quibbling and questioning his motives.  Less than impressive.

    [ Parent ]
    His language indicated bias (none / 0) (#165)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:20:54 PM EST
    with "pushing the notion," and I called it out.

    Additionally, there is a danger in this widespread questioning of Clinton telling it like it is -- as if the convention does decide on a nominee other than Obama, the lack of knowledge that it is perfectly fine for delegates to do so only would feed the meme about a "stolen" nomination.

    And it would feed the frenzy created by those, like Donna "Walk Out" Brazile, who are telling untruths and threatening disruption at the convention.  I do not attribute those motives to anyone here, but they ought to know the process is not a "notion" being "pushed" by a candidate.  It is the party process.

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by tek on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:25:07 AM EST
    isn't "pushing the notion."  Howard Dean said straight out the "pledged" delegates can vote however they want.  He's no Hillary shill!

    [ Parent ]
    Pledged delegates 'switching...' (none / 0) (#51)
    by sweetthings on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:41:13 AM EST
    Is a ludicrous argument. No matter which camp it comes from.

    Pledged delegates tend to come from two different pools:

    • Political professionals: These are people who's livelyhood is made in the political arena. If they were to vote against their pledged candidate, it would literally destroy their career, as nobody would ever trust them again.
    • Ultra, super partisans: Just drinking the Kool-Aid isn't enough to be a delegate. You have to live the Kool-Aid, be the Kool-Aid. These are not people who think...'You know, I like both candidates, I just like candidate X a little bit more.' These are people who are ready to donate a testicle if candidate X asks for it.

    Out of thousands of pledged delegates, you might get one or two outliers who would be willing to switch. That's it. There is simply no chance that any significant number is going to defect.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm sure that will give them comfort (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by blogtopus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:49:30 AM EST
    As they watch their candidate sink into a GE morass of Wright, Wright, Wright, and more Wright.

    Hopefully they aren't so stubborn or blind as to support a candidacy that has just hit an iceberg. We'll see if the rising waters convince them; they won't be able to just wash their hands of the matter.

    [ Parent ]

    Dean was asked about pledged (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:52:04 AM EST
    delegates switching their allegiance in unlinkable AP interview.  He sd. its a very technical argument.

    [ Parent ]
    It is highly unlikely, of course. (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:10:33 AM EST
    but the ludicrous statement here is to say that it's not allowed.

    [ Parent ]
    Not true (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by badger on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:24:16 AM EST
    mostly because most of the caucus states haven't selected convention delegates yet. In WA State, the Legislative District level conventions are in a week or two, followed by the Congressional District conventions, followed by the state convention. Each level elects pledged delegates to the next level and the state convention elects the national convention delegates.

    At each level, the delegates from the previous level are pledged only for the first vote, and in my experience, the first vote is just a formality - kind of like taking attendance. After that vote, delegates can vote however they want.

    At least through the state level, the delegates are ordinary people - some are professionals or ultra-partisans, most are not. I think there's a good chance that if I hadn't successfully evaded being elected a delegate at this year's caucus, I could go at least as far as the state convention, and maybe to the national. I'm neither a professional nor ultra-partisan.

    It's conceivable, and within the rules, that either candidate could lose all of their delegates moving through the process. It's not likely.


    [ Parent ]

    It is puzzling (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by eric on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:35:28 AM EST
    how Sen. Leahy made such a bold statement.  He wasn't even close to this direct with AG Gonzales when it was obvious that he should quit.  When did he grow a spine?

    In my view, there is only one explanation - the fix is in.  The establishment has chosen its candidate, and its not Hillary.  How else could Leahy make such a statement about a fellow Senator?  Normally, these people are so concilliatory and deferential to each other.

    [ Parent ]

    i know this sounds outrageous (none / 0) (#133)
    by sancho on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:41:58 AM EST
    but it is not clear to me that Leahy or Pelosi want to serve in a majority under a Democratic president. I think they fear Hillary making them be responsible for their votes as Bush made Republicans in Congress responsible for theirs. Remember, Bill could not get the Dem congress on his side either. And if Obama is unelectable, as some folks here think, then these "dem leaders" know it too.

    [ Parent ]
    Leahy (none / 0) (#10)
    by Andy08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:14:06 AM EST
    said that? What a dissapointement; it's depressing
    to see him behave like this.  What need does he have of losing the respect of so many people after all these years?

    [ Parent ]
    Leahy's inability to lead (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by pluege on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:56:34 AM EST
    has been thoroughly demonstrated since he became chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee - talk about all hat and no cattle - what a disappointment. His foolishness and lack of statesmanship regarding Obama and Clinton is no surprise.

    [ Parent ]
    meant (none / 0) (#11)
    by Andy08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:14:54 AM EST
    "disappointment" --

    [ Parent ]
    hey (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by tree on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:28:58 AM EST
    I kinda liked "dissapointement". Putting the "diss" in disapointment.

    [ Parent ]
    On behalf of the state of Vermont (none / 0) (#138)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:47:20 AM EST
    I apologize for Senator Leahy's statement!


    [ Parent ]
    Thats fair (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by mikecan1978 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:08:03 AM EST
    I do think that if the writing on the wall is there sooner then it should end more quickly.   If anything as an Obama supporter, I think ending things too quickly would anger people who feel Hillary still has a shot.  

    If Hillary underperforms in Penn, wins by 5% or less and losses NC and Indiana, not even revotes in Michigan and Florida could make up the difference.

    At that point I think things will be over.

    If Penn, NC and Indiana are close and revotes in MI and FL are possible I think July 1st will be the date.

    I liked Hillary's statment on unity and fell like this will get her more votes....I hope Obama says something similar to the 19% of his voters that say they'd vote for McCain over Hillary.

    this is nice (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Turkana on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:08:32 AM EST
    but if he doesn't show any leadership on resolving florida and michigan, it's moot.

    In an AP interview, Dean sd. the (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:16:35 AM EST
    candidates aren't there yet.

    [ Parent ]
    aren't (none / 0) (#38)
    by Turkana on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:32:40 AM EST
    where?

    [ Parent ]
    AP interview with Dean (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:48:39 AM EST
    ends with him discussing FL/MI and the candidates' positions.  Can't link to or copy from the interview.  Dean basically says the candidates don't agree on a plan at this point.

    [ Parent ]
    hard to get them to agree (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by Turkana on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:50:02 AM EST
    when one is open to revotes and the other isn't.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:09:00 PM EST
    In fact, I think it's worse than moot. It sounds ominous to me, simply because it doesn't include anything about FL and MI. It sounds to me like he is angling to get the SD's to break for Obama BEFORE FL and MI are decided. I can only see this as a good move if FL and MI are first seated so that Hillary's real support is seen by all. With FL and MI, she is very close right now. After PA and other states, she could actually pull even or even ahead. If you tell SD's to vote before that is apparent, you know who they're going to break for. So I really think this is Dean again angling to make it an uneven playing field for Obama.

    And incidentally, he shouldn't be allowing Hillary or Obama to veto FL/MI. Obviously, they are both going to do what is in their best interest, which means one likes it, one doesn't. HE should tell them both to accept a revote or seat the delegates, no other choice. Because those are the only choices the democratic party has.

    [ Parent ]

    Financials (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Semanticleo on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:09:26 AM EST
    (I still hold out hope for revotes in Florida and Michigan)

    Where is the money coming from?

    The money has been offered (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:10:32 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    You're not worried? (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by DodgeIND on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:43:30 AM EST
    Are you not worried that the people willing to buy an election are coming from the supporters of one of the candidates?  Doesn't that scare you?

    If there is going to be a revote it has to be payed with local/federal government funds.

    [ Parent ]

    It only scares Obama supporters (5.00 / 5) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:50:33 AM EST
    afraid of revotes in MI and FL.

    [ Parent ]
    There is a distinct difference (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by echinopsia on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:51:07 AM EST
    Between "buying" an election and paying for an election to be held.

    States usually pay for elections. Are they then "buying" them?

    You might be able to push this "buying an election" crap somewhere else, but I doubt it'll get much play here.

    [ Parent ]

    Obviously it won't get play here. (1.00 / 1) (#75)
    by DodgeIND on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:55:40 AM EST
    That's because this site is heavily in favor of Clinton and all Clinton supports will try to do anything to get their candidate more votes.

    I'm not worried about the revotes at all. I'm worried about the principle that people that arn't elected MI and FL officials are using private money to hold a Democratic election.  Isn't that ridiculous to you?  

    States buy elections, that's true, but they buy them with official donations and taxes.  Private citizens should not be directly feeding money into a revote.

    [ Parent ]

    No, it won't get play because (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by echinopsia on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:57:24 AM EST
    it's an inaccurate and biased way of putting it.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh please. (none / 0) (#91)
    by DodgeIND on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:01:26 AM EST
    Like everything else on this site is not biased towards the Clinton campaign.  I'm making an argument for keeping the integrity of the primary process.  By accepting private funds from someone who supports a candidate is ridiculous in my mind.  I would be saying this regardless of the candidate it was benefiting.

    [ Parent ]
    what difference does it make if private (none / 0) (#103)
    by popsnorkle on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:10:04 AM EST
    funds are used, if the primary is run by the state?  Paying for it doesn't make the donors able to affect the outcome.  If anything it could be taking money away from being used in some other way to support Clinton.

    [ Parent ]
    And states also pay with private funds (none / 0) (#108)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:13:08 AM EST
    -- of course, since they're paid by taxes from us private citizens.

    [ Parent ]
    Once those taxes are paid (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Moopsy on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:19:56 AM EST
    title to the funds resides with a government, and thus the funds are no longer private.

    [ Parent ]
    And once the private donors write their (none / 0) (#115)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:21:12 AM EST
    checks, they will no longer have any control over the money.

    This is obviously a non-issue.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly. I'm tired of seeing this line (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:12:48 PM EST
    of argument against revotes, and Clinton, here.

    [ Parent ]
    agreed (none / 0) (#127)
    by Moopsy on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:35:17 AM EST
    i don't care who funds revotes.  the whole primary system is such a far cry from a democratic process that quibbling over such details seems pointless.

    [ Parent ]
    x (none / 0) (#173)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:12:04 PM EST
    Actually, the way Carville offered it was that each side put up half the money. But Obama, as always, won't agree to anything that he might lose, no matter how many voters get disenfranchised, nor even if it would hurt him in November. He is shortsighted, and that definitely hurts the party. But he doesn't seem to care about the party, only that he wins. That's a recipe for winning the battle but losing the war.


    [ Parent ]
    Apparently the state party pays (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:57:48 AM EST
    for caucuses and the state government pays for primaries.  Not just FL/MI, but across the U.S.  This has been discussed frequently at Talk Left.

    [ Parent ]
    Hey (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by tree on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:00:54 AM EST
    I was just about to say the same thing! (no,really)

    Should we invalidate all the caucuses because they were privately paid for?

    [ Parent ]

    Yes. (none / 0) (#83)
    by DodgeIND on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:59:11 AM EST
    I could be swayed to accepting a revote if the money came from public, official state/party funds.

    [ Parent ]
    As I understand it (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by tree on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:05:35 AM EST
    the money promised for the revote was going to go to the state party in order to pay for and supervise the election. It wasn't ever implied that the donors themselves were going to run the election. So can we assume that now that you understand that the money for the election will be coming from the party, after the donors make their promised donations, that you are not opposed to a revote?

    [ Parent ]
    Uh, where do you think parties get funds? (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:12:11 AM EST
    Private donors.  So you're okay with parties essentially laundering private funds for state caucuses (since states don't pay for those).  Uh huh.

    [ Parent ]
    Party funds (none / 0) (#141)
    by Trickster on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:49:51 AM EST
    are not "public" and "official."

    [ Parent ]
    Why? (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Trickster on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:48:22 AM EST
    I saw the guaranty letter that Rendell and Corzine sent to MI.  It has no pre-conditions whatsoever other than it will fund any Presidential primary election approved by the MI legislature.  What's wrong with that?

    Both states have said adamantly that they won't pay for new elections; they've already paid for 1.  A veto on private funding is a veto on elections period.

    [ Parent ]

    If you are so concerned about it (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:10:06 PM EST
    please encourage your candidate to have his own
    big donors contribute
    50% of the cost of a revote.

    That may give him an opportunity to reverse his
    apathy about Americans wanting their votes to count.

    [ Parent ]

    Ridiculous (none / 0) (#55)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:44:06 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    No. (none / 0) (#167)
    by Iphie on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:06:59 PM EST
    Hillary supporters said that they would raise $15 million and asked that Obama campaign pledge to do the same. The cost of the revote would be split straight down the middle. As far as I know, there was never a response from the Obama campaign to this solution for paying for the cost of a revote.

    [ Parent ]
    Just saw two (none / 0) (#175)
    by joyce1 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:57:51 PM EST
    AA senators in Michigan say that they opposed a revote. They support Obama but say that that had nothing to do with their decisions. Yeah right!

    [ Parent ]
    the supers can factor in (5.00 / 7) (#18)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:18:24 AM EST
    FLA and MI votes when making their decision regardless of what the DNC decides. Those that believe Hillary's wins in the big states, including FL and MI, as well as Ohio, CA, NY, Mass, NJ, etc., and PA assuming she wins it make her more electable are well within their authority to do so. They can also factor in the numbers in calculating her popular vote total.

    numbers (none / 0) (#66)
    by blogtopus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:51:24 AM EST
    Jeralyn, I can't find the numbers, maybe I'm looking in the wrong places, but at what point in the contest do the Supers stop having the numbers to decide this primary? How far ahead does Obama have to be in pledged delegates?

    Or not just Jeralyn, anybody?

    [ Parent ]

    Delegate counts. (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by sweetthings on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:00:34 AM EST
    You need 2,024 to win the Democratic nomination. Obama is currently somewhere around 1414 pledged delegates. So to wrap it up without any Supers at all, he need another 610. But there are only 611 pledged delegates remaining.

    So I suppose, in theory if Obama were to win every contest from here on out with 100% of the vote, he could win with pledged delegates alone. But of course that's not going to happen. He'll need Supers. So will Hillary.

    The Supers never stop mattering in this race. They decide the race.

    [ Parent ]

    I think blogtopus's question is (none / 0) (#99)
    by Moopsy on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:08:16 AM EST
    whether it's possible that HRC will not have enough pledged delegates to win, even if all the supers were to go for her.  You are addressing a different point.

    HRC has 1253 pledged delegates right now, according to CNN.  There are almost 800 superdelegates, so HRC only needs a few more pledged and she could win if every superdelegate went to her.

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks SW (none / 0) (#102)
    by blogtopus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:09:11 AM EST
    You teh cool :-)

    [ Parent ]
    They can also factor in that (none / 0) (#89)
    by Moopsy on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:00:37 AM EST
    their actions themselves will affect her electability in a Heisenbergian manner.

    [ Parent ]
    Perhaps Dean can tell (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by wasabi on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:21:45 AM EST
    Leahy and Dodd to shut up.  It's just pissing off voters.  The polls show overwhelmingly that the people want the race to continue. Let the people decide.  What a concept.

    The leadership from Dean (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Iphie on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:31:49 AM EST
    provides a counterpoint to all of the people who are telling us that it is imperative to end it now. All of these Chicken Littles need to stop and seriously consider what it is they are suggesting -- disenfranchising not only MI and FL, but all of the other states yet to vote. Are they really so willing to alienate the almost half of us who have already expressed our preference for Clinton, or the millions who have yet to express their support via the voting booth? And Leahy? You wanna show some leadership? I've got some ideas about where your leadership might be a little more relevant and important. No wonder these people role over so easily for Bush on core constitutional issues -- they don't even believe in the importance and validity of our franchise.

    I saw Dean on Scarborough this morning: (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by mm on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:37:58 AM EST
    Let me summarize the man's plan:

    1.  Continue with primary process.

    2.  By June we'll have a nominee.

    3.  Then he'll deal with MI and FL

    Anyone besides me see a problem with this?

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, because what he's planning (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:40:13 AM EST
    is a coup by super delegate--for Obama.

    FL and MI need resolutions now, not later.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by mm on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:52:19 AM EST
    It's ridiculous to say pick the nominee first and then decide what to do about FL and MI.  A big factor in the perception that Clinton can't win and is so far behind in popular vote is because they're not counting FL and MI. This influences the future primaries and is a big advantage for Obama.  Everyone knows this but Dean is playing dumb.

    The funniest part was when Dean said the "the important thing is that all parties will feel that there was a fair process".

    [ Parent ]

    Disagree (none / 0) (#57)
    by DodgeIND on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:47:41 AM EST
    MI and FL both had their chance to shine before Super Tuesday when they broke the rules and moved up their primaries.  Dean has to abide by his decision so we don't have chaos in primarys in the future when random states move up their primary date 1,2,3 or more months in advance because they can get away with it.

    [ Parent ]
    You might not care (5.00 / 5) (#59)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:48:55 AM EST
    that MI and FL are being disenfranchised. I do.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think they're being disenfranchised. (1.00 / 1) (#69)
    by DodgeIND on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:52:09 AM EST
    The elected officials of their state decided to break the rules.  We're in a representative form of government.  Blame the elected officials who broke the rules, who were elected by who?  You guessed it, the "disenfranchised" voters.  

    Were you worried about this last year when word of this came out?

    Or only are you worried about this now when your candidate needs those votes to have a chance at competing?


    [ Parent ]

    By your description (5.00 / 5) (#81)
    by tree on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:58:04 AM EST
    you lede line is incorrect. You apparently DO think they are being disenfranchised, but you think they deserve to be.

    [ Parent ]
    Ding, ding, ding. (none / 0) (#86)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:00:22 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Stop the falsehoods (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:00:37 AM EST
    If you know anything about this blog, you would know I have been beating the drum on revotes since February 6.

    If you can not discuss the issues civilly, then you need to find a new site to comment at.

    [ Parent ]

    I believe (none / 0) (#93)
    by DodgeIND on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:03:45 AM EST
    I have been very civil.  I have not called anyone names and I have not slogged down anyone's name.

    I wasn't referencing you about a revote sooner, however I was asking another.  They can offer their own defense.

    Time for lunch.

    Cheers.

    [ Parent ]

    This (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:07:16 AM EST
    Were you worried about this last year when word of this came out?

    Or only are you worried about this now when your candidate needs those votes to have a chance at competing?

    Seems pretty uncivil to me.

    [ Parent ]

    Challenging the motives (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:07:36 AM EST
    of my commitment to revotes is UTTERLY uncivil.

    You think it is not? Then you need to learn what civility means a TL.

    [ Parent ]

    I thought it was wrong from the start (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by badger on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:37:47 AM EST
    and so did a lot of other people, like kos, to name one. I thought it was wrong before I chose a candidate to support, and I still think it's wrong and for the same reasons, and if I supported Obama, I'd still think it's wrong.

    [ Parent ]
    I wasn't that worried when I heard about it (4.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Trickster on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:55:19 AM EST
    Becaue I figured it was 99.9% certain that wiser heads would prevail and we wouldn't actually disenfranchise two of the three--or at the outside, two of the four (with maybe PA sneaking ahead of MI, along with OH of course)--most important swing states in the nation.

    [ Parent ]
    That comment is so false (none / 0) (#73)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:53:42 AM EST
    that I hope it's just deleted.

    [ Parent ]
    What is false? (none / 0) (#80)
    by DodgeIND on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:58:00 AM EST
    My opinion of disenfranchisement?

    The breaking the rules part?  The maintaining the integrity of the primary tradition and rules for running them?  

    [ Parent ]

    The idea that not allowing (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:59:26 AM EST
    MI and FL to vote does not constitute disenfranchisement. It is obviously so, and it it dishonest for you to claim otherwise.

    [ Parent ]
    No, that's just his opinion (none / 0) (#107)
    by Moopsy on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:12:15 AM EST
    You have a different one.  Neither of them are facts, just opinions.

    [ Parent ]
    No (5.00 / 5) (#110)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:15:45 AM EST
    Florida and Michigan have been disenfrancished. There is an opinion that it is justified disenfranchisement.

    But there can be no dispute that they HAVE been disenfranchised.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes there can be (none / 0) (#122)
    by Moopsy on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:26:19 AM EST
    your conclusion rests on several arguable premises.  To name just one, it assumes that the term "franchise" applies to votes in a party primary.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:37:12 AM EST
    That is your argument?

    I am done with you then.

    [ Parent ]

    I suspected you would be (1.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Moopsy on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:57:58 AM EST
    long on vigorous assertions of your dubious opinion, short on arguments to support it.

    [ Parent ]
    were you worried about this last year? (none / 0) (#128)
    by workingclass artist on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:36:19 AM EST
    I just want to say that alot of democrats were worried about this from the start. It was like watching a storm develope and there was going to be a big mess. Any voter has been especially interested in Florida since 2000 and things are still coming out about Ohio mess 2004. Mich. and FL. have grown beyond the candidates and the party rules, it's become a popular cause and frankly looks bad for the great liberal party. Dean should fix it before June and he looks bad stacking the committee with his loyal pals. Dean is so in over his head and it shows. At least he said this much, but I feel it is tepid at best.

    [ Parent ]
    Give me a break... (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by americanincanada on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:42:03 AM EST
    Florida moved up it's primary by 6 days...6 days.

    does anyone really think the outcome would have been any different?

    [ Parent ]

    Please clarify (none / 0) (#121)
    by mm on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:25:27 AM EST
    I don't understand what you disagree with.

    It's a fact that Dean said what he said this morning on Scarborough.  Pick the nominee, then decide what to do about FL and MI.

    There is only one possible outcome with that scenario, and I think everyone knows what that is.

    You appear to be an Obama supporter, so you're content.  I'm not.

    [ Parent ]

    Do not seat the MIFL delegates (none / 0) (#153)
    by imhotep on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:57:43 AM EST
    I support HRC, but frontloading the primaries was a big mistake.  Seating the MIFL delegates even after the nominee is selected is rewarding those state party bosses who broke the rules.  They want to go to the convention for the big parties-food, drink, hobnobbing with other party bosses.
    The MIFL voters knew their votes would be thrown out. Make those pols who broke the rules watch the convention on TV.

    [ Parent ]
    When it's just so obvious that their real problem (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Trickster on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:52:15 AM EST
    Is that Clinton is going to win big in PA and have obvious momentum.  And they're scare of that and want to throw their "leader" weight around and shut down the process.

    [ Parent ]
    Hey, (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by andrelee on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:46:16 AM EST
    I'm glad no one has resorted to saying 'Hey, Leahy, go Cheney yourself!' Very glad indeed.

    On Senator Casey (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:59:02 AM EST
    We elected him in 2006. He is anti-choice and not that progressive but as he was the only sure candidate we knew who could beat Ricky Santorum, we went with him. He has not been a leader but he is a Dem. He said he is behind Obama  but that should not have that much effect on the people of Penna. Casey will be traveling with Obama but Rendell travels with Hillary. I am glad Dean spoke up finally. Maybe he has been getting "no more money until' from other people than me.

    Casey (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by workingclass artist on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:16:09 PM EST
    Richardson endorsment last week, Casey this week. Pa. is 30% catholic, guess Obama is trying to unite the catholic vote? Kerry, Kennedy, Richardson, and Casey. Won't work in Pa. Things coming out about the good pastor and Obm's church will piss off the typical working class voters in Pa.

    [ Parent ]
    It was not that Casey was Catholic (none / 0) (#168)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:41:28 PM EST
    As stated, Casey was the opposite of Ricky. Santorum won before and he was not Catholic. Far from it. Specter is Jewish and so is Rendell. The religions all get along around here and Catholics manage to side step the Pro Choice issue. Saw the first Hillary ad last night. Nice, bright and positive. The one with Obama is dark. I don't remember what he was saying. Depressing looking.And I am not being bias on this.

    [ Parent ]
    I think Dean should... (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Joe on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:59:58 AM EST
    ...retract the boneheaded punishment that discriminated only against MI and FL and allow the results to stand.  The closeness of the nomination, makes the punishment even more dumb. Admitting that it was a mistake would be leadership.

    It's clear how many voted for HRC and BHO in FL, it's clear how many voted HRC in MI, the only thing not clear (and it's their own divisive fault for removing their name) is how many voted BHO in MI, vs Edwards or the other handful.  It's not perfect but millions of people have already voted for the persons they want.

    If the MI and FL issue is NOT resolved, there could well be a substantial amount of folks so pissed off with the Dem Party that they refuse to vote for a group so incompetent, regardless of the lack of alternatives.  ...Personally, I feel that way.

    Sorry if this is a slight tangent to the diary, but I feel this issue undermines the whole nomination process.

    I think Dean should (none / 0) (#135)
    by workingclass artist on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:44:23 AM EST
    I think your right and it's one of the reasons lunchbuckets aren't  swayed. There are petitions to seat the delegates and lots of info about this issue. If Dean wants a unified party he needs to resolve it asap as at best it looks like incompetence and/or worse it looks like a hypocritical fix.

    [ Parent ]
    Sit this one out OR (none / 0) (#170)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:43:31 PM EST
    I have heard people say write in Hillary's name. That would frost a few.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think the long campaign (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by magisterludi on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:27:52 AM EST
    has been the problem. Clinton is probably gambling on the drip, drip, drip of the Wright controversy demolishing Obama's chances in the GE. I think it already has, regardless of the polls.

    Everyone blames the media, including bloggers, for not vetting Obama when he announced his run. One would think that the DNC might have done a little research themselves. I find it hard to believe they weren't aware of a potential backlash, a long and lasting one. Could they possibly be that disconnected?

    I really shouldn't be surprised. Look at how all the Very Smart People in our banking industry succeeded only in failing miserably.

    How could threy not know? (none / 0) (#159)
    by workingclass artist on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:09:05 PM EST
    The DNC knew, just as they know as much as they can about any cadidate. As more information comes out it will affect the nomination, if this is based on who would fare best in the general against the republican opponent. It's aways this way in a close race like this. The fact that HRC recieves mst of her support from 2/3 of the base is important. Obama promises independents and the youth vote, both of which are historically unpredictable in Nov. The cross - over republicans is a delusion spun by the media, they are dem's for a day but never in Nov. Because HRC has such a hold on most of the base, this is why unite talk is starting, but if Dean doesn't fix FL. and MICH. asap he can say probably goodbye to a unity ticket. People are that pissed off.

    [ Parent ]
    That's just, like, your opinion, man (none / 0) (#7)
    by Moopsy on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:10:52 AM EST
    The superdelegates are all that matter.  Why bother with voters and pledged delegates at all?

    The unity ticket is a pipe dream that would create as many problems as it would solve.

    The Supers are all that matter... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by sweetthings on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:12:34 AM EST
    this time around. But that's only because voters has so far been so evenly split.

    Supers only make up 20% of the delegates. That's nothing to sneeze at, but it's not a controlling interest, either.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, but I'm only talking about this time around (none / 0) (#12)
    by Moopsy on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:15:16 AM EST
    And the supers do have the controlling interest at this point.  Of course, the whole farce should be abandoned next time.  

    [ Parent ]
    Then what do when we have a tie? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:27:26 AM EST
    Have another round of primaries?  Just call both candidates one person and put them both on the ticket for a co-presidency?

    These candidates are so close that on some level the super delegate participation should be a welcome part of the process imo because there has to be some group that can help provide a path to unity after a winner is chosen - and that is not necessarily a role that candidates or their campaign surrogates can be expected to play.  That is why I am glad that Gore and Edwards and o