Dean Supports Letting The Voters Decide

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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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.

    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.

    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.

    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. . .

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

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

    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.

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

    Exactly! (none / 0) (#23)
    by doyenne49 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:21:19 AM EST
    Sort of, (5.00 / 0) (#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...

    "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.


    Actually, a pledge is binding (5.00 / 0) (#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.

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


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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!

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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?

    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.

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

    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.

    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!

    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 / 3) (#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.

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

    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.

    hard to get them to agree (5.00 / 2) (#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.

    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.


    Financials (5.00 / 0) (#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
    You're not worried? (5.00 / 0) (#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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?


    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.

    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?

    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.

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

    Why? (5.00 / 0) (#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.


    If you are so concerned about it (5.00 / 1) (#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.


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

    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!

    The Supers are all that matter... (5.00 / 0) (#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.

    Then what do when we have a tie? (5.00 / 0) (#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 others have stayed out of this so far.  They are allowing the voters to decide and will make a determination when all of the votes are in.  We might disagree on their criteria for going one way or another in the end, but hopefully they will craft a decision that at least feels somewhat fair to all of the parties involved in the end.  The good news is that there are a lot of peole who have no interest in a party bloodbath unlike some of the more intense candidate supporters, delegates and surrogates.


    Jerome put up a spreadsheet from RCP yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:29:54 AM EST
    where you can play around with numbers and percentages. Unless Hillary runs out of money, it looks like she'll get Obama under BTD's 500,000 pop vote margin.

    I predict chaos.


    Chaos remains unlikely (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by AF on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:33:58 AM EST
    BTD's 500,000 vote threshold is defensible, but it will not win the day.  

    The super delegates will go for Obama by July 1 if he wins North Carolina and Oregon and retains his pledged delegate and popular vote lead.


    I think it depends on the margin (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:36:16 AM EST
    in those two states and Indiana. And of course Pennsylvania.

    It depends on the national margin (none / 0) (#92)
    by AF on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:03:31 AM EST
    Big wins for Clinton in PA and IN coupled with narrow losses in NC and OR will only throw the primary into chaos if Clinton wins the popular vote, not including FL and MI, or closes the pledged delegate enough that FL and MI could make up the difference in pledged delegates.

    If she can't achieve that, Obama's pledged delegate and popular vote leads coupled with the overwhelming desire to settle the nomination before the convention will cause the super delegates to swing to him -- if Hillary doesn't concede the race herself at that point.


    I think we're in agreement (none / 0) (#95)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:06:26 AM EST
    But it seems obvious to me that the margin for Obama, probably in terms of delegates and certainly in terms of the popular vote, will not exceed what Hillary would have picked up from Florida.

    He's not going to get a 500,000 vote margin. It might not even be 100,000.

    just play around with this a bit


    Sure (none / 0) (#109)
    by AF on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:14:27 AM EST
    But my point is he doesn't need any popular vote margin to win the nomination.  He just needs to win the popular vote, keep a 50-75 pledged delegate margin, and not get swept in May.  

    If his margin is at the expense (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:16:02 AM EST
    of counting FL, he will be illegitimate--in my eyes anyway.

    Are you talking about delegates or popular votes (none / 0) (#124)
    by AF on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:28:11 AM EST
    If Obama's pledged delegate lead is at the expense of Florida, there will be chaos.  

    If his pledged delegate lead is greater than Clinton's margin in the January Florida and Michigan primaries -- giving uncommitted delegates from MI to Obama -- then the Florida and Michigan delegations will be seated and Obama will be the nominee -- even if his popular vote margin is less than 300,000.

    That, I think, will be legitimate.  


    Both, but more likely pop vote (none / 0) (#129)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:37:11 AM EST
    Hesitate to ask this, but, (none / 0) (#136)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:45:46 AM EST
    is the popular vote in a caucus state the actual no. of voters who turned out; or is that number somehow multiplied to resemble a primary turnout?

    I believe it is raw votes (none / 0) (#140)
    by AF on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:49:44 AM EST
    Which is why the popular vote is an imperfect measure, in my opinion.

    I think it would be sour grapes (none / 0) (#137)
    by AF on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:47:08 AM EST
    To suggest that Obama is not the legitimate nominee if he is ahead in pledged delagates after seating the FL and MI delegations.

    If he is ahead in pledged delegates (5.00 / 0) (#143)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:51:31 AM EST
    but behind in the popular vote, it will prove that our system is broken, though he will be legitimate.

    If Florida is not seated, either in its current form or with a new vote, he will not be legitimate.


    Fair enough (5.00 / 0) (#150)
    by AF on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:56:22 AM EST
    Though I think it would be more accurate to say that if Florida provides the margin of error in terms of delegates, there is no legitimate winner of the primaries.

    The nominee would then have to be chosen by the super delegates based on their independent judgment, and either choice would be legitimate.


    That's right (none / 0) (#155)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:58:22 AM EST
    but that would also prove that our system is broken.

    We obviously need a national primary day.


    LOL (none / 0) (#174)
    by BrandingIron on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:47:39 PM EST

    Please tell us why Oregon, with its 7 electoral votes, is so important in the GE.

    yeah, as Dean said: even the loser will have 49.8% (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by dotcommodity on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:33:39 AM EST
    of the Democratic party behind them and it IS going to be very hard for us all to rally round one candidate in such a close race.

    But to end it in June is better than fighting till August!


    The element that I believe (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:12:12 AM EST
    really muddies the waters is that these state contests are so different - with caucuses, primaries and Texans voting twice in both a primary and a caucus.  So this popular vote total is not a straight-forward calculation by any stretch.  I have no interest in diving into which candidate's votes matter "more" or "less" as much as I want to be at least somewhat honest about the fact that the popular vote as we know it is not a crystal clear apples plus apples total.  Unfortunately, that does mean that super delegates are going to be in the position of reading tea leaves.

    There are two things that I would take away from this contest:

    1. Calculating delegates so closely to the popular vote is a bad idea.  I don't think winner take all is a good idea, but I think that if someone gets over 60-70% of the vote they should walk away with a clear delegate advantage.
    2. All the contests should be administered in the same way.  All primaries or all caucuses - pick one - and then you would have a much clearer picture of where candidates stand on a national level and you'd reduce the need/temptation for the super delegates, surrogates and candidates to read tea leaves about which kind of contest is really "more" meaningful/important.  Obviously, I'd pick primaries...

    That's wrong (none / 0) (#144)
    by badger on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:52:01 AM EST
    because this is not like a general election contest where you essentially have only 2 candidates. The nomination contest always begins with 6 or 8 or more candidates.

    If more than two candidates decide to remain in the race, and all do reasonably well, then instead of requiring a majority (as we do now and always have), you'd have to decide on a plurality.

    That in turn creates a condition where a minority candidate, like a George Wallace or David Duke, can win the nomination with 1/3 of the vote or even less - the nominee will be opposed by more than 2/3s of the party.

    The only alternative I can see is a Louisiana-style national run-off election between the top two vote-getters, and even then you risk a situation like LePen in the French election before last. And logistically and financially, that'd be a nightmare for Dem candidates.

    So it seems logical to rely on superdelegates in the occasional situation where a clear leader doesn't emerge from the primaries/caucuses.


    Because (none / 0) (#158)
    by badger on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:07:49 PM EST
    nearly all European countries are parliamentary systems where minority parties have to form coalitions to govern.

    And we're talking about choosing the party's nominee here - not choosing the President (who also is elected by superdelegates, BTW, even in the case of a plurality, like Clinton).

    If you think it's a good idea to have a process that can choose a nominee that 1/3 or less of the party supports, I don't know what to say to you.


    the supers can factor in (5.00 / 6) (#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?


    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.


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

    But dude (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by HeadScratcher on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:18:58 AM EST
    the rug tied the room together.

    Donny Shut the Hell Up (none / 0) (#77)
    by blogtopus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:56:56 AM EST
    Non-Lebowski material follows:

    500,000 is BTD's threshold number? What percentage of the total voters is that?

    I'm having number slumber today. Must be the upcoming Shabbos wrecking my brain.


    Perhaps Dean can tell (5.00 / 3) (#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 / 0) (#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?

    Yes, because what he's planning (5.00 / 2) (#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.


    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#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".


    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.

    You might not care (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:48:55 AM EST
    that MI and FL are being disenfranchised. I do.

    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?


    By your description (5.00 / 4) (#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.

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


    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.



    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.


    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.


    I thought it was wrong from the start (5.00 / 0) (#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.

    I wasn't that worried when I heard about it (3.00 / 1) (#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.

    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.

    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?  


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    Give me a break... (5.00 / 1) (#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?


    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.


    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.

    When it's just so obvious that their real problem (5.00 / 0) (#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.

    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 / 0) (#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 / 0) (#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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    I don't think the long campaign (5.00 / 0) (#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.

    "Voters decide" (none / 0) (#9)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:13:29 AM EST
    Such novel ideas.  

    Gore sd. what's the rush? (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:17:40 AM EST
    Did Gore actually say that? (none / 0) (#27)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:25:26 AM EST
    Please say he did.  I would be so relieved.  I could like him again.

    Here's the link. He sd. no (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:33:27 AM EST
    need for him to intervene now.


    Warning:  link is to Huff Post.


    Thanks for warning (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:52:49 AM EST
    but the comments offered some humor.  "Panic" "Loss of respect for Gore"  "Loss of Gore relevance"  

    Hysterical reactions to everything.  


    Oh, my. (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by Fabian on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:20:19 AM EST
    Well, either they really didn't like Gore to begin with or they've bet the house on their candidate.

    Anytime someone dismisses Gore, I tell them to give me a call when their candidate wins the Nobel.  


    They'll sacrifice (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by badger on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:57:03 AM EST
    any politician or principle for Obama.

    But it's not a cult.


    I'll know when they've gone (5.00 / 0) (#157)
    by Fabian on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:03:05 PM EST
    to the dark side if they ever start repeating the right wing responses to Gore's Nobel award.

    Article for you: Axelrod Astro Turf king (5.00 / 0) (#146)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:53:29 AM EST
    I never heard of this term.  His secretive PR firm creates fake grass roots campaigns, hence the name Astro Turf.  Gotta love it.

    Check out the picture with Richard Wolfe , now see how that picture will give Wolfe any credibility.  He is being manipulated by the master.  Journalism is a joke.  


    I am surprised! (none / 0) (#43)
    by Fabian on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:35:35 AM EST
    I just googled "Al Gore" in the news and got recent hits including this one.

    I know people would be upset if Gore got the nom without running, but honestly, the man shows more leadership that half the current Democratic Senators.  And it doesn't really matter which half, either.

    I'd feel sorriest for Hillary, because this was probably her best chance.  Obama should have a long career ahead of him with many opportunities.


    I'm smokin' (none / 0) (#13)
    by kmblue on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:15:24 AM EST
    that pipe.  ;)

    That's just the stress talking, man (none / 0) (#25)
    by AF on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:24:43 AM EST

    I think a precondition (none / 0) (#30)
    by DCDemocrat on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:27:58 AM EST
    for fulfilling Dr. Dean's aspiration has to be the resolution of the Michigan and Florida debacles in a way that satisfies both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama.

    Interestingly, Karl Rove suggests Obama should let the delegations, as currently constituted, have seats at the convention.  He says that it would show Obama as a leader and would appeal to the remaining superdelegates to throw their support behind the candidate who had proven magnanimous.

    By way of disclosure, I support Hillary Clinton and have supported her since she announced.

    That would be a smart move (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:31:03 AM EST
    on Obama's part, frankly. It starves Hillary of the momentum she would get from those contests being rerun, but the downside for him is that it would cement just how close this race is.

    I've thought for the last several weeks (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by tree on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:41:15 AM EST
    that the only true indication of whether the Obama camp really thinks they have this thing wrapped up is whether or not he is blocking the seating of the two delegations. He's given absolutely no sign of being a bold leader in this campaign, so if he at some point agrees to their being seated its only because he is 100% sure that they won't effect the outcome, and the only way they won't effect the outcome is if he already has it sewn up.

    So anyone out there who thinks that its over is wrong,IMHO. The "fat lady" won't be singing until the FL and MI delegates are assured seats.


    Sounds right (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:43:36 AM EST
    if Obama can't win with MI and FL as is, he's an illegitimate nominee.

    that would be a smart move... (none / 0) (#166)
    by workingclass artist on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:26:43 PM EST
    Obama has been obstructionist and contradictory about the Fl. and Mich. delegations. Say what you like abut HRC, but she has sucessfully made this a different issue linking it with Florida 2000 and other voting messes (Ohio 2004). She is challenging the party on the issue of inclusion with respect to votes. Obama looks bad by comparison and so does the party, especially when she tried to get re-votes. Obam's insistance on caucuses did not look good. It's too late for him to redeem himself about this, voters aren't as stupid as his campaign hopes or as the media portrays the uneducated working class democrat.

    Last night (none / 0) (#48)
    by 1jane on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:39:37 AM EST
    A "superdelegate" a name made up by the media by the way, spoke to a small group of leaders of county parties. He stated the superdelegates in our state will follow the lead of the popular vote. Seating the FL and MI, the superdelegate said it will not effect the final outcome. This fellow is also on the credentialing committee. Meanwhile the visit by Clinton to my state has been pushed back by a week and a half. Eight House Party's are planned for Clinton in my county with the capacity to welcome about 340 people total.

    I (none / 0) (#116)
    by tek on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:21:22 AM EST
    read his interview and he said the MI and FL delegates will be seated, but he didn't say when.

    Popular vote (none / 0) (#117)
    by nellre on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:21:29 AM EST
    I don't think Obama will have the popular vote by a margin over and above the margin of error even after all is said and done.
    We're split between candidates
    I get this sick feeling HRC will be thrown out of the race.
    American men aren't ready for a powerful woman yet perhaps.
    Some leaders are born woman (who said that?) but they have a tougher row to hoe than even very green young men.
    Hope I'm wrong.

    Dean's playing by the rules (none / 0) (#132)
    by Faust on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:38:16 AM EST
    He's said from the beginning that he's playing by the rules. He's been pretty consistent throughout. I like that he said (paraphrasing) "I know I'm doing a good job because both sides are mad at me."

    I'm pretty sure that's the litmus test at this point for being a good democrat. Both sides need to simmer down and get this done.

    I do think that we are going to learn alot from PA, NC, and Indiana. If Clinton can win big in PA, and then an upset in NC and Indiana then she might have something. If not, if she wins small in PA and loses the next two...it seems to me there is not much left for her in terms of opportunities.

    Or to put it another way, those three contests are the last opportunity for momentum to gather for one or the other candidate.

    On this I agree with Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#162)
    by RalphB on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:15:24 PM EST
    who supposedly said that if Hillary wins NC, she will be the nominee.  Not sure it's absolutely required but, if she wins there, it seems like a no-brainer to me.

    Demographics (none / 0) (#169)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:42:17 PM EST
    have the AA anywhere from 35 to over 40%.  He would have to get under 30% in one instance, something around 22% under the other.  I just don't see a win happening for Clinton.  Based on demographics, I expect a 15 pt win for Obama because of some erosion in the white vote.  If Clinton can come in under double digits, it's a win IMO.

    voters don't matter... (none / 0) (#142)
    by workingclass artist on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:50:49 AM EST
    voters elect most of the politicians who are superdelegates, and they will make their point in the next round of congressional, gubernatorial and state legislature elections. Hard core party platform voters of either party tend to have long memories with regards to issues like this. These people make up the demographic base of both parties, believe me it counts, sooner or later.

    i think we're getting (none / 0) (#147)
    by cpinva on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:54:43 AM EST
    a lot of that as we speak:

    .....some insight into the electability of the respective candidates.

    thank goodness he spoke up (none / 0) (#171)
    by scorbs on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:49:14 PM EST
    I didn't realize what a vacuum in leadership there's been.  Donna Brazile and Nancy Pelosi have been making self-serving comments out there -- not comments that serve the party or votes who have voted.

    Howard Dean and Al Gore as party elders are helping to keep things calm.  Thank heavens.  I wish they'd speak up more.