home

The Will Of The People: The Popular Vote

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:59:21 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

(speaking for me only)

People genuinely concerned with the will of the people regarding the Democratic Presidential nomination contest should be focusing on the popular vote. Here is a very flawed count (incl. FL and MI, WA primary not incl., 3 caucus states not incl.) from Real Clear Politics:

Clinton 13,563,192
Obama 13,522,829

The inclusion of Michigan is problematic as Obama was not on the ballot. Florida is problematic because campaigning was not allowed. Not including Washington state is problematic because there is no reason not to include it. 3 caucus states have not released their vote counts. Some of these problems can be resolved. Michigan and Florida should have a revote. Those caucus states can release their vote counts. The Washington state primary results can be included.

The bottom line is it is really close. The will of the people is undetermined as of yet.

< Clinton Open To Sharing Ticket With Obama | Donna Brazile Needs To Look In The Mirror >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Will Of The People: The Popular Vote | 189 comments (189 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Revote question (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by MMW on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:03:40 AM EST
    I don't understand the proposal to redo Florida. They were both on the ballot - neither campaigned, therefore equal footing - why not seat them as is?

    Michigan I understand. Since only one was on the ballot there. But I don't understand why Florida needs a revote.

    Yes, but (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:07:07 AM EST
    It's not just about selecting the nominee, it about keeping the party together. There's an argument for seating Florida as is, but the party needs to make certain that the voters see it as legitimate. A re-vote makes that easier, if they can resolve eligibility isues.

    [ Parent ]
    Any re do must correct the orginal rules (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Salt on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:59:53 AM EST
    Violations across the board all States that moved up should suffer.  Fla is different because it was the Republican Legislature that moved up the Primary and the State Party did follow the appropriate rules of notification to the DNC and should never have been stripped period and I would suggest to you Dean and Brazile did not have the power to do so and Fla may really be a none issue as the have every right to be counted and seated.  

    [ Parent ]
    oops (none / 0) (#48)
    by Josey on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:52:47 AM EST
    Didn't see your comment before posting your exact sentiments on the FL revote.


    [ Parent ]
    Wow. Just wow. (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Jim J on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:07:10 AM EST
    No wonder all the meatheads at MSNBC can talk about are the delegates.

    Had no idea the popular vote was shaping up like this.

    After last night, Hillary has the makings of a very strong case.

    Come on, Pennsylvania!

    Obama is ahead (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Josey on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:58:43 AM EST
    because the media has given him a pass.
    Amazing to see Hillary ahead in national polling NOW - only after a few days of the media actually doing their job providing a little scrutiny of Obama.


    [ Parent ]
    florida voted. there is no reason for (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:07:34 AM EST
    them to have to redo that. s carolina was also in violation, but i see their vote counted. michigan, well that is an open question. no to florida, and i think the democrats in florida feel the same. just because they have republicans up to dirty tricks is no reason to mistreat them. neither hillary nor obama campaigned there.

    Since both candidates have agreed to (none / 0) (#186)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:08:36 PM EST
    a revote though I suppose there won't be a lawsuit.  Trying to enter the results of the primary "in question" though opens the whole situation up to Obama lawsuits doesn't it?  And he's made it clear he likes a lawsuit.

    [ Parent ]
    The Presidency is not about the popular vote (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by po on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:16:03 AM EST
    It's about the Electoral College.  As has been repeatedly pointed out here, the Democratic Party's nomination process, apparently, isn't about the popular vote either.  It's about winning delegates.  How a candidate would go about winning the popular vote is likely very different than how they must go about winning the delegates -- either at the party or national level.  It's a shame, but it's the process that's developed.

    Um (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:17:24 AM EST
    Because you say so? What if Superdelegates say it is about the will of the people - the popular vote? You gonna complain?

    [ Parent ]
    This is the point of impasse (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:29:24 AM EST
    Obama supporters have decided that a lead in pledged delegates, even if very small, cancels out any other consideration.

    [ Parent ]
    You mean Tweety and Punchline? (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:34:16 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    CNN (5.00 / 6) (#42)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:49:05 AM EST
    actually did quite well last night, I thought, with the exception of John King.  All of their talking heads seemed to recognize the point that while the pledged delegate lead is Obama's best argument, it is still just an argument.

    If reading the blogs is any indication, the strategy of Obama supporters is to create a made-up rule that superdelegates must follow the pledged delegates (in essence, making superdelegates 100% irrelevant to the process), and then to threaten riots and unrest if their made-up rule is violated.

    [ Parent ]

    then to threaten riots and unrest (none / 0) (#82)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:24:05 AM EST
    I have already seen this today

    [ Parent ]
    then to threaten riots and unrest (none / 0) (#83)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:24:14 AM EST
    I have already seen this today

    [ Parent ]
    sorry (none / 0) (#85)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:24:33 AM EST
    how did that happen?

    [ Parent ]
    I thought (none / 0) (#91)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:31:39 AM EST
    the argument was that the Superdelegates had to follow the will of the people, i.e. the popular vote? Wasn't that supposedly why Lewis had to change his endorsement?

    If I'm missing something please explain it to me slowly and simply cause I'm one of those old white working class women. :)

    [ Parent ]

    Geraldien Ferraro (none / 0) (#97)
    by AmyinSC on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:37:12 AM EST
    Had an excellent editorial comment on this in the NY Times recently.  What you are hearing is the Obama camp hype - they WANT to force the Superdelegates to vote however is most convenient for them - you sure haven't heard them offering to give up Kennedy, Kerry, and Patrick's SP votes, even though Clinton won MA BIG.  No - the SDs are supposed to go by their CONSCIENCE, and who they think is the best candidate.  It's a bit electoral college, if you will.

    Anywho - check out Ferraro's article - it's pretty good on explaining all of this.

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry - (none / 0) (#98)
    by AmyinSC on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:37:40 AM EST
    I swear I can type - GERALDINE

    [ Parent ]
    And Markos and Aravosis (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:59:29 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    One of many impasses (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by po on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:42:39 AM EST
    All I'm doing is pointing out that the Democratic Party, for various reasons, has created a process which virtually ensures that a large segment of the people who ostensibly make up the Party are going to be extremely upset with the outcome.

    Who I support / supported / might support later (because both of them are really getting tiring) has nothing to do with the observation that the Democratic Party has totally messed up that which should not have been messed up -- the process of nominating the Party's Presidential nominee.  

    [ Parent ]

    probably (none / 0) (#15)
    by po on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:24:25 AM EST
    but complaining is something i like to do.  Besides, at the moment, the Democratic Party and the 2 remaining candidates are giving me lots to complain about.  

    And since when were the Superdelegates some monolithic entity that's going to bend to the will of . . . what, the Party leadership?  None there, apparently or we wouldn't have MI and FL.  The People?  Their vote is split, thus the thread.  Special interests, as in their own?  Most likely.  The Supers are mostly politicians and the system is set up to protect its own.  

    [ Parent ]

    they are not monolithic (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:33:42 AM EST
    For example, John Lewis switched to Obama because Georgia went for Obama. John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Deval Patrick have no intention of switching to Hillary because Hillary won Massachusetts.

    [ Parent ]
    John Lewis (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by pennypacker on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:15:15 AM EST
    swicthed because he was getting a primary challenge and his district voted four to one. He did not switch or have many based on who won there district or state.

    [ Parent ]
    And that proves my point (none / 0) (#45)
    by po on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:51:21 AM EST
    The Supers can support whomever they wish for whatever reason they wish.  The will of the People can come into play perhaps, but not necessarily.  In the age of targeting voters / districts to gain delegates, some people's vote counts more than others.  Sometimes, apparently, it's the Supers -- who are wildcards.

    Mr. Lewis and the Kennedy's can always change their minds.  Hell, they probably don't even have to tell us publicly when they do.  Love the system, yet?  


    [ Parent ]

    The Electoral College (none / 0) (#125)
    by liminal on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:01:20 AM EST
    If you were to impose an artificial "electoral college" test on the Democratic candidates to date, HRC wins pretty handily.  I'm not advocating that.

    [ Parent ]
    Looking likely (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by herb the verb on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:17:16 AM EST
    that something will happen with FL and MI and I hope Hillary is smart enough to champion on it very hard. Probably the best strategy to winning those states in a revote!

    I also believe she has to dive into places like MS and Wy head first and really pull out the stops to win those states. Who cares about the expectations game, she needs to stop taking them for granted and letting BO run up the score.

    The popular vote is Hill's best argument going forward.

    Off topic but I truly love seeing Donna Brazile getting the vapors that this contest will continue. That and the entire front page of Huff. Oh my, Bessie, fetch my smelling salts, I most like to faint dead away!

    Being competitive will do (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:18:24 AM EST
    She will not win either. Impossible demos.

    [ Parent ]
    I think she could win Wyoming.... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:34:19 AM EST
    ...if she had a month or so to get it organized.  She didn't win in the other mountain state caucuses because she put no serious effort into them.

    Right now, I think she should spend one or two days at PA events, then announce that she's going to get some rest, and attend to her senate duties for a week.  (I mean, if Obama can say he can't hold hearing because he's too busy campaigning, Hillary should be able to make the better point that she can't campaign in Wyoming and Mississippi because she's too busy doing catching up on her day job!)

    [ Parent ]

    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by herb the verb on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:38:43 AM EST
    I also agree with Chuck Todd (on that network which should be ashamed of itself it it had any self-respect) who said last night that one of the candidates has to break out and win the other's demographic in order to win the nomination.

    [ Parent ]
    Wyoming consists of college educ. (none / 0) (#88)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:28:00 AM EST
    wine-track, latte drinking Prius owners?

    [ Parent ]
    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by chrisvee on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:20:29 AM EST
    The people have a problem right now, don't they?  They see two equally attractive candidates. It's like an embarrassment of riches.  Perhaps that's the problem. :-)  But it certainly makes the argument for the 'dream ticket' stronger -- assuming we can agree on who tops that ticket.

    Seriously, even if one of them takes a small lead in the popular vote, is that going to be seen as decisive in terms of selecting a nominee?  I just think this is going to come down to party leadership, superdelegates, and backroom deals to try to get a compromise position that can bring people together in a way that makes the results of the process seem credible.  Right now, the lack of credibility in the process is what I think it's bothering lots of people.

    Either way, for us to be as successful as we need to be in November, both of these candidates need to be willing to campaign hard for the other.  JMHO.

    Likely not decisive (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:32:27 AM EST
    But certainly persuasive.

    [ Parent ]
    Hm (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by chrisvee on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:46:11 AM EST
    And what portion of those votes are from Republicans, independents, and/or Dems for a day?  With vote totals this close, is it persuasive to say that the popular vote should influence the outcome when many people have issues with how that vote came to pass?  I worry about how people perceive the credibility of the process.

    This thing is a draw.

    [ Parent ]

    Check Out Post #138 Below for Dem vs. Non-Dem (none / 0) (#145)
    by plf1953 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:22:10 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Thank you! (none / 0) (#184)
    by chrisvee on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:01:44 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Here is the breakdown again ... (none / 0) (#147)
    by plf1953 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:26:43 PM EST
    Popular vote totals through 3/4/2008, WITHOUT FL or MI

                              Total              Dem                  Repub/Indy

    Hillary                   11,893,000           9,396,000         2,497,000
    Barack                  12,265,000           8,778,000         3,487,000

                             BO+372,000        HC+618,000        BO+990,000

    Popular vote totals through 3/4/2008, WITH FL, W/O MI

                                Total                 Dem                  Repub/Indy

    Hillary                   12,751,000          10,105,000           2,646,000
    Barack                  12,835,000            9,255,000           3,580,000

                               BO+84,000          HC+850,000        BO+934,000

    Update of P Lukasiak spreadsheet to include all primaries to-date, except no Michigan.

    Totals are preliminary and approximate; based on CNN data at 9:30AM PST, 3/5/08

    [ Parent ]

    Vague on this question (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:46:49 AM EST
    I suppose the State Democratic Parties decided on Caucus and Open Primaries. Correct? A terrible system IMHO. Why doesn't the DNC have more influence in those State's Party decision?

    This primary so far is like in a GE and not a Democratic Primary. What a mess!

    [ Parent ]

    Mess (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by chrisvee on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:49:13 AM EST
    Yes, absolutely.  We have one heck of a list of things that need to be improved about our selection process, that's for sure.

    [ Parent ]
    About Florida and Obama.... (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Andy08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:21:42 AM EST
    I would like to point out that Obama was the only candidate to air TV Ads in Florida before the primaries there. He did so as part of a "national buy. Those Ads were heavily aired on MSNBC and CNN who told the Obama camp they could not cut Florida out (at least this is what the Obama camp said), However several reports indicate that it was indeed possible to opt out Florida or a region in the US including FL and with no other states in play at that time in the primaries.  

    I think this is significant for it debunks the notion Obama was not known in FL or that he had no opportunity to "bring his messaage to voters".

    He did with TV Ads and he was the only one to do so. The influence of TV Ads cannot be underestimated : exit polls show that people who were influenced by TV Ads. For Ex. in the Potomac primaries exit polls indicate these were close to 60% of the voters and they voted overwhelmingly for Obama (source CNN).

    Could BTD or Jeralyn please comment on this ?

    Thanks.

    Well (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:32:00 AM EST
    That is water under the bridge.

    I am being forward looking on this.

    [ Parent ]

    Sure, but (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Andy08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:04:04 AM EST
    isn't that contradicting some of the arguments that are taking place now?
    The Obama camp cannot have it both ways. They did advertise there back then.
    I am not saying this should imply the FL election should stand as is. But I do think that
    arguments now for and against "what's fair/unfair" about what happened will have a bearing on how fairly the FL issue is resolved.

    Clinton's appearance after her win there is being mocked throughout while his TV Ads are not even mentioned. It affects public perception and how the public will acccept/reject a final resolution of what will be done with FL. And something has to be done (even if it's a primary redux).
    They cannot ignore 1.7 million votes there.

    [ Parent ]

    florida voted. let it stand! seat them. (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:23:30 AM EST
    it is as simple as that. does anyone really think that the florida dems will appreciate this bull. do we want to win the ge in floria or not. that should be the question and not what the obama campaign thinks. the dnc needs to start thinking about the welfare of the overall campaign and not partisan bickering.

    michigan, well redo it BUT NO THANKS TO ANOTHER CAUCUS. let them vote. the caucus idea sucks period.

    [ Parent ]

    This has so frequently (none / 0) (#64)
    by fladem on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:09:08 AM EST
    been debunked, but once again, the only ads that were seen in Florida were part of a National CNN buy.  They did not violate the ban.  They were not targeted at Florida.

    Here is the bottom line, no one is Florida believes that a real campaign took place.  There were no candidate visits (other than for fundraising), no campaign rallies, no advertising budgets.

    Neither campaign stood up for Florida and Michigan - the time to do that was before Iowa and New Hampshire. Clinton is on record in October as saying that the Michigan Delegates weren't going to count, one of her chief strategists voted (Ickes) voted to punish Florida and Michigan.

    It is probably impossible to carry Florida against McCain at this point.

    What I find amusing is the postering by non-Floridians on this issue.  Now I hear DEMOCRATS leaping at the suggestion of the REPUBLICAN Governor to hold a re-vote.  Of course Crist's motivation is to drag out the Democratic fight as  long as possible, and to avoid being blamed for Florida's loss of Democratic Delegates, but this seems beyond the comprehension of those outside the state.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm from Florida (none / 0) (#133)
    by Lena on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:40:08 AM EST
    and I can tell you emphatically that I believe Obama campaigned here. What's more he "targeted" Florida voters by showing ads in Florida. And he was the only candidate to do so.

    It has always sounded weak in the extreme that his hands were tied, and there was no one he could NOT advertise here.

    And someone please explain to me how he spent $1.3 million here if it wasn't on campaigning?

    [ Parent ]

    The Main Point is (none / 0) (#149)
    by plf1953 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:31:59 PM EST
    that Florida was a level and equal playing field for BO and HC, save for BO's ads that creeped into the state.

    No need to do-over to get the same result with full blown campaigns.

    [ Parent ]

    You need to read again (none / 0) (#189)
    by Andy08 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:03:04 PM EST
    what I wrote fladem.

    I said it was part of a national buy. Whether
    he "targeted FL" or didn't break a ban is irrelevant. That is not my point here.

    It is about the fact that Obama run TV Ads in FL
    which aired heavily in CNN and MSNBC. That is fact.  Period.

    No matter how much you want to dismiss this; Obama's claims he didn't get the chance to expose himself to the voters is baloney.

    Sorry. But TV Ads were run in FL. And he was the only candidate to do so.

    Do you believe this was fair? What if Clinton had done this? What would you say then ?

    [ Parent ]

    Popular votes (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by utahdem on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:25:48 AM EST
    First time commenter and what a great site and a breath of fresh air.  Am a real old timey gator from the days of Steve Spurrier as QB.

    Using popular votes is okay for most part but there should be way to take out the votes from states where the democrats have zero chance of winning in GE.  I am sure John Mccain will be happy to cede elctoral votes from Alaska, Idaho etc if he can keep those from CA, NJ, Oh etc. Afetr this adjustment, we can have a serious look at who should be the nominee. Also I do not like dealing with numbers from caucus states at all.  As BTD says they are very undemocratic.

    Old Gators (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:31:09 AM EST
    are our favorites here.

    We tolerate a few Vols too though.

    [ Parent ]

    I like gators the reptiles is them (none / 0) (#33)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:41:55 AM EST
    Florida Gators I can't stand. : )

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks! :) We have a late night again (none / 0) (#54)
    by Teresa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:00:46 AM EST
    tonight BTD. I like your young team and I'm worried about this game.

    Has there been any word on the 50-60 Super D's who were supposedly endorsing Obama today?

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe they are counting votes. (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:03:31 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Stylistic point: Talk Left (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:32:05 AM EST
    requires capitlization of "Gator."

    [ Parent ]
    not when your talking about the reptiles. (none / 0) (#95)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:36:06 AM EST
    Although personally I would capitalize it for the Reptiles and underscore it for the Team

    [ Parent ]
    come on. (none / 0) (#34)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:42:14 AM EST
    Using popular votes is okay for most part but there should be way to take out the votes from states where the democrats have zero chance of winning in GE.
    Are you serious?

    So only states that will vote blue in November should have the opportunity to vote in the Dem primaries?  You have to be kidding me.

    Sorry Texas, your 3 million votes don't count, as will be voting for McCain in November.

    [ Parent ]

    As a Dem in Utah (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by utahdem on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:14:06 AM EST
    I know what it means to have my vote doing nothing for the democratic candidates.  I did not mean to offend any of the voters in the red states, but the reality is that neither BO or HC can beat McCain in ID or UT in the GE.  If the big states are the ones that are going to put a DEM in the white house, we need to make sure that voters in those states count for something more than those in the republican strongholds in choosing our nominee.

    [ Parent ]
    But what about Republican voters ... (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:38:39 AM EST
    if we have a revotes?

    Without a competing primaries the chances of mass mischief seems unavoidable.

    good point (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Josey on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:03:10 AM EST
    Who would be allowed to vote in FL revote?


    [ Parent ]
    i am a registered independent in texas. (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:25:37 AM EST
    if i were barred from voting in the primary, it wouldn't offend me. i understand. and so should others. faux outrage is just that faux.

    let only registered democrats vote. that's fair.

    [ Parent ]

    Florida has a closed primary n/t (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by independent voter on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:07:38 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The rules here in Fl about closed primaries (none / 0) (#89)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:29:30 AM EST
    is such that my daughter who had registered as a Democrat was not given a primary ballot but one with just the amendment side because her registration did not get alloted prior to 29 days before the electoral event.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't understand your point (none / 0) (#134)
    by independent voter on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:50:07 AM EST
    It was well publicized that an individual had to be registered prior to that cutoff date

    [ Parent ]
    My point is that Fl has one of the most closed (none / 0) (#136)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:07:31 PM EST
    primaries in the system.  What I don't understand why you wondering about my point since I was answering someone who asked If the Primaries here were closed.

    [ Parent ]
    and was worried about massive crossover. (none / 0) (#137)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:08:30 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Oh BTW where was it well publicized (none / 0) (#139)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:09:54 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Outcome from yesterday (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:41:29 AM EST
    This is not a rout.  Clinton is not toast.  Please feel free to add all the death of Clinton descriptions we have been hearing.  This does not say that she should quit and hand it over like the A list people are still saying.  

    infact (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by joei on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:58:31 AM EST
    i think obama has serious problems.

    unlike New Hampshite his bubble was busted last-nite, the real game changer is that no one looks at him with same awe as before.

    he cannot resell the same hope concept, it gets old. once he covered all the college campuses it is pretty much over. imo.

    [ Parent ]

    More of Obama's problems (none / 0) (#96)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:36:17 AM EST
    include that now there are more primaries, and in some sizeable states to cover, than there are caucuses that have been his strength. And I think I read that most are closed primaries? also not good for him, with his overdependence upon non-Dem crossover. Plus, as in Ohio, his NAFTA wobbling won't help him at all in Pennsylvania -- where the AA vote is below the national norm and the over-65 vote is above the national norm. And more. . . .

    [ Parent ]
    in fact it seems to me obama is on a (none / 0) (#110)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:47:02 AM EST
    slippery slope down and some folks are acting like he still has the big mo. did i imagine a big hillary win last night?

    [ Parent ]
    do over is a good idea (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:47:00 AM EST
    I think a do over for both MI and FL is a good idea. Although I can see not doing it for FL since that was a fair and reasonable election. But I think a do over would result in a win for Hillary in FL and a win for Obama in MI. The popular vote would narrow with Hillary very close to Obama (esp. including PA). I think we'd get within 200k votes between them (incl. the caucuses).

    Then I'd say the popular vote is close enough to let the super delegates decide based on their own rational. I say that instead of let the popular vote decide because those numbers still include lots of republicans and independents (that are republicans) as well as legitimate independents.

    My decision based on the above would be mostly about electability. And I don't mean who's on top in the polls this week. I mean what they really think in a general election. And I'd also take into account my local district and state. That would be a very tough decision. I have to say, I'd also take into account how the candidates perform now and through the end of the campaign. If I hear really nasty things, or threats of my group won't vote if I don't win, etc., I'd weight that heavily (against that person). Still tough.

    are you an obama supporter and suppose (none / 0) (#101)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:39:30 AM EST
    that the super delegates will vote for him? is that why you support that idea?

    [ Parent ]
    Hello all! Room for a refugee (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Loquatrix on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:57:10 AM EST
    from the Orange place?

    Yes...we have a new server! (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Teresa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:08:38 AM EST
    It's much more peaceful and educational over here.

    [ Parent ]
    That's all we have (none / 0) (#74)
    by kmblue on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:13:18 AM EST
    here, come on in!  (I'm not entirely serious ;)

    [ Parent ]
    Welcome (none / 0) (#115)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:53:42 AM EST
    Pull up a chair.

    [ Parent ]
    Money (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:00:33 AM EST
    I'm going to sound like a broken record.... if everyone thinks a re-vote is necessary, shouldn't we be donating to the DNC so Michigan and Florida don't bear the cost alone.  Wouldn't the support have a big impact in the GE to attract Dems.

    It would increase turnout in both states if we all pitched in.

    Enough about Super Delegates ... (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:05:57 AM EST
    what about Obama's "Super Voters"?

    Obama's caucus attendees who had as much as a 10-to-1 power in delegate allocation over voters in primary states.

    It was as if each of these Red State Behemoths were given 10 ballots, where primary voters were only given one.

    I think this fact needs to be a greater part of the conversation.

     

    You make an excellent point. (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by ivs814 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:10:20 AM EST
    I didn't realize the disparity was that great.  Talk about putting your thumb on the scale.

    [ Parent ]
    Popular vote (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Joike on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:13:22 AM EST
    will end up being evenly split.

    If you project ahead to results in delegates giving HRC a series of wins (particularly in contests that are closed to Dems only), then she has an opportunity by the end of the primary season to draw even in total delegates (including both pledged delegates and S-Ds).

    Both candidates would be about 200 delegates short with about 352 uncommitted S-Ds.

    Meaning one of them will have to come up with about 57% of the remaining S-Ds.

    Certainly achievable by either candidate, but what if it came down to Edwards' 26 delegates?

    Makes for what I think will be a fascinating convention because I don't think either candidate will back down nor do I think either candidate is required to step down.

    Of course, my projections are rosy for HRC, but not wildly so.

    Obama will try to stop the momentum in Wyoming and Missippi then both will have over a month to focus on Pennsylvania and two other substantial states in NC and Indiana.

    I just don't see a knock-out blow for with candidate.

    Is the rule that 2025 delegates are needed? (none / 0) (#107)
    by Manuel on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:43:58 AM EST
    Or is the rule that a majority of the seated delegates is needed?  If 2025 is the rule, I can see a scenario where without FL and MI, Obama does not pick up enough superdelegates to clinch the nomination.

    [ Parent ]
    really good maps to do... (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:40:18 AM EST
    would be a map like the one on MyDD linked here, but make two. First make them for the general so they don't include always red states. And make both include always blue states. Then make one for Hillary showing any purple states she's one or will likely win in the primary (FL, OH, PA, AK, NM, WV, maybe MI, etc.). And then make one for Obama with the purple states he has one or will likely win (WI, VA, CO, etc.). I think that would be really nice to see.

    Now of course that isn't quit fair because it doesn't mean a purple state Obama has won wouldn't also go to Hillary (e.g., VA), and of course the other way around as well. But it would be instructive.

    I was using an interactive map (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Joike on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:46:11 AM EST
    assigning states to a Democratic candidate in the GE.

    It's fairly easy to get over 270 electoral votes without Ohio, Missouri and Florida.  You have to win PA, IA and a western state like CO.  Take that bell-weather states.

    Considering the unrest in the country and the economy and our strength in a lot of races around the country, I like our chances in the GE.

    [ Parent ]

    not a reason not too (none / 0) (#128)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:07:28 AM EST
    I agree that things look good for the dems, and that it might be possible to win without those big purple states, but are you arguing you don't want to see such a map?

    What would be nice is to have an interactive one like you mention though, where you can play around with it. Did you find one? Please supply a link if you did. That would be nice to experiment with.

    [ Parent ]

    I hate to disagree with BTD.... (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by sweetthings on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:58:48 AM EST
    But I think I have to.

    The bottom line is it is really close. The will of the people is undetermined as of yet.

    I think the will of the people is pretty clear - half of them want Clinton, and half of them want Obama. What's less clear is what to do about this. Obviously, the joint ticket remains one option, although determining who's on top will be a doozy.

    Oh i think the will of the people is clear: (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:21:51 PM EST
    they want Clinton. I don't know any other way to explain why 2/3rd of Democrats want her to stay in the race.
    The will of the people calling themselves (none / 0) (#187)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:12:36 PM EST
    Democrats is very obvious, the will of the open primary people still not so obvious ;)

    [ Parent ]
    Why would you put up a very flawed count (1.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Independence33 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:51:44 AM EST
    In the last two days there have been some serious accusations on journalistic credibility on this site and now you are posting a "very flawed number". How can you take this seriously. Barack Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan because he listened to the DNC. Everybody talks about him being such a bad democrat but its funny how he has followed all the rules set out by the DNC and Clinton has tried to break them all. Whose loyal to the Democratic Party now? Undeclared got a huge % of the vote in Mich. and Clinton barely made it over 50%. Thats strong! When are we going to seriously talk about the Clinton rules?

    following DNC rules (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Josey on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:04:46 AM EST
    and bashing Dem values and the base - aren't the same.


    [ Parent ]
    Give me specifics where he trashed the base. (none / 0) (#68)
    by Independence33 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:11:18 AM EST
    The Clintons are not my base period. Yeah it was nice to have the Presidency in the Nineties but Democrats lost everything else and eventually we lost it all. They were the most moderate and centrist democrats and this site is supposed to support liberal values.

    [ Parent ]
    I understand your point (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Josey on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:28:00 AM EST
    but Obama is also a Centrist without the DLC label.
    His "Harry and Louise" ad against universal health care was over the line; he attacked "trial lawyers" and called unions "special interests", etc. - all in an effort to attract Repubs and Indys.

    [ Parent ]
    and just how does obama support (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:58:57 AM EST
    liberal values? on social security? no! no national health care for all? no! in fact if you could prove to me that obama has real liberal values and will act on them, you'd make my day. but you can't, and he doesn't.

    take a good look at nafta. that is a real nightmare. it is costing american jobs. what do we get? nod/wink, "i really didn't mean it. it  was for the ignorant masses, hehe."

    [ Parent ]

    Are you serious. (none / 0) (#135)
    by Independence33 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:04:40 PM EST
    Yes Obama is not the perfect liberal or progressive vessel at all and none of my posts were meant to state that. He has been attacked from the left somehow as not being progressive enough and this is nonsense. Nafta was pushed through by the CLINTON administration. Do we have universal health care now? No because Hillary failed miserably. Why does she get credit for this? It is now some 15 years after that initial debate and nothing has been done. At least he has addressed social security, her plan is to let it run dry while all the baby boomers bleed it dry. Obama is constantly attacked here for not being liberal and we have seen proff of what a Clinton admin. could look like. No real majority, loss of congressional seats,Dont ask Dont Tell, Nafta, Welfare Reform, no health care improvement, telecommunications act of 96, allowed for more conglomeration of media outlets, defense of marriage act, extraordinary rendition, which is now being misused to be fair by the Bush administration but it still started with Clinton. Notice what is similar about these things. Def. not liberal stances on extremely important issues. Yes there are many things the Clintons got done that were great but this notion of them being more liberal than Obama is a joke.

    [ Parent ]
    actually i am very serious and you will (none / 0) (#143)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:19:13 PM EST
    have to do better than knocking the clintons and obama really meant!

    [ Parent ]
    the baby boomers bleed it dry? (none / 0) (#146)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:22:18 PM EST
    thanks for showing your true colors. let's see if those pesky baby boomers would just die, then more for me, hehehe!

    yup, get out of our way, you pesky older people. sorry, we won't.

    and bleeding it dry is being done by those repubs that your candidate thinks are such great folks to work out american's future with when he gets elected. no thanks!

    my advice to you, is stop drinking koolaid.

    [ Parent ]

    I give up on these people hellothere. All they (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:29:35 PM EST
    can do is blame the Clintons and explain what their candidate really meant.  I think they are reading from the Rove Talking Points.  I though I was the Republican in this Post but I guess I was wrong it looks like it's full of Right Wing operatives.  Because if this people are true Democrats the Democratic party is in Trouble.

    [ Parent ]
    Social Security will not fix itself (none / 0) (#150)
    by Independence33 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:32:10 PM EST
    Call me a closet Republican or whatever but I do beilieve that my generation (Im 30) will be putting more in and recieving less by the time I collect. Of course the horrible policies of Bush have only added to the problem and gutted the surplus we had that could have made SS solvent for a little longer. The Iraq war is the number 1 reason for this and Clinton is responsible for her vote on that. This is not a Dem/Rep issue it is an issue for the American people. Caps must be put into place and Obama has shown the courage to state this. Clinton simply says , Oh , it will all be okay once we get back to "fiscal conservatism". This will help of course but its not a plan at all.

    [ Parent ]
    First of all there is no SS crisis (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:46:25 PM EST
    Any fixes would have to be to stop borrowing from the SS fund to finance the GPD.  And BTW the problem of gutting the SS for purposes other than what it was meant to be used for dates back to the 60's I think you weren't even born then.  Secondly the only one that has said anything about cuts of benefits among the Democrats is Obama.  And yes some Fiscal Conservatism will help the SS maintain fluidity.  And it a more feasible and cost effective plan than the partial or full privatization some of Obama's economic advisors spouse.  Take the Chile example as everyone that wants to privatize says well Chile is spending more of their tax revenues subsidizing the privatize social security than if they had left it alone.

    [ Parent ]
    Now it all makes sense ... (none / 0) (#152)
    by plf1953 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:43:54 PM EST
    You were all of 14 when Bill Clinton was elected.

    You've answered my question.

    [ Parent ]

    Nice! I know im just a young whipper snapper (none / 0) (#157)
    by Independence33 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:57:35 PM EST
    Number 1, if you want to debate with me about politics and specifics I will gladly and it will be very clear to you that I might not be over 60 but I can hold my own. I have been politically active my whole life. I shook hands with Mike Dukakis,Bill Clinton twice, Hillary, I even went and heckled Bob Dole when he came through in 96. Lets have a sustantive debate about SSecurity and then attack my age. Im not saying Baby Boomers should be punished for not dying, I am saying that there is a lot of them hence the name boom. This unforseen jump in people collecting and living longer is causing a problem that needs to be addressed. If I was a repub. I would want privatize or get rid of SS. Not the case. I just think that the caps could be raised so those who make more will contribute more.

    [ Parent ]
    You are again using Republican Talking points (none / 0) (#160)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:09:19 PM EST
    to make your point.  Because we lived longer we have been contributing to system Longer my mother who is in her 80's did not quit paying into SS until she retired after she was 74.  Many people who are well above the age to collect SS benefits are being pro-rated their benefits because they are still working and still allocating funds to the system.  Raising the Caps is something that most Democrats including the Clintons agree and as far as I know so does Obama.  But, when you look at the SS situation to call it a Crisis like he did makes a Talking point for the Republicans because that has been their battle cry all along when pushing for privatization.  Does the system need tweaking yes, is it in crisis no.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks (none / 0) (#180)
    by plf1953 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:26:21 PM EST
    for this:

    "Im not saying Baby Boomers should be punished for not dying"

    I'm only in the middle of the big bulge - and still plan on working for another 10 years - so please no punishment.

    [ Parent ]

    tell you what! i am a former republican. (none / 0) (#167)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:37:24 PM EST
    i am a fiscal conservative. i make it a point to understand what is happening versus buying someone's talking points like you do.

    there is no republican party. it was destroyed by the neocons and religeous conservatives. what remains is a pathetic group of people out of touch with reality but their own idea of it. obama is practicing a pattern of creating opposing groups in his own party by appealing to the dark side. the ss is solvent. your friend, mr obama, has said he isn't sure what he would have done in the senate on that vote. furthermore, he has backed all the funding on the dem caveins.

    your good friend, mr obama, wants to bring the big corporations to the table. you know the ones ripping off the federal government like insurance companies. clinton whom you put down on here left us solvent and well on our way to being out of debt. your good friend, mr. obama, wants to continue the relationship with the ones creating the problems all the while nodding and winking that he is addressing the problem.
    you will need insurance. you might marry and have a child with birth defects. who knows. you are on the hill slipping down the other side already. so wise up! i know that is not probable, but think about it. joe sixpack and boomber won't go along with your idea of paradise. so your candidate won't win the general. it won't happen.

    [ Parent ]

    Were you even alive in the 90s? (none / 0) (#151)
    by plf1953 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:41:24 PM EST
    or at least aware of life in the real world?

    You have no comprehension of all the good that the "evil" Clintons did in the 90s in the face of obstinate, self-interested, "elite" Democratic party members in DC and their  bretheren the much loved "Contract with America" Republicans.

    Give us a break and actually go and read the history instead of believing all the talking points you've been fed.

    [ Parent ]

    The Contract with America folks won (none / 0) (#159)
    by Independence33 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:09:12 PM EST
    This shows once again that if you point to anything not positive about Clintons term than you are either not old enough or delusional. I said in my post that Clinton did good things and I stuck up for him and his wife for years and still do. He was a great president but far from perfect. I was just stating that all this Obamas not a good democrat stuff bothers me and somehow he is being attacked from the left on this site and I dont think thats fair. I just wanted to point to some moderate or fairly conservative views that even the Clintons have had. Back to my point about the Contract with America. Under Clintons term we lost the house and the senate to these Contract people mostly because of the failed health care debate. The repubs. outmanuevered the Dems and Clinton sat idly by. This was the first time Dems have lost the house and the senate in 40 years. The Clintons had a Dem. senate and house before 1994 and still failed to pass health care reform and the way they did it sent us back years.

    [ Parent ]
    The problem lies in that Obama's mantra (none / 0) (#163)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:16:41 PM EST
    has been that of bringing a new political style to the equation.  But, and this is a big but, since 1996 when he first ran for state senate to today he has been practicing the same old politics of old.  That is what has opened him to attacks from parts of the Liberals not that he is bad or that being a centrist is necessarily evil.  Also the Republicans won in Congress in 1994 not because of the Clintons Bill Clinton had one of the highest approval ratings but because of the do nothing Democratic Congress that was as guilty of de-railing Health Care as were the Republicans.

    [ Parent ]
    obama has used the race card against (none / 0) (#168)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:40:29 PM EST
    the clintons. he put bill clinton's presidency now all the while praising saint ronnie. he wants to put lugar(i still get faint thinking out it) as secretary of state. what else do you need. stop buying what is being spun to you.

    [ Parent ]
    Whaaa??? (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by AmyinSC on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:11:09 AM EST
    Let's see - Obama campaigned in FL, Clinton didn't, per their agreement.  Obama has used negative campaigning, attacking Clinton in almost EVERY speech, ratcheting up tremendous antagonism toward Clinton AND her supporters, not to mention his false, maligning "mailers," and Clinton hasn't. Don't even get me STARED on what he did n OH and TX last night!!!!  Holy Toledo (in honor of OH)!!!  Is THAT what you mean by Clinton Rules - that she actually upholds their agreements??  

    Facts matter.  

    As for some of the other posts abt FL maybe going more for Obama, I doubt it.  His "convincing" people that Hope and Change are what we need was TREMENDOUSLY enhaned by his GLOWING media coverage for the past several months.  And the ONLY ones who talked abt the inevitability of Clinton was the MEDIA, then they make HER pay for THEIR concoction!!  Now that the Rezko trial has started, with more is coming out abt how Obama actually got into the IL Senate, and how little he has done in the US Senate, I do not think it is an accurate assumption that his numbers will go up in FL.  They might even go down at this point.  So, again - he should take what he has and be happy with it.  Again, IMHO.

    [ Parent ]

    Oop... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by