The Will Of The People: The Popular Vote

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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.

    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.  

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.

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


    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

    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

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

    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. :)


    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.


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

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


    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.  


    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.

    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.

    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?  


    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.

    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.

    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!)


    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.


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


    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!


    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.

    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 ?


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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?


    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.


    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 ?


    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.


    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. : )

    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?


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

    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

    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.


    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.

    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?

    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.


    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
    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.

    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

    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.

    and was worried about massive crossover. (none / 0) (#137)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:08:30 PM EST
    Oh BTW where was it well publicized (none / 0) (#139)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:09:54 PM EST
    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.  

    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?

    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?

    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.

    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 ;)

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

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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 ;)

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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."


    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.

    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!

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    Oop... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by AmyinSC on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:11:39 AM EST
    STARTED.  Ahem.

    If you are trying to get me convinced that Obama has been more negative than Clinton your wasting your time and a lot of other peoples. Even on this wildly pro-Clinton site I think rational people will say she has gone more negative. Mocking him, saying her and JOHN MCCAIN have experience and Obama has a speech, the ignorant fear mongering 3am commercial. If these are what motivates you than go ahead. Go to Florida Campaign Tracker on Wash. Post .com and you will see that only one Democratic candidate has had an official apperance in Fla. in 2008 and that was Clinton. Give me the facts where Obama campaigned their.

    In That Case... (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by AmyinSC on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:51:29 AM EST
    If you are unwilling to actually look at your candidate's own campaigning, on what are you basing your support?  Just curious.  Because he has been INCREDIBLY negative.  At every turn.  But hey - if you don't want to actually look at what he is doing, that's your perogative.

    I might add, not only is he negative in his campaining, but he is an incredibly sore loser.  The media attacks Clinton if she doens't say, "Congratulations, Barack," int he first second of her speeches, but he RARELY calls to congratulate her.  And he ALWAYS implies Clinton won unfiarly,w hen it is HIS campaign pulling the dirty tricks, like in TX with the caucuses.

    Again, if you don't wish to see this, you won't.  Nothing more to be said abt it.


    objective pundit? are you referring to tweety? (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:55:40 AM EST
    or maybe ko? objective by your standards! yeah right. i trust my own instincts. i probably do more reading and thinking that most so called objective pundits. the fact is too many americans should do more reading and thinking and less trust of these so called pundits.

    and yes, the obama campaign is king of the negative campaign. do you not remember his promise to go back to good old fashioned rough and tumble chicago politics. you think that is not negative? if so, i have some land in florida to sell you.


    Objective pundit? (none / 0) (#161)
    by tree on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:13:03 PM EST
    Isn't that an oxymoron?

    Oops. New proof on kos about Clintons ads (none / 0) (#174)
    by Independence33 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:45:09 PM EST
    Time magazine once had to apologize to OJ Simpson for doing the same thing. It is shameless and pathetic. They are widening screens to make his nose look larger and darkening the tint to make him look blacker. Mandy Grunwald doesnt deny he simply says that this is not her ad but it is on her website posted for all to see. Whose negative and playing the race card now?

    Fact free comment (none / 0) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:21:10 AM EST
    BTD (none / 0) (#108)
    by AmyinSC on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:44:08 AM EST
    Just to be clear, was this "Fact Free" thing directed at me?  If so, I am happy to lay out a ton of facts, but I thought most of this had already been established, like the role of the media, blah, blah, blah.  If this WASN'T directed at me, never mind!  :-)

    Not at you. If you can't tell by the (none / 0) (#111)
    by Teresa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:49:30 AM EST
    thread, click on Parent and you'll see who he is responding to.

    No (none / 0) (#112)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:50:05 AM EST
    Not you. But I do think you are overstating your case.

    But this comment is directed to Independence.


    Thanks, Teresa, and BTD - (none / 0) (#117)
    by AmyinSC on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:54:35 AM EST
    And sorry you feel I'm overstating.  I'd appreciate knowing how so - I didn't think I had said any more than anyone else on that topic, especially the media, and from what I have heard from people in FL.  But hey - if I am, let me know - always open to learning!

    What comment was fact free! (none / 0) (#140)
    by Independence33 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:10:22 PM EST
    Tell me and Ill be glad to reiterate

    You need facts to support Obama but not Clinton (none / 0) (#141)
    by Independence33 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:18:19 PM EST
    AmyinSC has been making blanket statements about Obama running this horribly negative campaign without pointing to anything specific period. Also saying that he campaigned in Fla. more than Hillary which I pointed to the facts and no one had an answer for that of course. I gave many examples of Clintons negativity and whats funny is the exit polls show that even Democrats agree that Clinton has run the more negative campaign. I have also not insulted you personally once. I just disagree with your interpretations. You said you dislike me and that hurts my feelings! Ha Ha

    Please elaborate (none / 0) (#158)
    by tree on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:04:23 PM EST
    "In the last two days there have been some serious accusations on journalistic credibility on this site"

    If you are talking about YOUR OWN accusations maligning Jeralyn's objectivity for blogging on the Rezko trial, then IMHO the accusations weren't very serious at all. I've seen no indications whatsoever that Jeralyn has been anything but scrupulously fair in her posts and her comments about the trial. It appears that you are just upset that the trial is being covered at all.

     As for BTD's "flawed number" from RealClearPolitics, he included all the caveats about the numbers in his post. Nothing unfair about that. The election itself has been filled with gaping flaws, but that hasn't been BTD's fault.

    And as for the Michigan ballot, there was no rule requiring the candidates remove themselves from the ballot. That was a political decision Obama made on his own, just as Clinton made a political decision not to make an early attempt to ramp up her caucus organizing.


    Attacks on Josh (1.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Independence33 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:18:26 PM EST
    People were attacking Josh Marshalls partiallity on a website that is overwhelmingly pro-Clinton. I thought this was silly. Now BTD cherry picks a number that is beneficial to Clinton and highlights it rather than the more serious numbers that have Obama in the pop. vote lead. Just doesnt seem right.

    They weren't attacking his partiality (none / 0) (#169)
    by tree on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:51:09 PM EST
    They were attacking his posting a substance free smear without backing it up. BTD in his post and his comments was consistently asking what Marshall was talking about, i.e., was there any substance behind his smear of the Clintons? No one could provide any and Marshall certainly didn't. Stuff like that from Marshall indicates to me not just partiality, which is acceptable if admitted, but, for lack of any better words at the moment, being "in the tank" for someone.  If Marshall had made a similar statement about Obama, with absolutely nothing of substance to back it up, you'd be on your high horse against him. Think about it.

    I completley agree with you that this was a decision made by Obama in Mich. The DNC rules I am refering to is the fact that these primaries were not to count. I know that this might not have been a good decision and it could hurt in the GE but it was what was agreed upon and now that it benefits her she counts it. In her speech last night the first state she listed as a victory was Florida. Not playing by the rules.

    Excuse me, but this sounds (none / 0) (#171)
    by tree on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:03:56 PM EST
    like a bias desperately looking for a supporting fact.

    "...but it was what was agreed upon and now that it benefits her she counts it. In her speech last night the first state she listed as a victory was Florida. Not playing by the rules."

    The DNC rule is simply that the Florida delegates will not be seated at the convention. Full stop. They issued no edicts from on high that no one can mention the Florida vote in polite company, or that Clinton is not allowed to mention in public that she did in fact win the Florida vote. You seem to be making up some pretty silly rules ad hoc and then blaming Clinton because she has violated your madeup rules. Please, this is a pathetic argument.


    They all agreed, end of story (none / 0) (#173)
    by Independence33 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:12:36 PM EST
    Everyone agreed to the rules. She felt she was inevitable so it didnt matter. Now she wants to count Fla. This is not just talk. Her and her people are dead serious to change the rules mid-game. Thats whats pathetic.

    This speech... (none / 0) (#175)
    by tree on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:48:32 PM EST
    "You all know that if we want a Democratic president, we need a Democratic nominee who can win the battleground states just like Ohio. And that is what we've done. We've won Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Michigan, New Hampshire, Arkansas, California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. And today, we won Rhode Island, and thanks to all my friends and supporters there."

    Is what you just called a violation of the DNC rules. Do you want to retract what you said, or merely move the goalposts, since your original point was indefensible.


    Like I said she is claiming victory in a state that had no real primary. Those delegates do not and should not count even according to Harold Ickes originally. Are you really bringing up the moving goal posts, Her campaign once said that 150 delegate lead was significant and should signal who should be the nominee. Not now that Obama had that. How about needing big wins in BOTH Texas and Ohio. Didnt quite get there when you only pull a net of possibly 10 delegates. Woooo big win!

    your jumping the shark (none / 0) (#181)
    by tree on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:28:50 PM EST
    "Like I said she is claiming victory in a state that had no real primary."

    No, Florida had a primary and there was a huge turnout. Are we down to denying realiy now? Under the present rules none of the state delegates will be seated. You claimed that she violated the DNC rules by mentioning that she won Florida in her speech in Ohio. THERE IS NO SUCH RULE preventing her from stating the simple facts in a campaign speech. That would be a considerable violation of her free speech rights and for someone with the kind of civil liberties background you have to try to make such a claim against her speech is outrageous.  If you want rational debate, don't start making claims that are ridiculous on their face.

    I gather that you are upset that her campaign and surrogates have been advocating that the delegations should be seated. There is nothing against the rules about advocating that position either. And if you don't understand that if the situation had been reversed that Obama would be using the same arguments that she is, then you are incredibly naive about politics. The super delegate situation is a perfect example. Obama's surrogates didn't start insisting that the super delegates had to mirror the pledged delegates votes until it became apparent that 1) he couldn't win the convention vote on pledged delegates alone and 2) he was certain of having some numerical advantage in the pledged vote count. In otherwords, his campaign started advocating something because IT WAS ADVANTAGEOUS to him. It isn't solely some high moral position on his part, any more than CLinton's position is solely about enfranchisement. Its politicians advocating a position that will help them win the convention. NONE of this advocating is a violation of the rules. I totally get that Clinton "breaking the rules" is the Obama spin, because thats what political campaigns do. But its spin and nothing more. Clinton spins her way, Obama spins his. Neither is a violation, despite the fact that the Obama campaign and it supporters try to paint it that way.  


    Objectivity? (none / 0) (#166)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:30:22 PM EST
    That is not what TL is about. This site is not neutral, not does it pretend to be, never has and never will. So stop pretending.

    who's pretending impartiality? (none / 0) (#170)
    by tree on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:55:38 PM EST
    My comment was merely refuting what I thought was Indy's slam at Jeralyn's professionalism and fairness in her coverage of the Rezko trial. I never said that no one has an opinion here. I'd be silly to say that, but it wasn't what I said. So stop pretending yourself.

    Once again I point to all the Obama is Karl Rove people when I say that this site and its commentors have consistently said that Obama is not lefty enough. Here is Jeralyn, an obvious Clinton Supporter covering the Rezko trial. There is nothing there people. He has been cleared of any wrong doing and is not named in any way at this trial. Its the same guilt by association that got us into whitewater and all the other nonsense the Clintons had to go through which turned up NOTHING and ruined a presidency. I know you dont like Obama here but dont take him down that same road. There are legitimate reasons not to like him but this isnt one.

    for some one interested (none / 0) (#182)
    by tree on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:42:41 PM EST
    in civil liberties you seem to be advocating a lot of self-censorship. Clinton can't mention in a speech that she won the Florida primary. Jeralyn can't cover the Rezko trial.

     Personally I glad she's covering it because I trust her to explain it rationally and fairly and I think thats important, rather than just relying on rumors and innuendo. This is a trial. If its covered fairly then I see nothing wrong with that.

     Whitewater, et al, was a smear and a prosecutor spending nearly a decade, and millions of dollars looking for a crime and failing to find one. This is not Whitewater. Its a criminal trial that's been in the works for nearly a decade, long before Obama was a national candidate. You should actually appreciate Jeralyn's coverage, because if Obama is the candidate his connection with Rezko will be one factor in the general election. The Republicans will not ignore it. If you follow her coverage you will have unbiased info on the particulars of the Rezko trial itself and will be better able to respond knowledgeably whenever a false rumor or innuendo comes up. Don't advocate for censorship. Use the coverage to gain knowledge to defend your preferred candidate.

    I've got to go. I've wasted way too many pixels and minutes today. Bye for now.


    I would love to think that someone who is blatantly supporting Clinton could be honest and impartial. Im sure Jeralyn will do everything she can to do so but is this possible? I know that I look at Clinton through a different lense now because I am supporting am opponent of hers. (for the first time I might add). I think it would be hard to look at a trial she was involved in without seeing it differently. Its all perspective. It is similar to Whitewater in that most parties involved has said that the Clintons and in this case the Obamas are clean and did nothing wrong. Of course Tony Rezko may have and the Rose law firm may have but the individuals were guilt free. He made a mistake supporting an old friend. Heard of Marc Rich anyone? He did nothing wrong though from everything unbiased source I have seen. If something comes up in the trial then I will admit I was wrong but it doesnt seem likely.  

    Obama (none / 0) (#1)
    by tek on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:03:38 AM EST
    and Clinton both campaigned in Florida.  He started campaigning first.

    No. She did not do so by DNC (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:14:02 AM EST
    rules . . . here we go again . . . as to what comprised campaigning. But he did do so, with ads, etc. Yet he still could not win Florida.

    why are FL and MI considered equally? (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Josey on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:46:19 AM EST
    All candidates were on the ballot in FL, but weren't in MI.
    I don't understand the justification for a revote in FL.

    No (none / 0) (#69)
    by fladem on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:11:34 AM EST
    Niether did.

    You don't know how absurd these claims appear to Florida Residents.

    Obama campaiged in Florida?  Clinton did?

    When?  Where?

    Damn, I must have missed the rallies.  

    These claims are just silly.


    Apparently (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by AmyinSC on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:34:14 AM EST
    SOME Floridians feel that the tv ads by Obama constituted campaigning!!

    And one CAN decide where ads are shown - even with a big buy.  That is why ESPN can black out Carolina (and I mean the real Carolina - UNC-CH) games when they are shown on local tv.  They have the technology to do that with ads, too.

    So yeah - Obama campaigned there.  He has broken every pledge he took with Cinton (and Edwards).  TOo bad the media have been spoon-feeding this Great Uniter Messiah image instead of what he has REALLY been doing.  The whole Canada/NAFTA thing should be a big ol' clue.


    my numbers (none / 0) (#6)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:13:17 AM EST
    (reposted from previous thread)

    I did some quick calculations, based on my own numbers, and Obama is still up by 206,000 votes.

    I assign all uncommitted in Michigan to Obama, use the Washington state primary results rather than the caucuses, split the Iowa and Nevada caucuses based on estimated participation and exit polling, and with the other caucus states I use participation numbers/estimates and divide them up by the delegate count when delegates, rather than than participants, were reported.

    Another way to split Michigan is basing it on the exit polling question that asked who people would vote for if everyone's name was on the ballot.  In that case, the Michigan vote should be split 46% Clinton, 35% Obama, making Obama's current lead larger by by about 25,000 vote (ie 231,000 rather than 206,000)

    FWIW - Paul, have updated your ealier numbers that (none / 0) (#138)
    by plf1953 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:08:47 PM EST
    determined Dem vs. non-Dem share ofthe popupular vote:

    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


    They should revote (none / 0) (#8)
    by Claw on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:15:26 AM EST
    The problem with including a state in which neither campaigned is that Obama has cut huge Clinton leads in many states through campaigning.  It's unfair to Obama and will be seen that way.

    Hello, maybe it is unfair to Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:36:27 AM EST
    If both did not campaign there, then the people must have already decided when they voted. Why do Obama people want to call the previous Florida voters dumb? All the ones down there I know aren't changing their mind. And as for Michigan, maybe that was a learning experience as in don't do things  just to look good and popular with the crowd. Same for Edwards on this. She knew not to remove her name because she knew what might happen. You can not disenfranchise voters. You know, the 51 state, oops, I mean 49 state.....

    Hello, Calm Down (none / 0) (#36)
    by Claw on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:45:50 AM EST
    No one wants to call the FLA voters dumb.  Obama has erased sizeable leads in many states.  Remember when HRC was inevitable?  At least some of that shift has to be attributed to Obama cutting into her support and getting out new voters.  Saying that FLA could handle seeing both candidates square off is not calling it dumb...saying it couldn't, on the other hand...  

    be in Fl by June.  They don't vote in MI or Wis Or Minn Or Oh or any  of those northern states in Nov. for the GE they vote in Fl so we want their votes for the GE do you want them to vote for the Other Senior Citizen just because they are mad at the DNC?

    I don't buy it (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Claw on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:05:02 AM EST
    I really don't think that FLA voters are going to "vote for the other senior citizen just because they are mad at the DNC."  Again, I think that is ascribing an extremely low level of intelligence to FLA voters, who, as we've already established, are not dumb.  
    Yes, Howard Dean should come to FLA with his hat in his hand.
    Yes, Donna Brasil should be banned from television--she's just awful on so many levels.
    And, yes, we should have a real campaign and a real vote in both FLA and MI.  I think HRC will win again in FLA for sure and that will remove a big factor that could contribute to a disastrous convention for the dems.

    You assume that McCain does not have a (none / 0) (#72)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:12:35 AM EST
    chance of pulling Democratic votes.  Here in Fl specially among my age group he does.  Specially if they feel they have been cheated out of something,  and add to that those that will simply not vote.  All of them? NO enough to cost an election in FL that's the danger.

    OK, with that theory, then you might as well (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:09:53 AM EST
    Redo every state since opinions might have changed in the last few months. How about NH? How about South Carolina? Throw them out too? No, the thought that Obama might pick up more votes because people have changed their mind does not qualify for a Florida revote. People might like Edwards more in Iowa now too. No, Florida choose when to have their Primary and it is done. Now it is just a case of the DNC figuring out how to save face and not annoy the Florida voters more. Please note: In the Demographics of last night, there were more votes cast by the middle age and older voters. Study the Demographics of Florida.

    And in Michigan. Blogs and you know who, thought it would be fun for Dems to cast their votes for Mitt in order to screw up McCain. So Dems did that and threw away their vote rather than vote Hillary or undecided. So they deserve another chance too? Right. There should not be do overs for screwed up contests. PS. I am calm. I just don't understand the Florida/Michigan problem requiring a revote.


    No, (none / 0) (#116)
    by Claw on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:53:56 AM EST
    With my theory we should revote every state in which candidates were not allowed to campaign.  I think that's the only way to avoid an enormous and to some extent legitimate backlash.  That, or stick with the original (stupid) plan of not seating the two states.

    that's right! s carolina violated the rules. (none / 0) (#126)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:02:24 AM EST
    let's have a redo there as well. heck maybe in 24 months after we redo everything we can go to ge and lose it fair and square.

    florida has voted! period! i don't see (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:35:01 AM EST
    redoing to please obama and his supporters. and i don't think the voters in florida will appreciate it either. the dnc is pathetic.

    Once Again (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by AmyinSC on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:52:03 AM EST
    For the bazillionith time, OBAMA DID CAMPAIGN IN FLORIDA.  He and Mike Gravel were the ONLY ones to do so.  Clinton went down there AFTER the polls were closed to celebrate her victory, but OBAMA campaigned there, and still lost - badly.

    AND, there was a record turnout there.  WHY would there have to be a revote there??  The people of FL knew what was going on, knew that the DNC was punishing them for their Republican gov and Congress misdeeds, but STILL came out in record numbers to vote for CLINTON.

    It seems only the Obama people want the revote, and really - as the media FINALY starts doing its job (and how sad that it took a skit on SNL for that to happen), what is coming out abt Obama is not good.  He should take what he already has, IMHO.

    As for Michigan, he chose to take his name off the ballot.  That was HIS choice.  So, why should they go to all of the time and expense to change that now??  Give him all of the Uncommitted votes, and leave it at that.

    If there is going to be this kind of "do-over," they should abolish the whole caucus thing since the OBAMA campaign has engaged in such underhanded activities (and seriously - they should NOT count the TX caucuses after they were locking out Clinton supporters, taking the packages early and getting signatures, etc., etc.  Just divide up the rest of the delegates according to the popular vote percentage and be done with it.).  Just sayin'.


    Please list the (none / 0) (#73)
    by fladem on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:13:07 AM EST
    campaign rallies in Florida by Obama.

    Please list the advertising budget.


    Please explain (none / 0) (#100)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:39:25 AM EST
    why we should have to do so again. Search and research for yourself to catch up with the conversation.

    Basically, Given The (none / 0) (#24)
    by bob h on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:34:38 AM EST
    vagaries of the caucus system, the race is indeterminate at this point.  Perfectly appropriate for the superdelegates to step in.

    if they took it away from the O (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:36:53 AM EST
    there would be a march on the convention similar to the one 40 years ago.
    and would probably result in a similar general election result.

    i think obama has been sending a dog (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:38:12 AM EST
    whistle already with his constant whining about how unfair it all is to him.

    tell you what, if his campaign wants to insure president mccain, let them do their march. it won't turn out very well.


    d**n you! (none / 0) (#25)
    by Turkana on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:36:23 AM EST
    i was just sitting down to write the exact same thing!

    I get up early (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:38:10 AM EST
    Remember Satchel Paige.

    okay (none / 0) (#84)
    by Turkana on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:24:24 AM EST
    you did leave me enough to write about...

    BTD is clearly no Deval Patrick. (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:40:04 AM EST
    If he was, he would have sd. please use my words and thoughts!

    hope (none / 0) (#104)
    by Turkana on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:41:24 AM EST
    for change!

    Of sure. I was hoping (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:15:22 AM EST
    BTD would change his mind overnight and be touting HRC as more electable than Obama this a.m. But no . . . .

    Wow... (none / 0) (#29)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:38:25 AM EST
    That's one close popular vote tally.  If it's still that close after all the primaries, why not just flip a coin and let fate decide?  

    Better fate than "superdelegates", imo.

    Electoral College map (none / 0) (#41)
    by herb the verb on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:48:45 AM EST
    I don't think this is entirely off-topic, Mydd has an interesting electoral college map. Which is just as good an argument as the popular vote.


    And this may merit thought, too -- (none / 0) (#123)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:59:59 AM EST
    in unpacking the EC map: Kerry lost by 15 points or more the 10 really red, always-Republican, sizeable states that Obama has won: Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, North Dakota, Alabama, Alaska, Kansas, South Carolina, Georgia, and Louisiana. And it has been almost half a century -- 1964 -- since a Democratic nominee won Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, North Dakota, Kansas, and Alaska.

    We need to see a breakdown also (none / 0) (#49)
    by Salt on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:53:29 AM EST
    of Party affiliation of the above vote and battleground vs non battleground voters any further cuts of this these will impact electability.

    These maps with overlays as suggested (none / 0) (#124)
    by hairspray on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:00:20 AM EST
    are really important and should be weighed by the delegates and superdelegates.  If we remember that the SD's were created to put a brake on a runaway trainwreck like occured in 1972 we can see their role more clearly.  These SD's must use the state breakdowns and electability in their calculations.  The caucus system is heavily flawed, but fortunately most were in red states and that too should be considered.  I hope they do their job and not be screamed at by Donna Brazile who now has a dog in the fight.

    Where are the other RCP numbers (none / 0) (#62)
    by Independence33 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:08:14 AM EST
    Hey BTD, Your post would be a lot more credible if you posted the numbers without Fla and Mich. 12,946,615 for Obama   12,363,897 for Clinton and how about giving her Fla. because at least he was on the ballot here(they all agreed this wouldnt count though. Clinton Rules!)    13,522,829 for Obama and 13,234,883 for Clinton. Where everything has been equal and all rules have been followed he has a 582,718 popular vote lead. This is going to tear our party apart if the rules change mid-election.

    Don't disenfranchise voters here (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:42:27 AM EST
    You and Donna B. want to do so at the Dem convention, but in the reality-based world beyond her mind, real Dems believe that every vote counts.

    Are the DNC not real Dems (none / 0) (#154)
    by Independence33 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:46:39 PM EST
    Actually sometimes they make (none / 0) (#155)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:48:53 PM EST
    me wonder.

    Sheesh (none / 0) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:20:04 AM EST
    Some of you are unbelievable.

    Does anyone actually read the posts anymore before insulting me?


    So wait (none / 0) (#71)
    by pennypacker on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:12:14 AM EST
    you dont count three caucuses that Obama won or the Wash primary that he won? But she gets all the votes from Michigan and he gets none and then she is leading in the popular vote? Okay.

    Yes that is me (none / 0) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:18:29 AM EST
    Deliberately omitting the results I do not like.

    Sheesh. I dislike some of you. I really do.


    What are you doing then. (1.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Independence33 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:06:32 AM EST
    The title of your post is The Will Of The People and you highlight that "your very flawed numbers" show an advantage to Clinton. What else are you doing besides picking the numbers that you like. You do qualify your statements with a few hedges on the problem of these numbers but the highlight of your post is the RCP number that you like most. I dont hate you BTD and maybe this is the difference between Clinton supporters and Obamas. I just disagree with your interpretation of the facts. I actually respect you alot. Clinton may have rubbed me wrong this campaign but I dont HATE her either.

    uhh (none / 0) (#132)
    by SarahinCA on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:36:02 AM EST
    BTD is an Obama supporter, and why can't he post whatever it is he wants?  Are you saying we're all too stupid to analyze what he's posted and see that it's simply a snapshot?

    There's no vote count (none / 0) (#165)
    by tree on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:26:45 PM EST
    from those caucus states(Iowa, Nevada and Maine) or from the Washington primary because the states themselves have not released vote counts. Read the footnote at the bottom of the RCP tally.

    this race is great (none / 0) (#90)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:30:24 AM EST
    I think this race is great for the democratic party. It will help hash out the issues and most importantly it will help clean up the primary processes (caucus vs. primary, calendar rules, supers, etc.). And it will keep dems in the news.

    These people that keep saying the race should stop because it will hurt the dems are silly. If the dems can't handle a bit of mud slinging then they need to go home and tend to their booboos.

    I want it to continue as long as neither has won the magic number. Period. Then let it be hashed out in the convention the way it should be. Smoke and all.

    OK, and I admit, I really want to see a video with that kid who says leave britney alone do one for obama... please leave obama alone, you're tearing the dem party apart. why don't you leave him alone... etc. That would be really funny :-)

    If really important issues were (none / 0) (#113)
    by hairspray on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:50:57 AM EST
    thrashed rather than demagogued this continued campaign might be worth it.  I agree with BTD, Hillary should now train her guns on McCain and show the country how well she will take him on.

    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. . . .

    IMO one thing is for sure with the mess (none / 0) (#130)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:17:47 AM EST
    The Democratic party has managed to make of this primary (or is it caucal?) season will be lucky if the voters during the GE don't say "Heck if they can't even run their party right how can we expect them to run the Country"

    This may be OT but from my (none / 0) (#131)
    by hairspray on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:20:30 AM EST
    friend in Texas who is no dummy MSNP:

    We had about 200.  REading  our paper this AM apparently we were not the only precinct targeting with a specific ObAMA strategy --which of course may have NOT been an official stratety  from "on high" --The strategy was : get the packet from the election Judge (either candidates precenct captain is elligible)-- be the first to get it-- get yourself elected to the chair position use person authority aka "pushy personality attributes" to get control of the process and the interpretation of the rules from the TX Dem HQ.  Have people sign in  write in their candidate of choice....and then tell them they can then go home.  BECAUSE once the math and all the verifying is done -- the delegates  chosen are up to the few folks that stay -- and the rules allow for changing from one candidate to another at the end if they want to !!!!!!!!!  Holy cow -- this is truly back room politics  !  Because the hillary's well out numbered the Obamas (I was really surprised !!) -- I was able to insure that they (the pushy peole) couldn't take it... the hillarys had too many well spoken and determined folks.  My initial announcement was about the process (to the group) while the Obama lady was grabbing the packet.. That the initial process would be... BUT that the rest of us only have to follow Roberts Rules and object to any of the process that does not appear to be fair!!  Whew -- The one tall Hispanic, loud lawyer was for Obama and thought he and the pushy lady were going to ram this down our throats -- but the numbers prevailed and we barely had enough determined people to mill through the crowd and empower them with the rules...

    It was a process that could have gone so much the other way had I not "signed up" and picked up the packet of info from the HIllary HA -- by default !!  just wanted to be sure that my views were heard.

    Stats of interest (none / 0) (#142)
    by jcsf on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:19:01 PM EST
    From There Is No Spoon:

    • Obama has won the most states and territories   (27-15)
    • Obama will likely increase his state-by-state lead to 34-20
    • Obama has the most pledged delegates
    • Obama will have the most pledged delegates even if the race goes all the way through Puerto Rico, and Michigan and Florida revote
    • Obama has the lead in overall delegates when including currently committed superdelegates
    • Obama leads in the national popular vote
    • Obama's lead in the national popular vote is unlikely to be washed away, even if Michigan and Florida revote--and perhaps even if their unsanctioned contests are counted
    • Obama does better than Clinton against McCain in general election polls
    • Obama has raised more money, and has greater potential to raise more as the race goes on

    And why she leads by 850K votes (4.2%) among Dems (none / 0) (#156)
    by plf1953 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:49:43 PM EST
    in the popular vote totals (incl. Florida but NOT Michigan)

    Could you please clarify (none / 0) (#176)
    by Andy08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:50:56 PM EST
    your numbers here for popular vote are different from what the RCP site has at the moment.

    What's going on?

    Thanks for the help!!

    He using the third line (none / 0) (#178)
    by tree on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:04:15 PM EST
    Popular vote including Fl and MI. The numbers for both candidates are now slightly higher, probably due to more precincts reporting in Texas - 99% reporting now, might have been lower percentage earlier. And perhaps some percentage increases in the other states that voted yesterday.

    Paul Lukasiak's Numbers of two weeks ago, (none / 0) (#179)
    by plf1953 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:20:48 PM EST
    plus the primaries on 2/19 and yesterday ...

    Paul's numbers are/were slightly different then than what RCP is now, as the results became "more" final after his analysis.

    I will update my figures starting with RCP as the "gospel."   Will post those later and tie them into RCP's totals.

    Bottom line, though, is that Hillary leads by approx. 600K to 850K among Dems depending on whether you include FL (but no MI) ... also, no caucus results because those would add "oranges" to these "apples."

    RCP appears to leave out causcus votes, too, unless popular attendance is provided by the state party.  IA, NV, WA and ME have not reported popular arttendance at their caucuses (according to RCP).


    Great, thanks (none / 0) (#183)
    by Andy08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:28:56 PM EST
    I will indeed appreciate some of the "hard" numbers re. the popular vote. I'll check later for your update thenl in this thread (?)

    Why not simply pick a day and look at Gallup? (none / 0) (#188)
    by LargestSmall on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:10:11 PM EST
    I reject this analysis on a few bases. The ratio of popular vote to pledged delegates is irrelevant if the premise is that both are needed for an incontrovertible win.

    Unless you buy into the Clinton claim that caucuses are meaningless, the margins have meaning: margins in caucuses reflect popular support.  Not in terms of raw numbers, but in terms of enthusiasm.  Intensity of support matters, because turnout, not registration, is what determines the outcome on election day. That is a metric that super-delegates will value. While winning a caucus may not add much to your total in the popular vote, caucus wins by large margins show mobilization and organizational strength as well as voter enthusiasm.

    Moreover, some states are of larger population than others.  But just as we have a Senate that has Senators allocated on an equal basis to offset the proportional reward of Representatives in the House, we have delegate allocation systems that grant more delegates to large states, but not one delegate per voter who arrives at the polls, because then large states would render the votes of smaller states irrelevant, and the nomination process would not take into consideration the voices of party members across the nation. The goal is to assemble a coalition around the nation by garnering a simple majority of delegates, not simply to win the biggest states and claim larger populations should outweigh smaller populations. That defeats the point of having a delegate system that calibrates the vote weights, much as making the Senate proportional would skew Congress toward the power of big states, rendering small states powerless and defeating the point of having two houses. So arguing pure population is absolutely absurd and circular.  Again, the way to fairly evaluate this is the ratio of the popular vote in each state on a state by state basis. So Clinton's 10-point margin is impressive and deserves credit. But it shouldn't outweigh Obama's 17-point margin in Wisconsin simply because Ohio has a larger population. The balance for that is the fact that Ohio has more delegates because of its larger population. Counting Ohio's population separate from the delegates awarded distorts the balance already made and is a self-serving attempt to erase the value of Obama's margins in smaller states. To claim this isn't simply cooking the books is a lie.

    To see why, let's pretend that Ohio was unusually large and that Clinton won 17 million voters there and 10 net delegates. Then let's pretend that Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Guam, North Carolina, Indiana, West Virginia, Oregon, Kentucky, Montana, South Dakota, and Puerto Rico all were primaries with 2 million voters in them sum total and Obama won them all 52%-48%, netting 12 delegates. Your argument is that Clinton's 17 million voters beat Obama's 11 victories in a row that put him in the delegate lead simply because Clinton happened to win in one larger state. You can say "Caucuses are undemocratic," but my point is that your argument works in principle against primaries in states with lower populations. It's simply a disenfranchising argument designed to rewrite the balance set by the DNC in having primaries and caucuses that award delegates to show a variety of metrics.

    Reducing it to the popular vote just rewards whoever won the biggest states. That's changing the rules after the fact. That's cheating. If the party wanted a pure national primary, they'd just have one election day on which everyone in the party votes. The rules sure as hell don't say that.