home

Undermining "The Will Of The People"

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:33:24 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

One thing I doubt you will hear the Obama campaign claim is that it "won" Texas, as this top reccomended dkos diary does. Why? Because, if in fact Obama garnered more delegates in Texas after losing the popular vote, the whole argument of the pledged delegates reflecting the "will of the people" is utterly exposed as a sham. The will of the people is expressed in the votes in the primary in Texas. Clinton won.

If you insist that Obama won despite the fact that more people vote for Clinton, you have destroyed the false moral legitimacy of the pledged delegate leader argument. That is happening already of course but nothing will accelerate it more than insisting, as the dkos denizens do, that Obama won Texas despite losing the popular vote. Can anyone say Bush v. Gore?

< Power Resigns From Obama Campaign | Double Standards >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Undermining "The Will Of The People" | 146 comments (146 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    You could not be more mistaken (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:39:32 AM EST
    Click on Obama's website.  Check out the "State of the Race" map.  You'll see Texas in a beam of glorious white light just like all the other states Obama claims to have won.  Including Nevada, another state where he lost the popular vote but won on delegates.

    Will they claim to have won Texas on the talk shows?  I have no idea, but if it's on their campaign website they aren't exactly being bashful about it.

    You know they won't (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:42:15 AM EST
    that is for the crazies.

    [ Parent ]
    That map is great (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:45:19 AM EST
    Obama's states have been elevated to a higher plane of existence.  Ommmmm...

    Hillary's states, as Jerome said, "wallow in darkness."

    Maybe they'll claim to have won the popular vote in Texas by virtue of adding the primary voters and the caucus voters together.  Never mind that they're the same people.

    [ Parent ]

    Heard That Argument Was Already Made (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:05:10 PM EST
    in a diary on one of the A-list blogs. Obama won popular vote  by adding primary voters and the caucus voters together. Reality based communities have gone out the window.

    [ Parent ]
    I had that argument with an Obama partisan (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by liminal on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:17:03 PM EST
    elsewhere.  He was seriously claiming that we still had to "await the result of the popular vote from the caucuses."  When asked why Texans get to count x2 in the "popular vote," he countered by pointing out that SDs get to vote in the election and then vote in the convention.  Which is like comparing apples to blowfish.

    [ Parent ]
    I know (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by 0 politico on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:27:14 PM EST
    this is a campaign.  But, it does not appear to be honest marketing.  Sounds more like slective statistics.

    And Dean & Co. approve...

    [ Parent ]

    What? His website is willfully darkening Clinton (5.00 / 9) (#25)
    by tree on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:13:55 PM EST
    states??! ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    DARKENING (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:15:50 PM EST
    kos is on a snit now about how someone "darkened" a pic of Harrold Ford in that race.
    someone should point out to them that this stuff happens EVEN to white people sometimes.
    it is the nature of cheap printing.
    I am still trying to figure out why we should be upset that Ford lost since I think the last thing we need is more LIEberman democrats, buts thats another issue.


    [ Parent ]
    They were on (none / 0) (#145)
    by PlayInPeoria on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:17:38 PM EST
    a roll about a Sen Obama picture being darkened.

    Fact check did not find conclusive evidence. But that did not stop the bloggers.

    Obama supporters on the Internet are agitated over the apparent darkening of Obama's image in a Clinton attack ad.

    The two Kos bloggers who originally posted the story contacted us separately with thoughtful e-mails arguing generally that the matter deserves serious discussion but not challenging the substance of our article.


    [ Parent ]
    i wonder if those posters care (none / 0) (#154)
    by kangeroo on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:12:24 PM EST
    about felony disenfranchisement or about the war on drugs.  somehow i doubt it.

    [ Parent ]
    LOL! (none / 0) (#30)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:17:26 PM EST
    Nice one.  My favorite joke of the day.

    [ Parent ]
    ha ha (none / 0) (#44)
    by coigue on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:36:51 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Heh (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:46:03 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    NPR yesterday said Obama now won given (none / 0) (#114)
    by jawbone on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:01:30 PM EST
    caucus results.

    Did Olbermann do the same?

    Somewhere I saw some MCMer saying the caucus put him over the top. I went like, oh yeah, takes voting twice to do it.

    Where is there a good explanation for why this is done in TX? Primary and caucus thing.

    [ Parent ]

    What website are you looking at? (none / 0) (#64)
    by independent voter on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:59:15 PM EST
    I have barackobama.com pulle dup right now, and I see no light emanating from Texas. Please clarify

    [ Parent ]
    I just looked again (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:04:16 PM EST
    It's right there on the front page, lit up on the map of the US.

    [ Parent ]
    Yup- it's there (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by MMW on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:16:02 PM EST
    I saw it too. I must admit now I finally get the televangelical / miracle/ second coming references about the website. Glows are all over.

    [ Parent ]
    rays (none / 0) (#108)
    by tree on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:36:51 PM EST
    There are a series of rays of lighter blue emanating from the center of Texas upward in an arc.

     Hmm. Looking closer at the map, it appears there is some major catastrophic tectonic plate shifting going on in the Northeast. What is that? Connecticut floating out to sea or Maine torn asunder? Weird map.

    [ Parent ]

    Yikes. (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by blogtopus on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:41:36 AM EST
    Dkos is really falling down hard on this. The post-primary amnesia will be in full swing. Hopefully Kos won't purge the diaries to hide their shame -- there won't be anything left.

    Yes, this is more evidence that the will of the people is not what Obama's campaign is interested in. More like the 'Will of MY people'.

    Boy I wish our Dem candidate primaries actually reflected the will of the Dem voters.

    i visited kos last night for a look. (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    i just cannot believe that it has sunk so low. it was only christmas that i was last there and i found some good diaries to read and comment. the good bye diaries are for the most part met with very rude, ugly abusive language. now these supporters for obama will need the other voters in november if he is the candidate. i can't see it happening with the attitude and meaness coming out of the campaign and supporters. this is the worst division i have ever seen. say what you want about republicans, i'll probably agree with you, but they have party discipline. sad!

    [ Parent ]
    Don't forget (5.00 / 8) (#7)
    by standingup on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:49:43 AM EST
    the will of the people does apply to superdelegates with the exception of Massachusetts.

    Bleh (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by spit on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:52:56 AM EST
    watching "progressives" make the delegates-matter-more-than-voters argument is really revolting.

    I'm waiting for them to claim (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by tree on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:10:16 PM EST
    that Obama should win because his states cover more geographical area than Clinton's states do.(The 2000 wingnut mantra.) Then we are firmly down the rabbit hole, with no escape.  

    [ Parent ]
    I wonder (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by rose city on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:54:01 AM EST
    what the popular vote would have looked like in all of the other caucus states that he has won. Would some of those states have gone to Clinton?

    If TX is an example? Probably some (none / 0) (#116)
    by jawbone on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:03:12 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Does anyone have a (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by utahdem on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:55:36 AM EST
    totals of popular votes for HRC and BO, not counting FL, MI and the caucus states?

    I have a feeling HRC will end up (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Jim J on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:58:44 AM EST
    winning the popular vote while he ends up with a narrow delegate lead, thus hopefully forcing them onto the same ticket.

    I don't see any other good result coming out of all this. I am heartbroken for so many reasons it's hard to really enunciate them right now.

    Disappointed for Hillary who is clearly the most qualified, disappointed for my daughters who may have to wait 'til God knows when for a woman president, and beyond disappointed in the Democratic Party, which is about to blow the best opportunity they've had since Republicans gave us the Great Depression.

    buck up (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:20:24 PM EST
    its not over till its over

    [ Parent ]
    What about all the black people who would (none / 0) (#59)
    by halstoon on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:54:57 PM EST
    be denied a president? Just sayin'. Somebody's gotta lose.

    [ Parent ]
    funny, i thought that bill clinton was president (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:02:12 PM EST
    for african americans as well as the rest of america. he conducted himself in that manner. and frankly, if obama is more to the right and wants to nuzzle with the big corporations, just how does that help the african american community? huh?

    this is very selective and frankly i don't appreciate it.

    [ Parent ]

    You should look at the comment I (none / 0) (#83)
    by halstoon on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:16:38 PM EST
    replied to before you try putting words in my mouth.

    Clinton was the president for AAs, but he was not black.

    Obama would be president for women, but he's not a woman.

    [ Parent ]

    something tells me (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:17:05 PM EST
    Obama would not be referred to as the first female president.


    [ Parent ]
    Not female, no. (none / 0) (#139)
    by halstoon on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:13:19 PM EST
    But he has been called feminine, so maybe that counts about as much as Toni Morrison's anointing of Clinton.

    ;o)

    [ Parent ]

    your comment stands alone. (none / 0) (#136)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:04:49 PM EST
    you wrote it. you own it. geez, what i really meant was-----. you know, this country needs a president for all people. when folks begin thinking it is time for an indian president, a japanese president, an african american president for his group, then this country is finished.

    [ Parent ]
    You're right. The same would be true of (none / 0) (#138)
    by halstoon on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:10:46 PM EST
    the country needing a female president. We should not elect Sen. Clinton simply to show that we can or will elect a female.

     The original comment expressed disappointment that women and little girls would be denied a female president. I simply pointed out that the same would hold true for AAs.

    I stand beside my comment.

    [ Parent ]

    my concern is this! (none / 0) (#140)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:17:20 PM EST
    i want a president where color and gender doesn't matter. i am not voting for someone based on either of those two things. sure it would be historical, but blind voting for race or gender is just wrong. the comment that one would be the loser is wrong in my mind. i want us all to be winners.

    [ Parent ]
    Selective? (none / 0) (#156)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:22:19 PM EST
    I think it was directly in response to this:

    .....disappointed for my daughters who may have to wait 'til God knows when for a woman president, .....

    Sounds logical to me. Why wouldn't AA daughters be disappointed in the same way?

    [ Parent ]

    Well, I'm not black and don't have black children (none / 0) (#71)
    by Jim J on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:03:59 PM EST
    so I can't speak personally to that aspect, only to my own situation. It was, you know, my opinion.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, and I respect your honesty. (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by halstoon on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:17:44 PM EST
    I wasn't meaning to attack you. I was just pointing out that a lot of people are gonna be let down when one side loses. Nothing personal.

    [ Parent ]
    As a daughter... (none / 0) (#101)
    by CST on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:29:52 PM EST
    I have absolute faith we will elect a female president in my lifetime.  I just don't know that it will be Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    Ya Know (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:05:02 PM EST
    Many years ago when I was first old enough to vote I thought that there would be a woman president in my lifetime too. Now, not so much.

    I have seen the misogyny in this country in all it's ugliness in the last few months and unless and until that changes, we won't see a woman president in any of our lifetimes.

    [ Parent ]

    This was covered on NPR last night (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by goldberry on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:06:04 PM EST
    It was a discussion on why the Texas caucus number was stuck at 40% of precincts reporting.  And Wade Goodman said it was because the precincts had stopped counting.  (Maybe he meant stopped reporting)  From the video on YouTube to the report from prime CDS sufferer Ann Althouse, there seem to have been a LOT of irregularities in Texas.  And that kind of shenanigans happens when people are so desperate to win that they don't care how they get there.  Now, Obama might not be responsible for his supporters' behavior but if Texas and the Clinton campaign want to examine the caucus results very carefully and the circumstances surrounding the procedure, who can blame them?  
    Maybe that's why Obama is not making a big deal about it.  He doesn't want anyone looking too closely at how he won the caucus.  Better just to accept the delegates and walk away.  
    Is it just me or am I seeing the Obama campaign finally slipping into second place, perhaps permanently?

    this further drives home (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by sammiemorris on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:07:01 PM EST
    Hillary's argument that caucuses are undemocratic, and the way the DNC calculates the awarding of delegates is also questionable.

    In Nevada, even though a CLEAR majority of voters intended to vote for Hillary, because of the way delegates were awarded, Obama came away with one more delegate.

    In Texas, even though 100,000 more voters cast their votes for Hillary, Obama could potentially emerge with more delegates.

    In Washington, Obama blew out Hillary in a Saturday Caucus, but in the actual primary, when everyone had an opportunity to vote at their convenience and privately, Obama only prevailed by a few percentage points.

    I imagine results in Colorado and Minnesota would have been much closer if the state had held primaries as well.

    Obama's has built his delegate lead thanks to extremely friendly media attention, suspect delegate awarding despite losing the popular vote, and overinflated caucus results.

    Is there any doubt though that when things get serious and people aren't disenfranchised and can vote privately and at their convenience, that Obama really struggles?

    Can't have it both ways (none / 0) (#36)
    by Fultron on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:28:05 PM EST
    One shouldn't make the argument that caucuses are undemocratic while relying on superdelegates, and vice versa. You either get rid of both, or keep them and "play the game". It's too late for this time around, so instead we are stuck with fighting over MI/FL, backroom deals for supers, caucus manipulation, etc.

    Sorry to go OT, but I don't know why they don't use winner-takes-all anonymous primaries that function like the GE. Winning the GE is the whole point, remember? Popular vote, proportional representation, superdelegates, and caucuses have nothing to do with how it will work in November.

    [ Parent ]

    You can have it both ways. (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:57:48 PM EST
    People can argue about what is fair or what isn't until the cows come home, but the system is what it is, caucuses and superdelegates included. I have not seen Hillary supporters argue that caucus delegates should not be seated - they are arguing that those delegates are less representative of the will of the people than primary delegates. And they are making that argument in an effort to get the superdelegates to do that they were intended to do, which is make their own decisions rather than rubber stamp the pledged delegate leader.

    It's a crappy system, but everyone on both sides seems to me to be working it as it's intended to be worked.

    [ Parent ]

    You're missing the point ... (none / 0) (#80)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:15:19 PM EST
    they're not necessarily contradictory positions.

    Super Delegates could over turn a delegate lead that doesn't represent the will of the voters.

    Get it?

    Not only within the rules, but morally sound.  

    Especially if Clinton leads in the popular vote by the time the process is completed.

    [ Parent ]

    And (none / 0) (#143)
    by cmugirl on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:35:11 PM EST
    actually "pledged" delegates are not "bound" (most aren't anyway, unless by state law through the first ballot) by the time they get through the state parties, and the campaign plays itself out, even the pledged delegates could flip, especially where support was soft or suspect - like in caucus states.

    [ Parent ]
    Her argument when she started losing. (none / 0) (#51)
    by Independence33 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:49:39 PM EST
    Dont forget that the Clinton campaign had no problems with caucuses until she started getting out performed and organized in them and getting smoked. Its the Clinton rules, change them if they dont benefit me. I agree that this needs to be changed just like the electorial college, but it was the rules that EVERYONE accepted and was playing by. Tell me you were against caucuses before your candidate started getting beat in them and Ill by it.

    [ Parent ]
    I have learned a lot about caucusses (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:54:16 PM EST
    In this election.  The situation in TX is very edifying.

    If you'd have told me there can be a 10 pt variance between popular votes and caucusses before the election then, yes, I would have been against them from the get go.

    The understanding was that the difference between a caucus and a popular vote was negligible and would not impact the outcome.


    [ Parent ]

    Remember "Superdelegates are Unfair"? (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by cmugirl on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:54:33 PM EST
    ...until you're about to announce that 50 of them at a time are going to support you (how'd that work out?)

    [ Parent ]
    circumstantial ad hominem (none / 0) (#98)
    by tree on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:26:13 PM EST
    By your reasoning, no one can argue against any issue or position which might negatively impact him or her.

     That said, I have no idea whether Clinton had any "problems" with caucuses prior to this election or not. And you don't either. And I don't know of any complaints from her campaign about them now. If you've got a link, then show it. You are willfully mis-characterizing what the argument is. Caucuses are not truly and fully democratic and this years election has proven that over and over again. They should be changed in the FUTURE. No one that I know is saying that any caucus results should be invalidated, barring any confirmed illegalities. If you can find any Clinton campaign person claiming that any caucus result should be invalidated on purely ideological ground, then pony up with the link. You don't have any facts to support you on this.

      It seems to me that this whole contretemps started because the Obama surrogates and supporters, in an attempt to persuade (and sometimes intimidate) the SD's to vote for O, were strongly implying that the only "moral" way for the SD's to vote was for the "will of the people", as determined by the pledged delegate count. My point, shared by many others, is that the caucuses, being not as democratic as the primaries, are not a good way to determine the "will of the people", as has been clearly shown by both Texas and Washington state.  

    [ Parent ]

    Not arguing with you at all (none / 0) (#118)
    by Independence33 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:09:14 PM EST
    Caucuses are not the best way to get a nominee and I have consistently said that in my posts. What I am saying is that after it was blatantly obvious that Clinton would not be as strong in them she and her campaign started trashing them. Members of her campaign were instrumental in looking at the rules of the nomination process and there was no complaint. In fact Harold Ickes voted to disenfranchise Fla. and MI. Her campaign has also been very explicit in stating that some votes mattered and some didnt. Ask Mark Penn and he will tell you which states are important and which arent. Obama had a fifty state strategy, Clinton had a super tuesday strategy and showed no interest in the states after.

    [ Parent ]
    I take that then as a NO (none / 0) (#125)
    by tree on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:30:09 PM EST
    acknowledging that you don't have any links supporting your claim that Clinton is trying to change the rules, or invalidate the caucus results on ideological ground.

    And, yes, you were arguing with me by speciously assuming that my dislike of caucuses is purely related to whether its my ox or someone else's that's getting gored.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Ridiculous Statement (none / 0) (#113)
    by plf1953 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:57:41 PM EST
    Clinton has obviously been opposed to caucuses throughout this entire primary.

    Her actions - in not contesting the caucuses except in the states that Dems need to (and probably can) carry in the GE - speak to this.

    Fact is, Obama won 11 of 12 caucus contests to-date (not incl. TX which is a dual pop. vote caucus state) and 5 of those contests were in very Red or Red states (10+% margin of victory for Repubs in 2004).  

    So what is the point of those wins and all the effort and money spent there to woo caucus voters?

    The only point is/was to win delegates for the Dem nomination in states that won't matter in the GE.

    What a cynical waste of resources, IMO.

    [ Parent ]

    You are why we will lose (none / 0) (#120)
    by Independence33 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:14:10 PM EST
    If we the Democrats want to have a real majority this time then we need to start embracing these supposed "red states". We may not win them but telling all the Democrats and moderate Republicans that there state doesnt matter is egotistical and will lead to another 50 plus 1 win or potential loss in the GE. The Clinton campaign has been shown to have wasted more money than anyone in this campaign so thats what I think is cynical. Paying Mark Penns firm tens of millions of dollars to promote a less progressive and more moderate agenda is cynical to me.

    [ Parent ]
    Mark Penn? "$10's of Millions?" (none / 0) (#153)
    by plf1953 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:09:08 PM EST
    You know so F'ing much about everything don't you?

    If you know this to be a fact, show me your proof / links.

    If you can't, STFU.

    [ Parent ]

    Embracing the Red States (none / 0) (#155)
    by plf1953 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:17:27 PM EST
    Nothing wrong embracing the Red States and having caucuses to engage the locals.

    Its just a crime to use caucus votes to select a party nominee.

    Obama and his supporters like you have gamed the system to collect caucus votes that don't reflect either the "will of the people" who voted, or Democrats generally.

    Clinton leads Obama in the popular vote by at least 600,000 votes among Democrats.

    800,000 if you include FL (but not MI).

    [ Parent ]

    The popular vote (none / 0) (#124)
    by Independence33 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:28:38 PM EST
    People in Utah and Wyoming and all these supposed "red states" that vote for a democratic in the GE even if their state doesnt go for the candidate still helps in the pop. vote count. I think it is important to remember that this is the biggest argument for getting rid of the electorial college and if what happened to Gore were to happen again then maybe there would be a real movement to go to pop. vote instead of the college. We are going to need the pop. votes of those brave dems. indies. and mod. repubs. to insure that popular vote advantage. They do matter

    [ Parent ]
    If the popular vote does matter (none / 0) (#126)
    by tree on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:32:25 PM EST
    why do you oppose people advocating that the superdelegates take the popular vote into account when determining who they should vote for?

    [ Parent ]
    Wrong. The first was Iowa (none / 0) (#150)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:09:59 PM EST
    and Clinton was "out-performed" there, and problems were reported there right away, by many Iowans as well as Clinton organizers. See the Des Moines Register. Therefore, you are the one who forgets -- or you are counting on us to forget the campaign chronology. That's a nice way to say you're lying.

    [ Parent ]
    Cheer up, JimJ! I think she's going to win (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by goldberry on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:09:56 PM EST
    It might end up being a joint ticket but she's handled things so well lately that she's going to end up on top.  The delegate count will get straigtened out and I am more convinced than ever that she is going to take Florida.  The mental shift has already occurred in my mind.  It's still going to be an uphill struggle but now the hill isn't so steep for her while Obama just got stuck on a coaster bike.  

    Oh, I get it ... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:21:04 PM EST
    it's not "will of the people" anymore it's "elected results."

    Hmmm ... doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

    i highly doubt obama will be the (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:05:13 PM EST
    candidate. the will of the people? cacuses are a joke in many cases. that dog won't hunt.

    [ Parent ]
    Often? (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:59:15 PM EST
    Except when elections are stolen, as in Bush v. Gore.

    Your arguments are specious and unreasonable imo.

    If the Super Delegates decide that they will back the pledged delegate winner over the popular vote winner, I will accept it. I will not agree with it, but I will accept it.

    You can not say the same thing. There is something very wrong in what you are saying imo.


    [ Parent ]

    You're wrong about this (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by ChrisO on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:31:34 PM EST
    "recognizing the results of an election in which only one candidate is on the ballot, well that would be something new"

    Candidates run unopposed all the time. Some people elect not to be on the ballot because their opponenent is a shoo-in, and some because it's their campaign's strategy. Obama voluntarily withdrew his name from the ballot, and is now complaining that he wasn't on it.

    And as I keep reminding people, Obama currently holds a lead of one-half of one percent of the delegates selected so far. That's hardly the kind of lead that justifies demands that Hillary drop out. He doesn't seem to get that the way you win is by getting enough votes, not by insisting that your opponents leave the race.

    As an additional point of fact (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by tree on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:41:00 PM EST
    there were 4 names on the Michigan ballot-Clinton, Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel.

    Obama, Edwards, Biden and Richardson pulled themselves off the ballot by their own request. No oe forced their removal.

    [ Parent ]

    percentages (none / 0) (#53)
    by deminma on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:50:50 PM EST
    I think you are off by a factor of 100

    Delegates committed   not counting supers

    1366  + 1222  =   2588 from rcp

    difference = 144

    144/2588 =  .055   which is 5.5%

    Which is not inconsequential

    [ Parent ]

    Not counting Florida, MI or PA either (none / 0) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    Sort of the point there.

    As for popular vote, which TRULY reflects the will of the people, at this point, there is a good chance Clinton will lead.

    [ Parent ]

    will of the people (none / 0) (#77)
    by deminma on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:08:51 PM EST
    Maybe,   but given they way each state runs their contest,  I think it is a reach using the numbers I have seen.   Both candidates have been optimizing for delegates,  ie if they are going to reach a certain threshold they do not apply further resources.)  

    I would agree that primaries would be ideal ( ignoring the cost)  but lacking that the subjective measures we are using to measure the will of the people will be disputed by both sides.    We will never know how many people would have shown up in a caucus state if they had the chance.

    So unless the pledged count is close lets say  less than 2%   which is about 50.  I do not think the other agruments will win.

    [ Parent ]

    Um (none / 0) (#94)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:23:28 PM EST
    so you are saying optimizing for delegates does not entail trying to get the most votes? Thank you, a further argument against the holy nature of the pledged delegate count.

    [ Parent ]
    agreed (none / 0) (#106)
    by deminma on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:35:15 PM EST
    Right,  but I also do not see how you can go in and fix it in the middle of the election.   Whatever new system you advocate will be despised by 50% of the electorate.  

    [ Parent ]
    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:34:02 PM EST
    I guess Hillary should pull her name off the ballot in Mississippi, just like Obama did in Michigan.  Then it would obviously be wrong for anyone to pay attention to the resulting "Soviet-style election."  Very clever.

    guilt by association (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by tree on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:34:24 PM EST
    Frankly I don't care if Adolf Hitler and  Lord Voldemort agree with me on this. That's totally irrelevant. Caucuses are not a truly democratic way to determine the "will of the people and should be eliminated in future primaries. The super delegates should be allowed to vote according to any criteria they choose, and both candidates deserve the chance to do their best to persuade them to vote for them. If the SD system fails us this time it should be eliminated in the future.  And the best way to resolve all these issues is to let things play out as they will. Its the democratic way.  

    I assume you were making this argument (none / 0) (#75)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:05:49 PM EST
    before your candidate kept getting smoked in the caucuses?  Thought not.

    [ Parent ]
    I certainly thought so for every election (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by SarahinCA on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:20:06 PM EST
    the last couple decades.  Caucuses are disenfranchising, period.  If your opinion of a caucus is based solely on the candidate you support, then you aren't a supporter of the franchise in general, IMHO.

    And, this site has spoken of the problems with caucuses long before the primaries started, so do some research before you make accusations.

    [ Parent ]

    I assume you wqoulsd NOT be making that argument (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:22:21 PM EST
    if it favored Obama?

    I have made the argument since before the Iowa caucus.

    [ Parent ]

    Circumstantial ad hominem again (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by tree on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:53:59 PM EST
    Don't you folks have any other argument that doesn't involve a logical fallacy?  

    I have hated caucuses for decades, since I first participated in one in a caucus state. I've always hated them. I hated them when my candidate, Edwards, beat Clinton in Iowa. (And yes, I know Obama came in first, Edwards second.) And most of the people here, once they find out what they are all about, think the same way.

    Most people who are interested in democracy see the inherent weaknesses of the caucuses as a method for determining popular preference. If you've got some argument that goes against that, fine. Bring it on. But no, all you seem to have is bad logic.

    And "I assume"..."thought not" schtick?? Juvenile and misfired.

    [ Parent ]

    i couldn't disagree more. (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by coigue on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:42:25 PM EST
    Having a redo election in June, continuing this infighting and wasting our resources would be almost as bad.

    If you really believe this, you must also believe that we can afford to lose these two swing states to the Republicans in the general.

    You mean overturning the popular vote? (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:57:02 PM EST
    You mean if Clinton wins the popular vote and the Super Delegates decide that is more important than the undemocratic and outrageous pledged delegate system you will considering that overturning the will of the people?

    My, how very "reasonable" of you. Sheesh.

    Who would really be worse in the general (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Christopher MN Lib on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:53:58 PM EST
    A Hillary who wins a contested battle with MI and FL delegates (probably with some kind of redue), argues late momentum and gets the Superdelegate necessary to put her over the top, or an Obama who fights to denie people of two critical swing states of their right to get their voices heard and delegates seated. I can tell you if we don't at least win one of those two states the Democrats are not winning in November. If the Obama campaign takes your position, that we shouldn't at least have redues in those states, than he's basically killing his chances to get elected President. Not to mention the Clinton campaign would call him on his support for disenfranchisement.

    Motivated enough? (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:21:54 PM EST

    Also, why do you think Sen. Obama does so well in these caucus states? His supporters are motivated enough to take the time to sit through a caucus. We will need such motivated people in the fall.

    The Most motivated voters for generations have been the senior voters. We always vote. Most of us were raised that it was our "civic" duty to do so. My parents in particular told me, "if you don't vote, then don't gripe."

    But I no longer have the stamina that a caucus demands, my neighbor works second shift and he can't participate, and the single mom on the corner would need to get a sitter, which she cannot really afford after paying for daycare for her kids while she's at work. Which of us is not motivated? We all voted in the Wisconsin Primary and will vote in the general. Which of us do you think ANY system that wants to call itself democratic, has the right to disenfranchise?

    Obama: Public vs Private (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Doc Rock on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:20:03 PM EST
    Obama campaigns on 16 month Iraq withdrawal plan while senior advisor Powers tells the Brits that's just campaign rhetoric.  Obama campaigns against Clinton + NAFTA while senior advisor tells Canada "just funnin' you!"  Obama is against telecom immunity, but his senior intell advisor is pushing for telco immunity.  Is there a failure of leadership rising to the surface as the pressure increases?  

    Where was Hillary on the telecom vote? (none / 0) (#149)
    by Independence33 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:17:22 PM EST
    Wasnt important enough to be there even while DC primary was going on.

    [ Parent ]
    Dkos Obama supporters are an odd bunch ... (4.42 / 7) (#16)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:03:22 PM EST
    another diary about Power's Iraq statement had them defending a slower withdrawal from Iraq.  They seemed perfectly willing to dump one of their big issues overboard, if defending Obama required it.

    And, in the diary you mentioned, they seemed unable to answer the "will of the voters" question.  Snarky replies were all that questions on this issue got.

    With them it's either just all about winning, or all about Obama.

    Not sure which one is worse.

    Seriously, these people need to pick up the phone (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Angel on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:24:48 PM EST
    and find a 12-step program to join.  

    [ Parent ]
    IMHO (none / 0) (#90)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:21:23 PM EST
    it all about "not Hillary"


    [ Parent ]
    Owwww! The stupid! It burns! (none / 0) (#2)
    by magnetics on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:39:48 AM EST
    HT Duncan.

    Right and there's evident elsewhere ... (none / 0) (#11)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:56:38 AM EST
    as you suggest in your diary.  Such as:

    The "Super Voters" in Idaho who had almost ten times the power of New Jersey voters.

    The net minus voters in Nevada which somehow gave Obama an extra delegate.

    And so on.

    It's fairly easy to put quote marks around much (if not all) of Obama's delegate "lead."

    I think I calculated that in Alaska (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by zyx on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:05:56 PM EST
    every 31 or so Democratic voters had a delegate.

    That's practically super, just to show up...

    [ Parent ]

    A good one to add to the list (none / 0) (#26)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:15:00 PM EST
    I hadn't looked at that one.

    And I did some quick math (and if you number is correct) and that means one Alaska caucus attendee was equal to 3,389 New Jersey voters.

    [ Parent ]

    You are mistaken (none / 0) (#37)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:31:33 PM EST
    There was information floating around the blogs which suggested that only 100 people had shown up for the Dem caucuses in Alaska, or some number in that range.  In reality, they had strong turnout, breaking all the records just like in the other caucus states.

    All the usual arguments apply, of course, and turnout would have been higher still if it had been a primary, but the Alaska results weren't quite the joke some blogs made them out to be.

    [ Parent ]

    Okay, I did wonder that (none / 0) (#43)
    by zyx on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:35:04 PM EST
    So how many people did vote in Alaska as Democrats?

    Where can I find out?

    [ Parent ]

    Wikipedia has numbers (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by zyx on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:39:26 PM EST
    8880 vote/13 delegates

    1 regular delegate for every 683 voters?

    More that I will get.

    [ Parent ]

    Roughly ... (none / 0) (#52)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:50:12 PM EST
    14 times as powerful as voters in New Jersey.

    [ Parent ]
    And just for fun ... (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:54:34 PM EST
    if those voters were physically as large as their dominance.

    They would be about 80 feet tall.

    [ Parent ]

    More fun facts about Alaska (none / 0) (#76)
    by zyx on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:07:52 PM EST
    They have FOUR superdelegates.

    Delaware, which is a pretty democratic state, has seven.

    My state, Oregon, which has a Democratic governor, one D senator, four D congresspeople, and a whole lot of actual people who are Democratic VOTERS, has 12 supers.

    Alaska, which has done what for Democrats in how many decades, had four supers.

    [ Parent ]

    Popular vote in Alaska. (none / 0) (#50)
    by liminal on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:44:36 PM EST
    Obama: 6,674
    Clinton: 2,194

    Realclearpolitics.com has the popular vote totals from states that have released them.  That scored Obama 9 delegates to Clinton's 4.  

    [ Parent ]

    Is that what happened in Texas? Hillary win the (none / 0) (#12)
    by vicsan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:58:01 AM EST
    popular vote and Mr. Hope won the pledged delegates? I haven't caught up on the latest happenings in the Lone Star State.

    oops...I mean, Hillary WON the popular vote. (none / 0) (#14)
    by vicsan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:59:09 AM EST
    sorry. :)

    [ Parent ]
    Not known yet, not until summer (none / 0) (#15)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:02:12 PM EST
    as little more than a third of the local delegates have been reported yet -- and they can change their candidate again and again, just like s-d's, until the Texas state convention this summer.  Same in other caucus states, which is why Obama's total count is especially "soft."  Any counts we see now from caucus states are simply press guesstimates.

    And, of course, if the Texas caucus delegates do as Obama calls on s-d's to do and go with the popular vote, they all will go to Clinton. :-)

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, Hillary WON the popular vote (none / 0) (#24)
    by RalphB on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:13:27 PM EST
    in the primary.  You can't add the primary and caucus together because in order to caucus, you had to have already voted in the primary.  Thus they are some of the same people.


    [ Parent ]
    Then Obama should drop out (none / 0) (#27)
    by RalphB on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:15:57 PM EST
    for the good of the party of course.
    You entirely contradict yourself (none / 0) (#28)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:16:40 PM EST
    by the end, with a few spins in between. Edit.

    I am arguing for revotes (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:20:37 PM EST


    you haven't been reading long, then (none / 0) (#33)
    by SarahinCA on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:24:38 PM EST
    The flawed caucuses have been argued against for longer than the last few days.  If you can't see, as a small "d" democrat how flawed and disenfranchising they are, regardless of your preferred candidate, then I'm not sure what to say.

    No, his supporters (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:02:33 PM EST
    are affluent enough to have the spare time to spend hours at a caucus and educated and articulate enough to stand up in front of their neighbors and argue their case.  The laborers and waitresses and factory workers who are a very substantial part of HRC's base largely don't have the time or the energy at the end of a long physically taxing day (that's assuming they don't work the night shift, too) to go to caucuses.

    Caucuses are de facto discriminatory on the basis of socioeconomic status, and nothing in my lifetime has showed this more vividly than this primary season.


    [ Parent ]

    So, tell me, are they the only people that count? (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by splashy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:46:25 PM EST
    Is that democracy, when only the articulate, well off count? The working stiffs that are too tired and not as well educated because they were born into different circumstances don't count?

    You may want to rethink that comment.

    [ Parent ]

    Since before Iowa by me (none / 0) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:03:20 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    How about a revote? (none / 0) (#95)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:23:52 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I don't know about anyone else (none / 0) (#47)
    by ChrisO on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:41:36 PM EST
    but I live in a primary state. I've never complained about caucuses before because I really hadn't paid any attention to how they were run, and hadn't read any reasoned arguments against them.

    Until this year... (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Angry Mouse on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:01:25 PM EST
    I had alwasy lived in primary states and not given much thought to the caucus system.

    However, I now live in Washington State, and I caucused last month, and found the entire process, at best, totally undemocratic, and at worst, completely corrupt.

    Unlike primary polling places, there is (or appears to be) no prohibition on actively campaigning for your candidate.  Thus, organizers of the caucus stood at the front door, welcoming people, wearing their Obama shirts, handing out stickers and information.

    When it came time for voting, the Obama supporters/caucus organizers decided how to let each side speak for their candidate.

    They announced that each side would pick ONE person to give a two minute speech.

    The Hillary side went first, and was cut off after two minutes exactly.

    Then the Obama side went.  Two people stood up.  They both gave long, impassioned speeches.  When another Hillary person stood up to respond, he was immediately shut down by one of the organizers, who said, "Sit down right now.  We're not going to do that.  We're not going to go there."

    Most of the people in the room had never attended a caucus before and had no idea what the process was.  We were completely dependent on the organizers, who only spoke to the Obama people on their side of the room.  When a Hillary supporter dared to ask them to speak up so the whole room could hear, they were glared at and then ignored.

    The entire process was disgusting.

    [ Parent ]

    A coin flip (none / 0) (#161)
    by desert dawg on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:18:38 AM EST
    decided one of the Obama delegates in a Seattle caucus.  Seems like when they had the undecideds vote, there was a half vote left over (don't ask me, but my son was there). He watched them flip the coin.

    [ Parent ]
    Funny caucus number (none / 0) (#49)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:43:24 PM EST
    This article from the Anchorage Daily News suggests there were about 8,600 Democrats who showed up to caucus.  While that's still a pretty small number, they say the statewide turnout in 2004 was like 700!  Apparently the Anchorage site alone had over 6,000 attendees, all trying to fit into one middle school.

    For Hillary to win (none / 0) (#54)
    by magster on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:52:08 PM EST
    Looking at the Obama campaign's projections that were leaked, and which have been shown to be pretty accurate, Obama is on track to win 310 more delegates in the upcoming contests.  On top of what Obama has already won, Obama only likely needs 151 of the 275 remaining superdelegates to clinch.  Conversely, Clinton is on track to win 301 in the upcoming contests.  On top of what she's already won, she likely needs 260 of the 275 remaining superdelegates to clinch.

    So, Obama should definitely tout Texas as a win to the superdelegates, show them this math, show them his money keeps coming in hand over fist, show them how much Hillary is undermining Obama in November with her "Only McCain and I can handle foreign policy", and see if he can persuade the superdelegates to end this before PA.

    Of course Florida and Mi are not included (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:02:23 PM EST
    As for what the Super Delegates will do, you know they will decide the race.

    The question is how much weight should they place on the pledged delegate count. To me day by day, the legitimacy of the pledged delegate count is being undermined.

    The popular vote winner will have a much stronger moral claim.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm not saying it's right or fair (none / 0) (#85)