Pledged Delegates The Will Of The People? Not Hardly

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

So we are celebrating "democracy" in Wyoming today. The "will of the people?" Not hardly. Another travesty of the Democratic Party.

Do you know that if 8,000 voters come out in Wyoming today to select their 13 delegates that means that 615 Wyomingians will be selecting a delegate to our national convention (8000 divided by 13.) By contrast, when 4.4 million Californians voted in their primary, they selected 370 delegates, which is to say 1 delegate for every 11,892 Californian who voted.

The will of the people? Please never mention that phrase again when discussing the pledged delegate count.

< On Re-Do Primaries: Carville v. Wilhelm | The Demographics Of Mississippi >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    As with the electoral college (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Iphie on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:44:59 PM EST
    Same point to be made about the Electoral College, which if I remember correctly, was broadly understood by Democrats of all stripe -- even many who are now pledged delegate loving Obamabots.

    Then would someone (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:50:45 PM EST
    please explain to me what Mark Halperin was going on about on Charlie Rose? According to Halperin, Hillary cannot win the pledged delegates so the only way she can win is if the SD go her way and that will tear the party apart. According to Halperin. And Melissa, somebody or other was saying that if the SD picked Hillary then the AA voters would stay home. I am so confused. I thought it was the popular vote that was the voice of the people and why would the SD going with them tear the party apart?

    First, Halperin (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Mike Pridmore on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:57:30 PM EST
    is and has been a GOP tool.  When he ran The Note it was really just a vehicle to create and promote Republican talking points.  If Hillary wins delegates in a FL and MI revote she may end up ahead in pledged delegates, but that will be harder for her than ending up ahead in the popular vote.  

    Thanx (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:11:11 PM EST
    If I'd known that I wouldn't have been so confused. Sometimes lately it's getting hard to tell a GOP tool from a partisan Obama supporter.

    I'll take the GOP MSM over the supposed (none / 0) (#79)
    by Salt on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:04:10 PM EST
    Dem buddies like KO or Alter at Newsweek when it comes to honest reporting on anything Clinton.

    HRC certainly still can win (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:02:20 PM EST
    more pledged delegates.  None of the caucus states' delegates to the national convention have been allocated yet.  None.  Much of Obama's delegate count is only a guess by the media, because he relies much more on caucus states.

    And most caucus states allow those local delegates yet to go to state conventions to be UNpledged -- meaning they can be reallocated to different candidates as late as the state conventions in June.


    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by hookfan on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:16:32 PM EST
    There is no guarantee that the final distribution of delegates will in any way reflect the initial results, at least in washington state. They go through a process of several votes through the initial caucus through the state level-- the results can be different. I don't know how anybody can legitimately say they have won the delegate count until the final distribution is determined.

    Is there any way... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by solon on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:02:10 PM EST
    To develop a process whereby the delegate count will be determined by the amount of people that vote rather than assigning delegates by state and by when the state has its primary/caucus?

    This would allow states, in keeping with their own political traditions, to determine how to select a candidate and allow a majoritarian result. While this may hinder democrats in certain states, such as Wyoming, it does put pressure on the democrats in that state to increase its presence within the state.

    And this is exactly why the super-d's (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:03:59 PM EST
    must and will look at popular vote, too.  Good post, BTD.

    An interesting thought (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:17:50 PM EST
    I would love to see someone do these kinds of figures for all the states that have voted and compare them. In other words, let's actually see how many people Obama's delegates represent compared to how many people Hillary's delegates represent. I have a feeling that would be a real eye opener. Anyone who demagogues on TV about the sacredness of the delegates because they represent the people is an idiot. It is obvious to see that they do not.

    Been there done that (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:36:55 PM EST
    I have a spreadsheet with votes/dels etc. I have dels for red state/blue state. For the GE Clinton would has 78 to Obama's 100 red.  Clinton 815 to Obama's 83 for blue.  I have by state the number of votes it took to get the dels.  I do it because I find it interesting, but I don't think any of it means anything.  Raw vote against dels.. Clinton 9289 votes per del.  Obama 8553 votes per del.

    Here's a fun one.  There are 16 states where it took more than 5000 votes to get one delegate.
    Obama votes per del 56.  Clinton votes per del 84.


    Care to share? (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by blogtopus on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:41:07 PM EST
    I'd love to see that, reference that spreadsheet in the future.

    Sharing (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:03:32 PM EST
    It would probably be a pain in the rear.  I do quite a bit of maintainance.  I have to keep referring to greenpapers etc. to look stuff up.  I haven't found a site to attach live links to so it will automatically update.  I can run scenarios for you if you like.

    I'm a maroon.  I would have no idea on where to keep my spreadsheet so I could then link to it.


    google "google documents" (none / 0) (#94)
    by kangeroo on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:40:23 PM EST
    and the first result should be a nifty little beta program that allows you to share documents by publishing them on the web.  i used it a while back to publish an excel sheet with the first super tues results.

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by facta non verba on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:57:09 PM EST
    That's unbelievable. I would love to see your spreadsheet and write a column about it.

    Maroon (none / 0) (#83)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:10:51 PM EST
    I've said it before... I'm a maroon at this stuff.  If you would like to explain how I could link to my spreadsheet, I can do that.  Otherwise you could give me the scenarios you think would be interesting and I could give them to you.

    Whoa (none / 0) (#60)
    by Democratic Cat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:43:22 PM EST
    Is that right? Obama's popular votes per delegate won are 56 and Clinton's 84? That's the stat people should be looking at, but it sounds like too big a spread. (But I haven't run the numbers, and you have, so...)

    Top 16 States (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:49:47 PM EST
    The states that it took more than 5000 dels to get a delegate.   NOT total vote to total dels.  JUST the top 16.

    Total vote to Total dels (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:51:23 PM EST
    The total vote to total dels was listed as 8553 Obama to 9289 Clinton.

    OK, I see (none / 0) (#63)
    by Democratic Cat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:45:15 PM EST
    That's in the 16 states mentioned.  Even the overall numbers, 9289 to 8553, are pretty damning.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#106)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:59:10 PM EST
    for sharing this. I just came back and checked this thread and you'd posted your findings. Fascinating stuff. I'd love to see this get around more, particularly if the Obama camp is going to keep insisting that delegate count shows that he has the support of the most voters. And that pledged delegate count should trump everything. As we've seen, it doesn't.

    This whole thing - the way delegates are proportioned, caucuses vs. primaries, and the FL/MI situation - really highlights how screwed up the way the democratic party nominates a candidate is. If we did ours winner take all, as the reps do, Hillary would have won it all on Super Tuesday. And it would have made sense, considering she won all the states that dems must win in the General. But, no, we have this total mess that makes it impossible for anyone to win it all.

    Think about it - the way things are now, anytime you have 2 candidates that are halfway acceptable to the majority, it will always be impossible for one candidate to emerge as the winner. I'm thinking that we would have been better off if Edwards had stayed in the race, because we wouldn't always have the other person getting almost as many delegates by coming in 2nd.


    To understand this, ignore the MSM (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:48:00 PM EST
    and read the caucus states' local papers online (Des Moines Register, Las Vegas Sun, etc.) and the state secretary of states' and state parties' sites.

    Of course, since I started doing that, starting with Iowa, I hit the curve early on in frustration with MSM reporting even of delegate counts, so I've had ulcers about it for many months now.

    So proceed to look up the local press and the rest at your peril.:-)

    674 Dems voted in 2004 (none / 0) (#1)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:39:32 PM EST
    so this is a huge increase.

    So what? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:48:14 PM EST
    Do 385 Wyomingians matter more than 11,892 Californians?

    That is (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:04:19 PM EST
    30 times more influence than CA.

    If DNC wants to limit the power of these small states AND caucus .... they need to influence them to change to primaries... weighted outcomes for pledged delatgates might work. Less for caucus more than primary. And if the big states make is so a Dem can win... then those need to be wieghted.


    Is this a rhetorical question? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Mike Pridmore on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:50:42 PM EST
    Does a bear defecate in a forested area?

    In case it was not clear... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Mike Pridmore on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:01:04 PM EST
    I felt BTD's question was rhetorical and I agreed with him that the obvious answer is that all votes should be equal.

    delegate math (none / 0) (#11)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:52:41 PM EST

       385 Wyoming red voters           = 1 delegate
    11,892 California blue state voters = 1 delegate

    This is a Clinton candidacy contention


    Oh lord (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:57:57 PM EST
    Make me be patient.

    That is not a contention, that is a FACT.

    I am leaving you now because I am thisclose to insulting your intelligence and character.


    Do You or Anyone Else on this Blog (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by plf1953 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:45:33 PM EST
    believe that Dem voters in red Wyoming should have a disproportionate say in choosing the Democratic party nominee for President?

    You think Clinton controls (none / 0) (#58)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:41:26 PM EST
    the U.S. Census, too?  Pray tell how, please.

    Or put it this way:  What are Obama's figures for the population in each state, please?


    No of course not the system lacks integrity (none / 0) (#48)
    by Salt on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:20:49 PM EST
    the number of Delegates cannot elect a President.  But it could also be a reason that Dem nominees end up being less competitive in the GE.

    Same reason the Senate is undemocratic.


    Seriously? (none / 0) (#90)
    by Democratic Cat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:31:00 PM EST
    That's your argument? What matters is which states were won and in what order and who won the most recently?

    Many posters on this site do shudder at caucuses, and rightly so. But maybe people who regularly post here are a little more concerned about democracy than you appear to be.


    Too Bad (none / 0) (#113)
    by cal1942 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:10:03 PM EST
    he signed out forever.

    More than half the people in the nation reside in the nine most populous states.

    So far Clinton has won six of those states, Obama two.

    Apparently Obama people, like right-wingers, believe that the tumble weed and prairie dogs of Wyoming should have more say in picking a candidate than do people.

    That' exactly what he implied.

    More telling yet is that Clinton's popular vote among Democrats only (exit polls needed) exceeded Obama's even at the end of his winning streak.  The lead was something like 600,000.  After March 4th, which Clinton won by more than 300,000 votes in total, her lead among Democrats only is certainly much greater.

    I have this "flaw" that makes me hold the opinion that only Democrats should pick the Democratic nominee.  I'll wager that Republicans would agree that only Republicans should pick the Republican nominee.  That's an area both parties can agree.  Think maybe Obama would go along as part of his 'reaching across the aisle' schtick?

    Nah, didn't think so.


    ah, that's a 'metric' (none / 0) (#93)
    by katiebird on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:30:43 PM EST
    One state=1 vote.  From California to Delaware & Texas to North Dakota:  Let's just count 'em up and deliver the prize.

    That's easy enough.

    (sigh) I'll be quiet now.  


    gosh, clemente, what's the matter, (none / 0) (#95)
    by kangeroo on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:46:43 PM EST
    can't face the truth and actually having to argue your position with facts and logic?  your little drive-by amuses me.  

    You forgot to mention (none / 0) (#3)
    by Mike Pridmore on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:48:05 PM EST
    that more people voted in the WA primary, which didn't count, than voted in the caucus.  Caucuses are only good for low turnout states I think.  If we redo MI and FL Hillary will likely end up with a popular vote lead. That is the underlying point that is the elephant in the room.  She already has a popular vote lead if she gets what she already won in those two states, as quoted elsewhere here today.

    I did not mention it because (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:49:38 PM EST
    this is ablout what a travesty it is to hear people all over talk as if the peldged delegate count in any way is democratic. It clearly is not. IT is an exercise in voter dilution.

    I am reaching the point where I am about to argue that it should be ignored entirely.


    As a Washington voter (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by oldpro on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:53:58 PM EST
    I'm already past that point.

    ugh I meant to include more (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Mike Pridmore on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:54:07 PM EST
    I see I hit post before I put in all of what I meant to say.  The twiddling with the vote to make it match individual districts makes even the primaries less democratic than they should be.  In a real democracy all votes are equal.

    We're not (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by oldpro on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:00:09 PM EST
    "in a real democracy."

    We're in the Democratic Party and we change the rules every few years to try to solve the problem we created by changing the rules last time (to solve the problem we created the time before).




    Im there already (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Salt on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:36:57 PM EST
    its a loop hole, now exploited it means nothing anymore, the data point measure nothing relevant to the intended process and provides no information that can be used a an indictor of competitiveness in the GE or for the electoral count..  And I believe Gov Rendell gave that argument yesterday convincingly with a 100 point spread when delegates are compared to the electoral counts the two candidates have won, sorry I did not do the math or write down the numbers he used but that's the number to look at that provides meaning.

    One other point, Mike, that we need to (none / 0) (#52)
    by plf1953 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:34:38 PM EST
    continually drive home ...

    No matter what states you count, Hillary leads Obama in the popluar vote among self-identified Dems.

    Without FL and MI -  Hillary +588,000

    With FL                            +620,000

    With FL and MI                  +933,000


    Concern (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:46:28 PM EST
    This is the stuff that concerns me along with polls showing an increasing number of Clinton supporters that won't support Obama.  Way too early to know what will change for Nov, but it doesn't take much of a drop in Clinton supporters, shift of the indies and increase in Republican turnout to have an impact on the outcome.

    abolutely (none / 0) (#67)
    by Mike Pridmore on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:48:09 PM EST
    Should be "With FL +820,000" NOT 620,000 (none / 0) (#68)
    by plf1953 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:48:46 PM EST
    I had heard (none / 0) (#99)
    by worriedmind on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:20:09 PM EST
    a while back that (before Wisconsin, I think) that more Democrats had voted for Clinton than Obama.  I have been tring to figure out where to find this kind of data since.  Can you tell me where it's from?  

    Also, shouldn't these 2 be doing something like "going positive" on each other?  Instead of arguing for why the opponent isn't qualified, each should argue for why she/he is better qualified than their well qualified opponent.  This way the likelihood of creating resentment and refusal in large segments of the other's supporters would be greatly reduced and the credibility of the winner would not be diminished if the runner up were picked for VP.  If one did it, the other's hand would be more or less forced.  No??  


    'self identified'? Where'd you get those numbers? (none / 0) (#103)
    by Knocienz on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:35:38 PM EST
    There is no reason in California to register Democrat rather than Non-Partisan. So many haven't. I donate to Democratic candidates in my and other states, vote for Democratic candidates but I didn't check a box on my registration that means NOTHING here.

    Yet while you are complaining that voters in caucus states have their vote count more than those in primary states, you discount my vote in its entirety.


    Exit Polls (none / 0) (#114)
    by cal1942 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:31:33 PM EST
    Self identity in exit polls in states with open primaries.  Closed primaries are, of course, obvious.

    It may be easy for some people to dismiss the exit polss but I believe they are reasonably reliable given the fact that in every state self-identified independents and Republicans have voted for Obama and the exit polls reflect this along with support for Obama among the 18-24 demographic.

    We are, in effect, allowing non-Democrats to select our nominee.  This is one of several major flaws of the primary/caucus system.

    In my state, Michigan, where there is no partisan registration, Republican crossovers in 1972 and 1988 warped the outcome of the primary.


    It's only obvious if Registered = Self Identified (none / 0) (#117)
    by Knocienz on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:51:04 PM EST
    The question is, who do you want choosing your nominee? I'd say that you want people who are committed to voting in the general for whoever they vote for in the primary and are highly likely to vote for the winner regardless of who it is.

    There are plenty of folks (myself for one) who don't self-identify as MEMBERS but who consider it the best party and will vote/support it in the general. I think we want those voters in the primary.

    I certainly don't think we want Green and other progressive party members to feel any need to 'stick to their own'; we see where that gets us.

    My big gripe with this line is the idea that people who didn't self-identify should somehow be discounted when you are evaluating the level of relevant support a candidate has.


    Washington state figures (none / 0) (#102)
    by debcoop on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:20:26 PM EST
    In the Washington state elelctions site they have the primary vote totals.  Obama got 51% of the vote for her 46% of the vote....the caucus percentage breakdown was 75%-25%. In the primary almost 700,000 people voted (even though it would elect no delegates)  and how many in the caucuses???? I can't find the data.

    This is outrageous...what will of the people do caucus delegates really represent?  In Washington they don't represent the will of the people.



    are you sure (none / 0) (#6)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:49:41 PM EST
    you are a 'tepid' supporter of Obama.

    Because I see Clinton supporter in most everything you post.

    Here's the thing (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:53:18 PM EST
    Systems of holding elections do not become more or less fair based upon which candidate you support, despite what you read in the blogosphere.  That's not what "fair" means.

    A difficult concept for some (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:54:07 PM EST
    BRAVO (none / 0) (#115)
    by cal1942 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:35:17 PM EST
    "Systems of holding elections do not become more or less fair based upon which candidate you support, despite what you read in the blogosphere.  That's not what "fair" means."



    Really shouldn't matter who you support (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:53:52 PM EST
    you still should be hacked about this lousy process.

    Exactly =) (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by hookfan on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:02:10 PM EST
    You think this post is Clinton support? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:52:40 PM EST
    That is effing on you.

    That you do not see a problem with this is a comment on where YOUR HEAD is at, not mine.


    Yeah I do (none / 0) (#19)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:54:12 PM EST
    but hey, welcome to the team...er sort of

    I am not on your team (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:55:23 PM EST
    IF voter dilution is a "candidate issue" for you.

    let's face it (none / 0) (#28)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:01:28 PM EST
    this has been the method for all time in the US.

    I doubt Clinton would be talking about it it all if it didn't make her candidacy stronger - especially her appeal to super delegates. In fact, this sort of justifies the notion of super delegates itself...a mechanism to fix the blemishes of an imperfect process.

    voter dilution is the American way however, just look at the Senate


    The House balances the Senate (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Manuel on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:32:29 PM EST
    The primaries should balance the caucuses with the superdelegates breaking the tie.  

    Exactly (none / 0) (#55)
    by plf1953 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:37:12 PM EST
    Obama voters may be more disenfranchised (none / 0) (#61)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:44:43 PM EST
    than most by this, as African Americans.  Do you get that?  (Ditto re Clinton's Latinos/as -- as the poor usually are most disenfranchised by redistricting, and as many states' parties use congressional districts to allocate delegates.)

    Now, if you now see that this could be an issue in your candidate's favor . . . does it matter, hmmm?


    As an aside (none / 0) (#91)
    by spit on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:48:14 PM EST
    what I've seen from most of my friends in Spain to neutralize the gender is Latin@s. Struck me as kind of a cute way around.

    I agree that it's important to deal with this outside of the weird politics around districting. Right now, people are often arguing based on who benefits, but the whole thing sucks in general for the regularly disenfranchised, IMO. One person, one vote, is something I stick by as a progressive, and I don't care who wins this primary battle out of that.


    heh, that is cute. (none / 0) (#96)
    by kangeroo on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:49:35 PM EST
    In the end (none / 0) (#9)
    by jcsf on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:52:17 PM EST
    Barring any huge issue, Obama will be over 100 delegates ahead in the pledged delegate race, will have won more states, AND, will have a (small) popular vote lead.

    Given those three things, we really do have our nominee.

    Not bloody likely imo (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:53:39 PM EST
    It looks like Clinton will almost certainly be the popular vote winner to me.

    How do you figure? (none / 0) (#29)
    by jcsf on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:01:59 PM EST
    Right now, if Obama gets even 20000 from Michigan (and he would get more), he's ahead in popular count.

    Pennsylvania looks to be, at most, an 8% win for Clinton.  The spread in North Carolina, in popular vote, will be a larger spread, say around 15%, for Obama.  Those popular votes will close to even out.

    Not to mention, the only Indian poll, has Obama ahead by 8 or so?  If that's accurate (only polling we have right now), Obama is further ahead because of Indiana.  With the other smaller states, there is no way for Clinton to come back, if things go on in the pattern they are now.

    So you have to be expecting a shift - what are you expecting?


    That popular count include Florida (none / 0) (#33)
    by jcsf on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:02:52 PM EST
    As without Florida for Clinton, Obama is even more ahead.

    You must no think Clinton will win big in PA (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:05:58 PM EST
    Hey, there you are! (none / 0) (#38)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:09:08 PM EST
    How about this, Obama's pre OH strategy to win the nomination was apparently to leave the country:

    With Pennsylvania looming, Obama has few good options. Some advisers say he should stick to a plan, hatched before Tuesday's defeats, to spend some time in the next weeks traveling to Europe, Israel and Asia to bolster his credentials for the general election. But if he cedes the state completely, he destroys his strategy of winning big in the small states and staying close in the big ones.


    (interesting stuff in there about super delegates and pop vote, just to keep things on topic)


    Committee (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:19:06 PM EST
    You think this is because he was called out for not holding any meetings for the committe he chairs and for never having gone to Europe?

    I might donate to that Obama fund (none / 0) (#72)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:51:12 PM EST
    to send him off to the countries that are the purview of the Senate committee he chairs -- if he also would promise to call the first-ever meeting of it when he returns.

    Look at the math for the popular vote (none / 0) (#44)
    by jcsf on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:17:53 PM EST
    If you include Florida, Obama has a 280,000 vote lead. (RealClearPolitcs).

    Pennsylvania is about 10% larger than Ohio.

    Ohio's 10% total, was 230,000 votes for Clinton, instead of Obama.

    So all Pennsylvania would do, at best (if you figure a 10% win) is make up that 50,000 gap.  Even if you spot a full 330,000 votes, from Penn (which is unlikely), that's a 50 K lead for Clinton.

    Half of that will be make up THIS Tuesday, in Mississippi.  And then, you have North Carolina AND Indiana, both of which - right now - show Obama ahead.  Then Obama will be clearly ahead again, in the popular vote.

    Things CAN shift - but you have to be counting on a shift, that doesn't seem likely, at this point.  Now, it could happen - so what shift are you expecting?


    But you ignore Michigan (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:33:40 PM EST
    Which will vote again and even a 5% win by Clinton gives her the popular vote win imo.

    I have one last secret for you - Puerto Rico - which Clinton will win imo by hundreds of thousands of votes.

    Clinton will win the popular vote.


    Hillary will win PA by at least 10% (none / 0) (#34)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:03:08 PM EST
    10% in Penn isn't enough (none / 0) (#46)
    by jcsf on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:19:16 PM EST
    If other polling holds.  It just isn't.  Something has to shift in Clinton's favor, much more than it has so far.

    Based on the last two weeks (none / 0) (#74)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:52:14 PM EST
    something will.  It is about much more than delegate counts or popular vote counts.  S**t happens.

    Based on the last two weeks (none / 0) (#77)
    by plf1953 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:02:32 PM EST
    Something already has happened ...

    Clinton has the momentum and states like Wyoming (no offense Wyoming Dems) will not give it back to Obama.


    Size Matters (none / 0) (#116)
    by cal1942 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:45:56 PM EST
    The total vote in Wyoming was significantly less than the total Democratic vote in Ingham County (Lansing & some suburbs) Michigan.  There are at least seven more populous counties in Michigan.

    If that holds (none / 0) (#22)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:56:09 PM EST
    And nothing major happens in news and polls, you are correct. I think the Obama campaign concern is that not all these may hold.

    Not enough room at the inn (none / 0) (#13)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:53:35 PM EST
    AP article referenced at MYDD.  People turned away.

    In Cheyenne, scores of late arrivers were turned away when party officials stopped allowing people to get in line at 11 a.m. EST. A party worker stood at the end of the line with a sign reading, "End of the line. Caucus rules require the voter registration process to be closed at this time."

    Ok (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:56:42 PM EST
    I am taking a break. I am about to crack some rhetorical whup a** on some of you. And that is not what this blog is about.


    does btd make anyone else here (none / 0) (#97)
    by kangeroo on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:52:13 PM EST
    chuckle like he does me?  i feel you, btd.  (sigh)

    Old news? (none / 0) (#41)
    by arnoud on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:16:34 PM EST
    You´re absolutely right about complaining about the sillyness of the voting process. The same goes for super delegates: are these more super than regular voters? Wouldn´t you agree that they shouldn´t play a part in determining the will of the people either?

    Well, I elected a lot of my super-d's (none / 0) (#84)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:17:13 PM EST
    and you elected a lot of yours.  Mine matter more to me than all the bigtime donors who are pledged delegates but not accountable to me at the next election.  How 'bout you?  Like bigtime donors better as your delegates?

    Delegate/Vote Question (none / 0) (#42)
    by Dax on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:17:19 PM EST
    The "vote" numbers being reported by CNN are in the 7000 range so far.  But it looks these numbers represent the number of state delegates awarded based on the caucus results -- not the number of people who participated in the caucus.

    Is this true?  And if so, do we ever really find out the rough number of total participants who voted for each candidate in the caucus?  Relatedly, have the various news organizations that report total popular vote so far taken this into account?  Or are they generally treating state delegates as "voters," which would seem to me to significantly under-report the actual results.

    Anyone know the answer to this?

    No it is false (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:31:32 PM EST
    It is the VOTE total.

    Doesn't seem plausible (none / 0) (#56)
    by Dax on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:39:04 PM EST
    There are about 60,000 registered dems in Wyoming.  10-15% participation doesn't seem plausible in this environment.  Plus, CNN's website says the reported numbers represent state delegates.

    Or are you saying that the national running total popular vote count represents actual votes, whereas the reported individual caucus results reflect state delegates as opposed to individual votes?

    Is there a source you can refer me to that would provide some clarity?


    CNN not right (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:44:46 PM EST
    Here's the official count, with good column titles



    That is the delegate count (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:49:44 PM EST
    on the left, the vote count on the right.

    Very helpful. Many thanks. (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Dax on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:50:34 PM EST
    Seems utterly plausible (none / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:42:09 PM EST
    Well, RCP excludes (none / 0) (#80)
    by plf1953 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:05:45 PM EST
    several of the caucus states' results for this very reason .. no numbers on actual people voting;  only dstate delegate counts.

    I agree with your point (none / 0) (#76)
    by desmoinesdem on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:01:38 PM EST
    but don't understand your math.

    58,000 divided by 13 is 4,461 Wyomingians for each delegate.

    There will be about 8,000 Wyomingians when all is said and done.

    No, you misunderstand (none / 0) (#82)
    by plf1953 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:09:31 PM EST
    BTD (and others) is talking about number of votes per delegate today in Wyoming (and previously elsewhere), NOT number of registered voters, most of whom didn't vote in the caucuses today.

    Er (none / 0) (#86)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:19:15 PM EST
    That should be "open primary."

    Maybe proportionately more Limbaugh-ites (none / 0) (#88)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:22:50 PM EST
    voted in the caucuses than in the primary...

    The real democrats went home.  The Limbaugh-ites stayed around.



    Wyoming's caucuses today (none / 0) (#100)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:32:34 PM EST
    HA! (none / 0) (#89)
    by Mike Pridmore on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:26:11 PM EST
    Yes all those Hispanics are Republican voters.  And the women.  You betcha.  And in Ohio too.  All those working class white men from union backgrounds, like the "lunchbucket Dems" in NH, Republicans every last one of them.  And Obama has never tried to use Republicans to his advantage, never asked them to be "Dems for a day" or anything like that, since this would  make his claims about Republicans throwing TX to Clinton laughable.  And it had nothing to do with the Clinton team on the ground in TX, the same team that won CA.  Only Rush Limbaugh's massive influence could possibly explain St. Obama's loss. It has to be!!!!

    Oh brother (none / 0) (#98)
    by tnthorpe on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:22:01 PM EST
    Clinton is ahead in a number cobbled together from caucuses, open primaries, and closed primaries, and no doubt the phony numbers from FL and MI also count. So, despite the rules that everyone plays by--pledged delegates count--it must be Clinton rules--my numbers count. Well, that sounds democratic to me, well except for the small problem that it is in fact the absolute opposite.

    Finishing with the rules agreed on at the outset must be wrong since after all Clinton isn't winning when we play it that way.

    The really stupid thing about this thread's argument is that it ignores the plain and obvious fact that only a political settlement is possible at this point. There are no numbers that are decisive enough, clean enough--thank you DNC, thank you MI and FL, to put either of the two very similar candidates over the top. As has been painfully clear for weeks, only a political rapprochement between the candidates will close this primary season. The sooner that happens and the sooner McCain is the target (rather than Clinton's experiential soul-mate in all things national security) the better for the Dems, assuming they actually care about winning.

    I can not make heads or tails of (none / 0) (#109)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:59:36 AM EST
    this comment.

    there's a surprise (2.00 / 1) (#110)
    by tnthorpe on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:58:47 AM EST
    I'll spell it out slowly.

    The pledged delegate count is all that matters. The fascination with the so-called popular vote is totally irrelevant.

    Obama is winning the pledged delegate count, therefore he is winning the primary race.

    However, winning by a narrow margin isn't going to give legitimacy to the candidate nor necessarily unify and mobilize the party, no matter if that person is Obama or Clinton, so at this point and has been obvious for weeks, so the candidates are going to need to figure a way out of this impasse. Of course, the candidates could keep running Republican-lite negative ads--who's going to answer that 3 am wake-up call, who's going to be there for the permanent war on terror--to try to win by that narrow margin. It's a pretty low and pathetic road though.


    Heh (none / 0) (#111)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:16:12 AM EST
    If you say so it must be.

    No, I disagree.


    I think the popular vote total will matter (none / 0) (#112)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:54:17 AM EST
    to superdelegates. They are not going to blindly follow their state or districts' pledged delegate total. If there's only 100 or so pledged delegate difference between the two, they will look to other factors...see the Washington Post today which explains this.

    This isn't even a valid comparison (none / 0) (#101)
    by Jgarza on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:49:51 PM EST
    if less Californians had shown up, there would be more delegates per voter.  You are comparing hypothetical not reality.

    It would have to be about 2 million less (none / 0) (#108)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:59:02 AM EST
    Absurd comment.