What Should the Super Delegates Do? 59% Of Dems Say Popular Vote Winner Should Get Nod

By Big Tent Democrat

Via Sargent, Newsweek finds Dems divided on what the Super Delegates should do:

But Ras has this:

In the craziness of the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, it is possible that one candidate might finish the Primary Season with the most pledged delegates while another could end up with the most popular votes. If that happens, . . . [a]mong Democratic voters, 59% believe the candidate with the most popular votes deserves the nomination.

Newsweek proves it is all in how you ask the question:

Should neither Clinton nor Obama secure enough delegates to win the nomination (a scenario that looks increasingly likely), 43 percent of Democrats said they would prefer that the candidate trailing in the delegate count concede the nomination, while 42 percent think superdelegates should choose the nominee.

Should the ball end up in the superdelegates' court, most respondents (42 percent) think they should choose the best-qualified nominee in their judgment, while 38 percent believe they should choose the person with the popular vote lead.

< The Demographics Of Mississippi | States Consider Lowering Drinking Age >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I am viewing many (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by standingup on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:32:37 PM EST
    of those statements as more posturing with the attempt to exert influence on the superdelegates and DNC at this point.  The recent attempts by certain bloggers to inject racism without basis is a disappointing but I hope it will settle down way before the convention in August.    

    more posturing (none / 0) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:34:47 PM EST
    I dont think so

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#113)
    by standingup on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:24:21 PM EST
    it is wishful or hopeful thinking on my part.

    Save the Party for Nov as intended (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Salt on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:34:09 PM EST
    but before that somebody better reign in Obama's rouge Sr. Advisers before the point is mute, this will be the third Sr. Adviser of Senator Obama's out publicly under cutting not only Senator Obama's on the record public position but also that of many other elected Democratic Officials and Candidates.  Effectively nullifing any possibly of Democrats creditably using Trade reform, immediate Iraq withdrawal and now FISA Telcom Immunity as defining Democratic Party issues in 08 and being believed.

    From Think Progress

    Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) has consistently spoken out and voted against granting retroactive immunity for telecoms that participated with the administration's warrantless wiretapping program. This stance was part of the reason he won the support of Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), a leader on civil liberties issues.
    One of Obama's advisers on intelligence and foreign policy advisers, however, is someone who "strongly" supports telecomm immunity. John Brennan is a former CIA official and the current chairman of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance. In a new National Journal interview, Brennan makes it clear that he agrees with the Bush administration on the issue of immunity:

    And please tell me why they are out discussing United States Iraq and Trade policy with foreign press and governments anyway. Senator Obama may be attracting the wrong crowd with his glow too many of his new friends have been associated with previous failed runs or lost power.

    Don't forget this: (none / 0) (#39)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:53:24 PM EST
    "Sen. Obama welcomes a variety of views, but his position on FISA is clear. He and Brennan differ," said campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor

    The title is adviser, not person-who-tells-you-what-to-think. At least not in Obama's camp. He listens to people with opposing views, thus informing his final decision more thoroughly.

    I would imagine Sen. Clinton would support such an idea, but maybe not.


    Actually. . . (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:03:06 PM EST
    The title is adviser, not person-who-tells-you-what-to-think.

    An adviser is someone who tells you what to think.  Notwithstanding the fact that you may not always listen.


    Oh, you're right. (none / 0) (#62)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:19:09 PM EST
    I should have said not person-who-makes-your-decision..

    'preciate that.


    Well thats a problem it not just about one (none / 0) (#80)
    by Salt on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:44:46 PM EST
    person wants, campaigns are about candidate's positions defining him or her as a commodity their message who they are what they believe where they stand so voters can assess them and when your running for the top of a Party ticket your also representing downstream candidates sitting elected officials and a agreed to agenda,  free agents with their own views out meeting with foreign governments and foreign press using the candidates name as if then representing the Untied States is a problem it dosent fit into the process.

    I would agree with you (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by dissenter on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:37:08 PM EST
    except that Donna Brazile and Al Sharpton are firing people up and making just such claims. It is manufactured to be sure. But sometimes people's words create manufactured problems.

    favorite americablog comment today (none / 0) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:41:51 PM EST
    It's an Obama Nation!

    That's not nice... (none / 0) (#100)
    by K Lynne on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:23:57 PM EST
    You just made me spit diet coke out my nose!

    This sentiment is the exact reason (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Virginian on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:52:09 PM EST
    why Obama is opposed to a redo.

    A redo won't push Clinton over on "pledged" delegates, but it will push her over on popular vote. But with FL and MI not counting, Obama is making an argument that we should also not count the VOTERS in the popular vote (no delegates - no voters).

    Obama is hedging on two things; using this argument to win enough SDs between now and PA to make seating the delegations a moot point, and/or taking control of the credentials committee to make sure the delegations are not seated if he has not secured enough SDs.

    Hillary of course is trying to make sure the votes count. She wants to cut into his "pledged" delegate lead, and have the popular vote without Obama's caveat that "they don't count."

    I think Obama is going to win this for two reasons; 1) Howard Dean, 2) Donna Brazile

    And I think Hillary Clinton will win, for two (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Angel on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:56:56 PM EST

    1.  Hillary Clinton; and

    2.  The voters who will give her the popular vote win.

    Unless FL and MI are settled (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Virginian on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:01:16 PM EST
    Obama will always be able to trot out the caveat...

    "Don't count those voters...they were stripped of their delegates"


    And the reply to that would be "Why are you (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Angel on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:10:03 PM EST
    trying to disenfranchise voters, Senator Obama?  Don't you think everyone's vote should count?  Why should voters be penalized for something the Democratic Party did?"

    True...but that has been the case for (none / 0) (#60)
    by Virginian on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:17:56 PM EST
    over a month with -zero- traction...

    Obama reframed the debate to pledged delegates mainly, but also he's made it clear that he is OK with disenfranchising the voters, so his supporters on the nets and the MSM are echoing Obama's defense...meaning, zero traction for counter arguments.


    It will gain traction (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by sumac on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:40:48 PM EST
    as this issue continues to stay in the spotlight. One of the reasons that it hasn't yet is that we have kept waiting for some event (Super Tuesday I, Super Tuesday II, coming to a primary near you: PA...) to solve the issue for us (read: give Obama the nomination). Since this hasn't occurred yet the DNC, the states, the nominees are having to consider this upfront and center.

    Obama will not survive this election if it becomes very clear in the middle of this fight, that he is okay with deliberately disenfranchising voters. It kinda rubs against that whole "unity" shtick.


    The idea of having new elections in MI and FL (none / 0) (#71)
    by Angel on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:27:53 PM EST
    has been in the news for quite some time; from the days on or before those elections, if I'm not mistaken.  But only in the last week or so has the idea of new elections in those states been seriously discussed.  It is now an open debate.  And I am not aware that BO has said specifically that he does not want new elections in those states.  Because if he does say that all hell will break loose.  And once he has been accused of trying to disenfranchise voters he will lose the debate.  And he will probably lose the nomination as well.  

    I posted this in another thread but (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:13:41 PM EST
    I think it is worth a reposting. from Mary Frances Berry who I saw on CNN last night laying into Dean and the DNC.  not an easy person to ignore.  go Mary Frances:

    Dear Governor Dean:

    We are deeply concerned about the prospect of a Democratic Party convention fight over the seating of delegates elected in the Michigan and Florida primaries. We are well aware that in the absence of discrimination parties make their own rules about these matters. We know, also, that the Democratic Party led the fight for the Help America Vote Act and the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. These actions helped to ease discontent over disenfranchisement of Older Americans, Latinos, and African Americans in Florida during the 2000 election and the subsequent issues of disenfranchisement in Ohio and elsewhere in the 2004 election. We believe it is time for you and the Democratic National Committee to decide the fate of the Florida and Michigan delegations.

      We are not suggesting any particular way of deciding the issues. We are suggesting that the decision be made before the convention in an effort to avoid a floor fight. Public floor fights have served the Party badly in the past. They left deep-seated ill will and preceded Democratic Party defeats in 1968, and 1972, for example.  Resolution of this issue is a matter of fairness, justice and practicality. It should receive the urgent attention of the Democratic National Committee.


    Mary Frances Berry
    Geraldine R. Segal Professor of American Social Thought &
    Professor of History
    University of Pennsylvania

    Roger Wood Wilkins
    Robinson Professor of History
    George Mason University


    And she would be savaged if this (none / 0) (#63)
    by Virginian on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:19:30 PM EST
    were to receive any media traction...its sad that she'd be savaged, but sadder that her voice has no traction.

    I am not sure (none / 0) (#68)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:24:42 PM EST
    her voice has/or will have no traction.
    she sounded like she is just getting started.

    as far as media traction (none / 0) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:26:40 PM EST
    she had a good long segment on CNN in prime last night.

    I've met her, she's marvelous (none / 0) (#89)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:16:40 PM EST
    as a person and a historian -- but it may be interesting to point out that she is known as much as a historian of women as she is as a scholar of AA history.  

    And unlike some academics lately, note that she is not suggesting her solution, nor claiming that she speaks for any candidate here.  Or did she do so on CNN?


    that's what i love about her. (none / 0) (#97)
    by kangeroo on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:58:14 PM EST
    she cares about AAs and women--a LOT.  obama only seems to care about himself.  it drives me nuts.

    Probably (none / 0) (#41)
    by dissenter on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:54:49 PM EST
    Which will ensure a John McCain Presidency.

    Just out of curiosity, has Donna Brazile ever won anything????


    I don't know (none / 0) (#44)
    by Virginian on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:00:20 PM EST
    but she has a huge amount of influence behind the scenes in the administrative side of the DNC

    She's what you call (none / 0) (#49)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:06:03 PM EST
    a super-superdelegate.

    She should have absolutely none. (none / 0) (#51)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:07:45 PM EST
    Honestly, the difference will be (none / 0) (#118)
    by thereyougo on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:06:37 AM EST
    between landslide and over 50% for a Democrat, any of the two.

    McCain has left landmines rich for campaigning of the Bush policies he intends to continue. His 100 years of war will not sit well with taxpayers, trust me.

    Unless the ballots boxes are stuffed, the will of the people will be heard.


    Take you ball and go home? (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:14:05 PM EST
    good plan.  

    Popular vote winner, in my opinion, more (3.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Angel on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:06:00 PM EST
    accurately reflects the will of the people.  The caucus system makes a mockery of the one person-one vote principle.

    I agree (none / 0) (#5)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:08:13 PM EST
    I am trying to think how I would feel if Obama had the popular vote--if I would still feel as strongly.

    I think winning on a technicality only counts in Auburn football.  I'd want to win it for real with Clinton.


    Rasmussen on popular vote (none / 0) (#1)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:01:34 PM EST
    57% Say Candidate With Most Votes Should Get Nomination


    Thanks (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:02:38 PM EST
    You're welcome (none / 0) (#6)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:11:38 PM EST
    Post substantially edited (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:07:57 PM EST
    as a result of the Ras poll

    Yup (none / 0) (#7)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:13:52 PM EST
    Newsweek/NBC definitely asked the question in a different way.

    All the Supers should (none / 0) (#8)
    by Saul on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:20:22 PM EST
    should not endorse anyone for now. Even those that have endorsed should pull off and form one group and stay neutral until all the primaries are over. They were suppose to be independent. The controversy of Delegates vs Popular vote needs to be discussed.  Since caucuses are not one vote per one person and only primaries reflect one vote per one person  then getting more delegates after caucuses  were used, is not a very fair representation of the will of the people. A vote in the Texas caucus  from some one in the panhandle was not equal to a vote from someone from Houston in determining delegates.   I believe only popular vote is the true test that reflects the will of the people and that is on what  the Super should make their decision.  Trouble is it is hard also to determine the true popular vote because of caucuses and crossovers from republicans.

    Except (none / 0) (#45)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:01:09 PM EST
    there are indications that upwards of 700,000 Republicans crossed over and voted in Texas. Do their votes get counted? Do you discount people in caucus states?

    In the end the superdelegates will vote for what they think is best for the party and who the best candidate is: Barack Obama.


    Wow, just think, without all those Dems for (4.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Teresa on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:36:16 PM EST
    a day, Obama would have lost Texas even more badly. :)

    Wow, just think (none / 0) (#109)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:30:50 PM EST
    except for all those democrats voting for Clinton, Obama would have the democratic nomination sewn up.

    Here you go Bob... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Teresa on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:45:40 PM EST
    No matter how you voted today, do you usually think of yourself as a:
                    %  C   O    
    Democrat  66 53 46
    Republican 9 46 53
    Independent or something else 25 48 49

    Link? Not what I've seen (nt) (none / 0) (#92)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:18:34 PM EST
    I think the # you are looking for is 300k (none / 0) (#98)
    by Virginian on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:02:15 PM EST
    And 53% of those voted for Obama. (none / 0) (#99)
    by Teresa on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:13:31 PM EST
    Bob seems to think that Rush helped Hillary win Texas when Obama actually won the Republican vote.

    Well, that would make Bob wrong (none / 0) (#102)
    by Virginian on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:52:01 PM EST
    Let's take it as a sign (none / 0) (#121)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:25:09 AM EST
    that Bob is about the only Republican still listening to Rush Limbaugh.

    Pledged Delegate Count Seems to be (none / 0) (#9)
    by plf1953 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:21:03 PM EST
    a non-starter for the most part.

    Obama supporters will be up in arms and argue that Rasmussen and Newsweek are both wrong.

    (I realize Newsweek gives pledged delegates a 1% margin over the pop vote, but these are essentially equal sentiments.)

    The Newsweek poll (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:22:03 PM EST
    does not match the pledged delegate against the popular vote.

    Right, but (none / 0) (#12)
    by plf1953 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:27:52 PM EST
    43% think the leader of the pledged delegate should win the nomination (by the laggard conceding)and

    42% think the super Ds should decide if neither has it wrapped up.

    Doesn't sound like the pledged delegate count is really supported unless there's a clear winner (over 2205).


    I'm surprisd that the Newsweek poll is that (none / 0) (#13)
    by Teresa on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:29:13 PM EST
    close. 42% okay with Super D's deciding it is more than I would have thought.

    Can HC catch up in the popular vote? Even with MI and FL, she's still pretty far behind. I'm not sure where it stands after Ohio and Texas though.

    Don't forget Puerto Rico in your calc! (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:32:50 PM EST
    BTD suspects the margin for Hillary will be large!

    RCP Popular Vote Data as of Today (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by plf1953 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:38:27 PM EST
    including Texas and Ohio (and RI and ME) but not Wyoming:

                               BO              HC

    With FL and MI   13,577,000   13,611,000


    Thanks for that. She really is ahead for now. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Teresa on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:43:59 PM EST
    She will drop behind after Mississippi but can make that up in PA. She needs to stay close in the rest of the states that she won't win. This will be a huge argument in her favor if she pulls out the popular vote.

    These numbers (none / 0) (#50)
    by muffie on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:07:19 PM EST
    assign Hillary her votes from MI, but discards the uncommitted votes.  If you give all the uncommitteds to Obama, then he would be leading by around 200K.  Of course, that's probably not an accurate reflection of whatever the Michigan voters were thinking at the time, as Edwards was still in the race.  Hard to measure Michigan fairly without a re-vote.

    Except (none / 0) (#58)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:15:53 PM EST
    that only in your world do Michigan and Florida count.

    I would imagine (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:17:57 PM EST
    that in Michigan and Florida they probably count.

    And in the world (none / 0) (#66)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:20:44 PM EST
    of the popular vote, which is what we're talking about.

    Obama won WY by 1300 votes (none / 0) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:20:59 PM EST
    Jeesh. That's what we call (none / 0) (#116)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:08:44 PM EST
    only one section of the ballpark in my town.  Even when our team is losing, and there's snow on the bleachers, we can fill that in five minutes.

    And sell that many beers in one minute.


    Im not they hate Hillary,Jonathan Alter has tried (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Salt on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:42:33 PM EST
    to bury her repeatedly most memorable was his premature eulogy on Charlie Rose the night before NH, and his constant dismissal of women as a power demographic complaining Hillary will only bring women and that Dems do not need more women therefore they need Obama, because he brings men, now this of course was prior to Obama winning men by the way. Where do you think KO gets his stuff.

    I dumped my sb when they hired Rove.


    Not right (none / 0) (#24)
    by plf1953 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:35:34 PM EST
    With both Michigan and Florida included, she leads Obama by 35,000 votes.

    This will widen with PA and could get wider still if FL and MI revote.

    And BTD thinks HRC will pick up several hundred thousand votes in PR.


    and there are still some other states (none / 0) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:36:54 PM EST
    where she could do well.

    Does that include the new Ohio & Texas (none / 0) (#30)
    by Teresa on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:40:44 PM EST
    numbers? In the analysis done here last week she was about 300,000 behind with MI & FL included but I forgot we had a nice pickup on Tuesday.

    Yes, includes OH and TX (none / 0) (#125)
    by plf1953 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:59:44 AM EST
    See RCP's popular vote page

    Nice try... (none / 0) (#35)
    by jtaylorr on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:44:59 PM EST
    Including Michigan, huh?
    That's funny considering Obama's name wasn't on the ballot, and thus RCP shows he got zero votes from MI.
    Not to mention it doesn't include Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine, three of which he won.

    So many (none / 0) (#72)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:30:21 PM EST
    So many minor details.

    And that's if you even believe that a poll run in a newsweekly should be the official policy at this Democratic convention. Forget the crossovers, forget the caucus states and how they are undervalued in this formulation. Were the people who answered the poll confirmed Democrats or just people who identified themselves as Democrats. How much about the primary process do these people know? One could run a survey asking if the best or second-best candidate should win and get the same quality of information.

    And again, the rules of the Democratic convention say nothing about the popular vote. Why? Because some states don't have primaries, but caucuses.

    So should the superdelegates give the nomination to Clinton even if she got hundreds of thousands, maybe over a million Republican votes last Tuesday? When Clinton supporters thought the situation was reversed, that some Republicans and independents voted for Obama in past primaries, they were complaining that it wasn't fair for Republicans to vote in a Democratic primary.

    Should the Democratic candidate be chosen by the followers of Limbaugh?

    No, I think that the current rules will still apply. Nice try, though, Big D.


    Don't believe anyone here has said not (none / 0) (#77)
    by Angel on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:37:04 PM EST
    to count the caucus votes, not to count the crossover votes, or to change the rules.  

    There are basically no rules when it comes to the SDs voting.  They are supposed to use their best judgment.  

    The rules do not say give their vote to the person with the highest poppular vote total.  Nor do they say give their vote to the person with the larger delegate count.  They don't say anything about how to vote other than use their best judgment.  Is this hard to understand?  


    Spin, Spin, Spin Bob (none / 0) (#128)
    by plf1953 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:19:38 AM EST
    At this moment in time, regardless of how many crossover votes Hillary may have gotten in TX (or OH), Obama's popular vote lead is due NOT to Democratic voter preferences but to Indies and Repubs vote preferences.

    BO leads HC by 1,000,000 votes among non-Dems.

    And to use your formulation, Bob ...

    "Should the Democratic candidate be chosen by the followers" of the Obama's and the Repubs anti-Hillary Dem-for-a-Day strategy in all the other states that preceeded TX and that Obama won on the strength of those votes?

    I don't think either should count, but they both will because this is the current rules.

    However, you'd be a fool to think that the Super Ds won't take this anomaly (no, actually fraud) into account to determine the Dem nominee.


    Don't sh*t on me, these are RCP's (none / 0) (#126)
    by plf1953 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:03:48 AM EST

    RCP excludes the caucus states that haven't or don't report actual voters who voted in the caucuses.

    What else could they report if no such raw voter totals don't exist?

    Beleive what you wenat, but these are the facts.

    The other fact is that Hillary is likely blow Obama oout in PA and take a ommanding lead in the popular vote ...

    And if you don't think the MI and FL will count in the end, boy you are living in an Obama fairy tale world.


    Sorry about the typos ... hit post by mistake (none / 0) (#127)
    by plf1953 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:05:02 AM EST
    Maybe it is the rational 42% (none / 0) (#42)
    by Virginian on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:56:12 PM EST
    The super delegates WILL decide it, despite whatever the left (can we even call them that anymore) blogosphere protests

    Yes, (none / 0) (#74)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:35:55 PM EST
    and they'll decide it for Obama. That's why they keep telling anyone who'll listen that the race has to end before the convention. Hillary can only win IF SHE FIGHTS AND WINS IN THE CONVENTION. So when they say they want the race over before the convention they are telling her to concede. When Art Torres, the head of the Democratic Party in California, says that the race has to be over soon he's telling Hillary that it's over. Maybe some people here should begin to listen too.

    Don't be so sure (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:09:11 PM EST
    If she wins PA, and the FL/MI revotes of any kind are you sure the SD won't run to her to end this?

    I have a feeling whatever way this ends it will be done by SD quietly in the background, so by the time convention begins everyone knows what will happen and will play along.

    And I have to say I don't claim to know anything, but I see no way out of this despite what any partisan says other than a joint ticket.


    Not right (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Virginian on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:47:57 PM EST
    this is Obama spin...not rooted in the facts of the nomination system.

    Super Delegates (none / 0) (#29)
    by Sunshine on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:39:00 PM EST
    Super Delegates have been given these votes as part of the rules...  They should use that vote the same as any other vote is used as they see fit... Nobody should tell me how I should vote and nobody should tell a Super Delegates how to vote...  They have been awarded these votes and they should use them as they see fit...


    Kind of agree (none / 0) (#76)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:36:53 PM EST
    The only disagreement is, in reality, everybody is telling the superdelegates how to vote.

    That question doesn't take into account that (none / 0) (#37)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:49:10 PM EST
    popular vote does not include caucuses, which Sen. Obama has won soundly. Some measure of that vote would have to be included.

    People here seem to know how many caucusers equal a delegate, so add those numbers to the totals when deciding who leads the popular vote if that will be the determining factor.

    This isn't (none / 0) (#48)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:04:48 PM EST
    popular vote. This is extrapolating based on the actual vote.

    If you want to play that game, I've got a game for you. It's called "Hillary would have got a higher vote percentage than she did if there had been a primary instead of a caucus".

    But let's not play games.


    No games. (none / 0) (#69)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:25:17 PM EST
    Making the call based on popular vote would cancel the results of IA,NV,WY,CO,ID, etc. That's no good.

    The fact that her supporters are less likely to show up to caucus is no reason to cancel those votes as it relates to choosing a nominee if you're an SD.

    They know that, which is why the Ras question is really not very significant. They'll make the best political call for themselves. If that is Sen. Clinton, it is. If it's Sen. Obama, it is.

    My money is on Obama. We'll see if my gamble pays off. Good luck to you.


    I'm not in favor (none / 0) (#79)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:44:35 PM EST
    of canceling any votes. I disagree with your 'some measure' argument. It read to me like you want to extrapolate what the popular vote would have been in caucus states had they been primary states.

    There is only one measure, namely the number of people who showed up at the caucus and voted.


    Oh, yeah. No, that is why I pointed out (none / 0) (#91)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:17:05 PM EST
    that BTD and others have pointed out how many caucus goers represented one delegate in places like AK,IA,WA, etc.

    So if 100 people = 1 delegate, and Obama won a state 30-25, his vote count would go up 3000 while she would add 2500 votes, etc.

    Of course, rural weighting would somehow have to be removed, since in NV at least she did have more people, but he got more delegates.

    As long as it is fair, and everyone's vote really does count, I can live with whatever decision is made at the convention.

    I would like to see a re-vote in MI and FL if the delegations are to be seated and factor into the nomination. The original plan was that the nominee (at that point nobody imagined it not being Hillary) would reach out to those states and bring them on board. That hasn't happened, but we could still decide the nominee without them and then do the same reaching out.

     I know Clinton and Crist (what a combo!) pump the record turnout in Florida, but there can be no doubt that a whole bunch of people stayed home b/c they thought the vote meant zilch. Just imagine how high it would have been on Feb. 5 (when it would have counted). Those people deserve to be enfranchised just as much as those who did show up.

    Same thing in MI. Why would I bother going out to vote "uncommitted" when it didn't mean anything other than thumbing a nose at Clinton? They should re-vote too.


    Oh (none / 0) (#123)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:08:54 AM EST
    The fact that her supporters are less likely to show up to caucus

    Is THAT the reason why HRC's lost most of the caucuses?


    I sam wondering who ever (none / 0) (#40)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:53:37 PM EST
    thought this caucus crap was a good idea.
    it is the most UNdemocratic thing I have ever seen.

    I live in Denver. (none / 0) (#52)
    by echinopsia on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:09:54 PM EST
    It's Democratic. Democratic mayor, Democratic governor. Goes blue every election. The only place more blue is Boulder.

    The pubbies and gun nuts live in the burbs and rural areas.

    Folks, (none / 0) (#56)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:14:43 PM EST
    this is just another rule change you are trying to invent to squeeze Clinton in as the nominee.

    Who wins the nomination? The candidate with the most delegates.

    Just because a certain percent of Democrats say the candidate with the most popular votes should get the nomination that doesn't say that the people who answered (and this is a poll, not an election to which is referred) have any clue about caucuses. Or what to do when Republicans cross over to vote in Democratic primaries. People here have long complained about crossover votes. It appears that there were massive crossover votes on Tuesday (perhaps upwards of 700,000 in Texas alone). Do people here, who were apoplectic over Republicans crossing over to vote for Obama think that the over half million Republicans who voted in Texas' Democratic primary count?

    It's nice to try to take a survey and presume that this entitles your candidate to the nomination, but it doesn't work this way either.

    Obama will finish the primary season with the lead of pledged delegates and the majority of superdelegates will support him. Party officials have been telling Clinton this for weeks.

    It's not the person with the most delegates (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by ChrisO on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:05:02 PM EST
    it's the person with 2,025 delegates. Obama keeps trying to push the idea that whoever's ahead gets it, but the fact is that if doesn't have the required number going into the convention, neither he nor Hillary is the winner.

    Bingo. The BoPper (none / 0) (#88)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:12:18 PM EST
    just keeps not getting that.  He seems to want to change, y'know, that rule.

    not a rule change (none / 0) (#59)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:16:59 PM EST
    if the supers agree.  now is it?

    Right (none / 0) (#64)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:19:40 PM EST
    I'm sure you were in the room with those party officials, listening intently to the conversation.

    The online Obama supporters seem to revel in spreading disinformation.  Tell me, has that Al Gore endorsement come in yet?


    I'm having a hard time (none / 0) (#73)
    by echinopsia on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:32:15 PM EST
    picturing Obama's demographics rioting anywhere, actually, but especially not here.

    Denver has a LARGE Hispanic population. They are very pro-Hillary and very loyal.

    The City & County of Denver has a diverse ethnic population including 11.1% African American; 31.7% Hispanic; 2.8% Asian and 1.3% Native American. Metro Denver has an ethnic population of 5% Black; 18% Hispanic; 3% Asian; 1% Native American and 3% multi-racial.

    Baby Boomer Capital: Denver also is the nation's baby boomer capital, with the highest percentage of boomers of any major city, according to the 1998 U.S. Census. One third of the city is between age 35 and 54. [older now, actually]

    Maybe we'll have Gore after all! (none / 0) (#82)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:46:10 PM EST
    According to Eleanor Clift...


    Of course, Centrist. Although . . . (none / 0) (#87)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:10:14 PM EST
    it's preferable to put it as one person-one vote. :-)

    I'm embarrassed to ask (none / 0) (#90)
    by Lil on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:16:52 PM EST
    but with all my obsessing, who in the world does lead in the popular vote right now, and how do they figure that out with these caucuses?  Before Tuesday I heard Obama was leading, but I've completely lost track focusing on delegates, who called someonea monster, Bush tap dancing with McSame, etc.

    I see plf... (none / 0) (#94)
    by Lil on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:23:23 PM EST
    says 35,000 with Fla and Mich, so does that mean that we expect by the end of this she will have the popular vote? If it does that changes my pessimism to optimism.

    sorry (none / 0) (#101)
    by CST on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:25:32 PM EST
    Only if you give Obama 0% of the Michigan vote.  Unlikely.

    Obama leading.. (none / 0) (#112)
    by Rainy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:10:37 PM EST
    Obama is leading the popular vote. Michigan and Florida don't count.

    I was at the Denver county Dem convention today (none / 0) (#103)
    by echinopsia on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:36:31 PM EST
    So I got a first-hand look at who's for who.

    Obama supporters were mostly young. And obnoxiously noisy. Someone should tell them they can't drum up support or elect a candidate by starting that idiotic "yes we can" chant every five minutes when there is important Democratic party work on the agenda. They set back the timetable a couple of hours all by themselves. And pissed a lot of people off - Dem party volunteers, mostly. The volunteers don't expect these kids to become staunch Dems - they're following their idol, not interested in the platform planks.

    The AAs I saw were about half and half Clinton/Obama. Lots of older hippie types for Obama. Lots of older non-hippy types, plus lots of GLBT folks for Hillary. LOTS of Hispanics for Hillary.

    (Full disclosure: I wanted to be a hippy when I was 16, but I was about five years too young)

    In the breakout sessions for state house and senate, the young Obamaloons managed to forgo the chanting, but they kept getting shushed by the chairs for chattering to each other and talking on their cellphones while the rest of us were trying to listen to the speakers.

    I'd say 60-80% of Obama supporters in Denver county are these latte-drinking Crocs-wearing young ones. They're white college students or young professionals. They are not anything like the radical anti-war youth of 1968. They are not going to be starting any riots.

    I'm reminded of abortion clinic defense (none / 0) (#114)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:00:28 PM EST
    in the early '90s.  When the antis would come at us dozens, even a hundred at a time to break our line, we oldsters from the excessive '60s showed the younger ones how to link arms . . . and then tried to show them how to shut out the verbal attacks by singing.  But the younger ones among us didn't know "We Shall Overcome" or any protest song.  We tried one tune after another, any tune, but got nowhere.  They didn't know the words to hymns, even to old campfire faves like "Home on the Range."

    Then we tried "The Brady Bunch."  It worked -- they knew all the words, and we held the line.

    Btw, we were going to try "The Beverly Hillbillies" but decided against it . . . owing to the, um, regional origins of many of the antis who had come to town.


    and yet (none / 0) (#108)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:27:34 PM EST
    no one is worried about Women of a Certain Age (of which there are nearly fifty percent more in the party) rioting in the streets.

    Lookit, you really don't want to tick us off.  Once we get somewhere, we won't leave for days.  Throw in some port-a-johns and we are talking weeks.

    Hey, We Get Things Done! (none / 0) (#115)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:05:17 PM EST
    And we wear more sensible shoes.  So let us gently remind our readers that the largest march on Washington in history was the Million Woman March, and not that long ago.  (Yes, with portapotties.:-)

    LOL, holy cr@p (none / 0) (#124)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:45:28 AM EST
    I just got that image in my head...you've scarred me and you can bet that I won't get in your way!

    It actually reminds me of the lines Poehler spoke as Clinton during the second skit.  "I will just keep talking and talking until they start to say to themselves, "Oh my G-d, who IS this woman, just GIVE her what she wants so she will just SHUT UP!"...I'm a fighter..."  Ah ha, I wish I had the exact transcript.


    About "4-8 more years of Bush" (none / 0) (#117)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:23:57 PM EST
    there is this obstacle in your way.  It's called the Constitution.  Sounds like you could give it a good read.

    The good news for you, though, is that it does not specifically ban urban-radio pandemics.

    Omaniacs have made their presence (none / 0) (#119)
    by thereyougo on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:22:14 AM EST
    on the blogs, big time. Good strategy there too.

    But I have to say, I'm not convinced that it translates to big numbers enough to overtake Hillary or they would have done it by now.

    Hillary for her come from behind win is IMO the favorite candidate. Good on  Obama, he ran a competative race momentum and all, but Hillary's comeback proves the high value of her brand,despite all the hate talk aimed at her generated online.

    A difficulty, of course, is that (none / 0) (#120)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:23:19 AM EST
    it's hard to tell how many commenters meet the conditions of the 26th Amendment.

    Lose the Race-Baiting and Riot Talk (none / 0) (#122)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:23:28 AM EST
    It's not acceptable. I've deleted a bunch of these comments and banned a few posters.