If I Ran Hillary's Campaign . . .

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

I would immediately renounce Harold Ickes' statement on the popular vote and endorse Tweety's proposals on MI/FL revotes and the popular vote:

Both candidates agree to full revotes in Michigan and Florida and both candidates agree that the winner of the national popular vote will be the nominee of the Democratic Party.

For this nomination to mean anything for either candidate, the nominee must be perceived to have won fair and square. I know Obama supporters scream that Clinton supporters are being outrageous and vice versa, but either candidate will need the supporters of the opponent. Clinton, imo, can not win without a "will of the people" argument, and the pledged delegate count will not be that. It must be the popular vote. More . .

Jay Cost and Michael Barone have made it fashionable in the Establishment Media to discuss Hillary winning the popular vote. And the Media (other than NBC of course) also seem to accept that this is a fair metric for arguing that Clinton should be the nominee.

This is Clinton's best shot. It so happens that it is also the Democratic Party's best shot. I understand that Barack Obama will not want to sacrifice even one percent of his chances to gain the nomination - but he should consider the bigger picture. What good is securing the nomination if your chances of winning are dramatically reduced by how you won it? The same holds for Clinton.

This makes sense for everyone, especially the Democratic Party. But it makes the MOST sense for Hillary Clinton. She captures the absolute high ground if she argues for counting all the votes and making the votes the metric for who will be the nominee. She should do this. In my opinion, she MUST do this.

NOTE- Comments closed.

< MI And FL Represented On Credentials Committee? | Poll: Hillary Outperforms Obama Against McCain in OH, FL, PA >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Hillary Should Say (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Athena on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:00:06 AM EST
    "Unlike Senator Obama, I'm not satisfied with a nomination based on the votes of 48 states.  I want to be the nominee of all 50 states."

    I thought some states don't matter. (none / 0) (#131)
    by DodgeIND on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:07:06 AM EST
    Wednesday, February 20th: As Clinton strategist Mark Penn explained yesterday, Wisconsin has a lot of independent voters, so it doesn't really matter. And Hawaii is practically Obama's home state, so it obviously doesn't matter. Anyway, as Penn said recently, "winning Democratic primaries is not a qualification or a sign of who can win the general election." It's apparently not even a sign of who can win the Democratic nomination -- at least not when the victories are Obama's.


    Or from her financial chairman,

    "I'm telling donors and supporters: Don't be overly concerned about what goes on in the remainder of the month of February because these are not states teed up well for us," Mr. Nemazee said.


    I all the states matter when it's only in your advantage.


    First rule (none / 0) (#203)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:06:32 PM EST
    Of learning to deal with the MSM is to know that a paraphrase is not a quote.  Note that all those "doesn't matters" are from the reporter.  

    Ah. Finally some advice (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:03:01 AM EST
    for the Clinton campaign.  If I ran the Hillary Clinton campaign, I would also advise the candidate to tell her spokespeople to stop talking for attribution about Obama's relationship with Wright.  

    Why shouldn't they? (none / 0) (#11)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:08:54 AM EST
    Isn't that the reason why people think he is unelectable? Why is this topic off-limits?

    Or should they just not admit they are doing it? Just making sure I understand. :-)


    Because, in the unlikely event (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:17:52 AM EST
    Clinton is the nominee, she'll need African American voters.  Ickes told Greg Sargeant that Ickes was constantly reminding the Super-Ds about Wright.  I say, go ahead and remind them, but don't publicly proclaim you are doing so.

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:26:01 AM EST
    The superdelegates tend to talk about the arguments they hear.  You can't make an argument to the superdelegates and expect it to be a big secret.

    While I see your point, there are an awful lot of Clinton supporters who are offended by the electability arguments the Obama campaign constantly makes regarding Clinton, and no one seems to care about that.  


    Um, I believe that ship has sailed... (none / 0) (#48)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:28:02 AM EST
    since Obama smeared the Clintons as racists. The AA vote, in large part, is not going to Hillary now.

    I automatically assumed that Hillary's campaign was discussing Wright with the Super-D's. I'd be surprised if anyone thought otherwise, and frankly, I'd rather be told the truth about that type of thing.

    I recognize I am probably more cynical than the average voter, though, so you could be right about the tactics being wrong. ;-)


    That's ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by AF on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:29:57 AM EST
    If Hillary is the nominee she will get the A-A vote.

    Turnout might be low, though, if the resolution is acrimonious.


    I agree with you (none / 0) (#70)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:37:07 AM EST
    and you call me ridiculous? I said,

    The AA vote, in large part, is not going to Hillary now.

    You say there might be low turnout in the GE if the resolution is acrimonious. IF?  

    My stepmother is AA. She will NOT vote for Hillary under any circumstances, literally, because Mark Penn said the word "cocaine." Yes, Hillary is a racist and that's that.

    If Hillary is the nominee, we will have a big problem getting the AA voters. That is 100% on Obama's shoulders, and it's one of the reasons I'll have to hold my nose, ears and eyes to vote for him if he's the nominee.


    Sorry (none / 0) (#86)
    by AF on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:44:17 AM EST
    I thought you were saying that ship had sailed in that Hillary will not get the A-A vote in the general election.  I think she can, if her nomination is perceived as fair.  African Americans can hold their noses too!

    Do you think there is any way (none / 0) (#98)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:49:44 AM EST
    to convince Obama supporters in general that a Hillary win would be fair?

    If so, I would love to hear it. No snark, I promise.

    I do think she will win the popular vote, especially if MI/FL are counted, but not by a sweeping margin. So I don't think that alone would convince many Obama supporters.


    IMO (none / 0) (#107)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:54:04 AM EST
    No - just as I think if Obama wins (without MI/FL) and the rest of the primaries, HRC supporters will not see him as legitimate.

    I read yesterday one Florida Republican official who was chuckling about this situation and said Democrats can never invoke 2000 ever again if they don't get this straightened out.


    This Obama supporter (none / 0) (#113)
    by AF on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:58:55 AM EST
    Would consider Hillary's nomination fair in just about any realistic scenario.  Same goes for Obama.

    The only scenario that I wouldn't like would be if she took control of the credentials committee, and seated the MI and FL delegations based on the January votes.

    Similarly, I wouldn't like it if Obama resorted to holding the FL and MI delegations out of the convention.

    Those are the nightmare scenarios everyone's trying to avoid, and I think we will avoid them.


    I hope you are typical (none / 0) (#122)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:03:28 AM EST
    of Obama supporters, then! :-)

    Yeah (none / 0) (#128)
    by Claw on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:06:17 AM EST
    I think if she's close(ish) in delegates and wins the pop. vote, she will still get a pretty good AA turnout.  If she doesn't win the pop. vote or isn't within 100 delegates, or close to that range, many AA's and other Obama supporters will consider the nomination stolen, the media will have a field day, and we'll end up electing McCain who can't seem to get anything right about anything these days.
    I've explained my reasoning behind the 100 number before but I think it's important to repeat--It's taken on kind of a magical significance for the media and, psychologically, 100 or 100+ just seems like a much bigger lead than 99.  That's why people don't try to sell you things for $30. They try to sell you things for $29.99.

    I would consider Hillary's nomination (none / 0) (#185)
    by independent voter on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:53:56 AM EST
    fair if she were to win the pledged delegate count and the popular vote. (including current results for FL, but not Michigan)

    Is that really what he said? (none / 0) (#150)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:22:49 AM EST
    "Ickes told Greg Sargeant that Ickes was constantly reminding the Super-Ds about Wright."

    Did he say constantly reminding? Or that it was part of the discussions/comes up in the discussions?


    Here's the interview, for which (none / 0) (#204)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:11:56 PM EST
    BTD previously provided a link:



    If you were running Hillary's campaign (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by riddlerandy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:05:54 AM EST
    she  would probably be winning, and wouldn;t have to deal with the issues she is dealing with now.

    The actual quote, not the summary, is... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:07:23 AM EST
    When I asked Ickes if the Hillary campaign would still try to woo super-dels even if she was behind in the popular vote counting Florida and Michigan, he said: "I think being ahead in the popular vote is an important factor. I don't think it's dispositive...if at the end of the process she's running very slightly behind in the delegates overall, the popular vote vote will be important. I don't think it's absolutely critical."

    I don't see anything to disagree with in that statement. The popular vote is very important, but so is electability, which is based on what is happening NOW (i.e., the Wright factor).

    "both candidates agree" (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by rebrane on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:48:48 AM EST
    ...both candidates agree that the winner of the national popular vote will be the nominee of the Democratic Party.

    How asinine is that? The time to change the way you count the votes is BEFORE the election, not AFTER it. Does anybody seriously think BTD would be endorsing this Calvinball play if the situation was reversed?

    Great idea -- let's decide the election based on a metric which has never been used before, which was never proposed or even mentioned until it became clear that one candidate would benefit, which you can't even measure but can only estimate, and which assumes that literally zero voters in Michigan prefer Obama! That sounds like truly the most fair option.

    Snore (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:52:50 AM EST
    I see "Calvinball" has officially become the Kool Kids talking point of the day.

    gosh, I wish I could be one of the kool kids (none / 0) (#133)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:10:12 AM EST
    but I just can't seem to shake this nagging affinity for democracy. Maybe one day I can hate democracy just like them. Snark.

    both candidates can (none / 0) (#124)
    by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:04:09 AM EST
    agree all they want, how is that fair to the states? what if they don't agree? what if their voters don't agree.

    I live in MN, we had a caucus, I caucused for the first time in my life, but now you say to bad thats the way my state does their primaries I am screwed out of counting in the popular vote?

    and people actually want to look me in the face and say its fair?


    No, you would be counted (none / 0) (#127)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:06:08 AM EST
    You cast a vote, you get counted.

    how in a popular vote? (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:09:51 AM EST
    there are not popular vote totals reported for caucus states, so how would I be counted?

    they would guess?

    my whole point is no matter what happens it will be unfair to someone.

    and as BTD noted, Hillary's campaign could still pursue the SDs even if she lost the popular vote, because they too know its not a metric for the primary, sure you can use it for arguments, but no it is not the deciding factor in nomination, its not the measuring stick. everyone agreed to the measuring stick, we call them delegates.

    if now we dont like it thats fine, we can change it for the next election, but Hillary doesn't get to agree to everything, follow them for 6 months then decide you know these rules don't work anymore lets change them.


    Wrong (none / 0) (#135)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:12:16 AM EST
    My understanding is that caucus states do have the vote totals. They report the delegate counts, but they do have the information on the votes people cast.

    really? (none / 0) (#139)
    by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:16:23 AM EST
    because everything I ever see that does counts popular votes uses a "*" and says caucus estimates.

    why are they saying its an estimate if they real totals are known?


    but they have them.  It's been discussed in other threads here.

    The real total have notbeen released (none / 0) (#157)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:30:28 AM EST
    But they have them.

    Counting Caucus Votes vs Primary Votes (none / 0) (#217)
    by jsj20002 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:20:53 PM EST
    How do you compare the number of caucus goers who are generally active party participants to the much larger number of voters that generally participate in a primary election?  Does this mean that an Iowa or Nevada caucus voter counts much, much less in the popular vote than a Michigan primary voter (like me) who voted in an unconstitutional primary election that also violated the rules of the Democratic National Committee?  Do you adjust for whether a primary is an open primary or a closed primary?  Does this mean an Iowa or Nevada caucus goer who is an active member of the Democratic Party has exactly the same representation in the national popular vote count as a cross-over Limbaugh Republican?  Seems you have a real apples and oranges problem when you say that the popular vote count means more than the delegate count if you have deliberately set out to discount the popular votes of those from caucus states.  And, by the way, since Hillary won the Texas popular vote and Barack won the Texas caucuses, does this mean you discount the overall rather modest advantage that he gained in total Texas delegates when the two systems were combined as intended? Who has the authority to change the rules after the various state parties (except two) have followed the rules and made their preferences known?  

    It is you who is wrong (none / 0) (#149)
    by rebrane on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:20:49 AM EST
    Maybe Iowa Democrats do have the information for how many people voted for which candidate somewhere, but they have never released this information publically. Ditto Nevada, Maine and Washington.

    They have not releaqsed the totals (none / 0) (#156)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:29:57 AM EST
    but they have them. It is YOU who are wrong.

    He was wrong (none / 0) (#166)
    by rebrane on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:36:15 AM EST
    to say the comment he was replying to was wrong. It was right.

    Um (none / 0) (#136)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:13:28 AM EST
    Your vote would count in the popular vote, just like everyone else's would.

    If your state had held a primary, and you had voted, your vote would still count just the same.  One person, one vote.

    No one is suggesting your vote wouldn't be counted.


    Hurting caucus states is the point (none / 0) (#141)
    by rebrane on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:16:49 AM EST
    The Clinton campaign has not made any secret of the fact that they don't think caucuses should count. This new popular vote metric is basically just a sneaky restatement of 'don't count caucus states', which all have much lower turnout than primary states.

    I already hear you saying "well, they decided to have caucuses instead of primaries" and indeed they did. But maybe if they had known in advance that national popular vote was going to become the only 'legitimate' metric, they would've changed to primaries instead.

    This is just another consequence of the simple rule that you cannot change the rules in the middle of an election. Otherwise, what you get is Calvinball.


    Ah yes (none / 0) (#145)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:19:01 AM EST
    Chris Matthews, stealth spokesman for the Clinton campaign.

    Where do you get teeh statement re MI? (none / 0) (#125)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:05:08 AM EST
    I don't see how looking at the nationwide popular vote negates the Obama supporters in MI. With a revote there, it allows those voters to actually state their preference.  Right now, they aren't included in the calculation at all, so not only are there no Obama supporters in MI, there are no Clinton supporters either.  And in November, we can expect the same.

    people were told for months (none / 0) (#134)
    by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:11:13 AM EST
    it wouldn't count, after a while they believed it, so they went and voted in the GOP primary, there since it did count.

    a re-vote wont let them come back and vote, and THIS is why Obama opposed the MI revote, he says they should be allowed to come back and vote,

    the DNC says no its against the rules.


    BS (none / 0) (#137)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:15:42 AM EST
    Sorry, that's such BS. Dems believed their votes wouldn't count, so they decided they should become Republicans. I find it hard to believe that happened in any great numbers. In any case, if they cast a vote in the GOP primary, they have been counted. You don't get to vote twice.

    its not fair (none / 0) (#147)
    by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:20:10 AM EST
    to tell them for months their vote won't count, so that when they go and vote in the GOP primary since it was an open primary,

    to come back a month later and say "GOTCHA, the votes will count, or we will do a re-vote, but those of you who crossed over, well you never should have believed us when we said MI wouldn't count"

    but I am sorry, how hard did Florida fight to not get their delgates stripped?


    you wanna blame people, blame these guys


    Enough of the misinformation (none / 0) (#202)
    by standingup on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:02:50 PM EST
    on Florida.  There were people fighting in Florida to have the situation resolved.  Not everyone was able to come to an agreement but you can hardly state there was no fight when there were three lawsuits filed to challenge the decision and change the outcome.  Stop using the examples that are convenient for your argument but do not reflect the truth.  

    What's more likely (none / 0) (#154)
    by rebrane on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:28:05 AM EST
    is that some not insignificant number of people heard that the election wouldn't count and so decided not to take the time to vote.

    Treating the results as binding is grossly unfair to these people. Changing the rules of the election after the election has been held is always unfair to the electorate.


    Last time I checked (none / 0) (#214)
    by MaxUS on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:41:58 PM EST
    re:The time to change the way you count the votes is BEFORE the election, not AFTER it.

    The "rules" are clear that the only way for the pledged delegates to be the determining factor in selecting the Democratic Nominee is for any candidate to reach the threshold of 50%+1 of ALL available delegates.

    Regardless of how distasteful anyone may find them, those are the rules. Period.

    Superdelegates are unpledged, as are some state delegates who are selected through the very undemocratic caucus process. That's the reality.

    Rules are rules regardless of whom they favor. It happens that certain rules do a disservice to Party goals (FL/MI not being seated) and must be dealt with in a way that it doesn't hurt the party.

    Wooing unpledged SDs may or may not hurt the Party's chances in November, but it is their (individual SD's) decision to make.


    I agree totally (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by esmense on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:19:16 AM EST
    I am one of many women, a long time Democratic activist, who doesn't care as much about whether Clinton wins as I do about how she wins -- or loses. And how Democratic party leaders treat her campaign and her supporters.

    Any attempt by party leaders to force her from the race, or to manipulate a win for Obama based on a greater "electability" argument that has not been proven by votes will be seen by me not as a detrimental move against a particular candidate, but as a betrayal of the party's once assumed commitment to women and their political equality. That, I believe, is an incredibly important issue -- which party leaders do not seem to have awakened to yet.

    They need to allow this process to play out in the fairest possible way. So that women, whether they are Clinton supporters or not, can be assured that the party's stated commitment to equality in terms of political participation and representation is not just lip service, but something all the party's leaders -- not just women or Clinton partisans -- can be counted on to energetically defend.

    I know a lot of people see this campaign merely in terms of which candidate is preferred -- which is "liked" or "hated" more than another -- but in terms of personal character, these are both fine people. In terms of judging how they would perform in office, one has a well-examined record on which to make a judgement, the other does not. Strong arguments for their success in the general election can be made for each one. Viable arguments against their success in the general election can be made for each one. Neither would be a shoo-in against McCain. Neither would be a disaster for the party in November. Both would represent social change that should be celebrated. Although the election of a woman would represent much deeper, and perhaps not yet achievable, cultural change, and require a bigger adjustment in deeply held cultural attitudes.

    For me, the factors at play in this campaign that have been most disturbing are the ones that have made me doubt the commitment of the Democratic party to women. I am not as concerned about which of these candidates wins or loses as I am about whether I can continue to believe that this is a party that takes me seriously, respects me, and genuinely represents me.

    I know I am not the only woman for whom questions about the party's commitment to women, and respect for their place in the party itself, have been raised this campaign season. I think party leaders must start answering those questions now -- by making it clear that the remainder of this process must play out with scrupulous fairness.

    If they don't, I think they will be setting on a course with bad long term consequences.

    I don't think HRC needs to be this radical... (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by outsider on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:22:11 PM EST
    The problem, as I see it, with this suggestion is that it opens her up to accusations of advocating a massive change in the rules mid-game.  But she can stick to the established rules whilst making a very reasonable case like this (which is not that different from what she is currently saying):

    (A) There is absolutely no good reason why the SDs ought to ratify the pledged delegate count (Pelosi-style).  It would make no sense.  In fact it would not be an improvement, in democratic terms, over the supers their conscience, since, as we know, delegate lead does not = most popular candidate.

    (B) Nobody is taking part in this process for the good of their health.  They are looking to select the most promising candidate for the GE.  SDs have a duty to choose such a candidate.

    (C) How do they decide who that is?  All things being equal (i.e. no massive scandals for either candidate) two factors seem most important: ability to carry key swing states, and ability to win the popular vote.

    (D) I have won all the key states except BO's homeground.  If I win the popular vote as well (inc. Flo. and Mich.) I ought to be the candidate, and SDs should do what they are meant to and vote for me.  If I don't win the popular vote, I understand it will be inappropriate for me to be the nominee - I'll step aside in that case.

    I think this is a much better argument.  Caucus states cannot claim to be disenfranchised here, even in part - they chose their delegates, and sent them to the committee.  It's just that their delegates did not hold the deciding say at the convention - the supers did.  But all states knew this might happen from day one.

    Should the popular vote (none / 0) (#205)
    by 1jpb on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:15:56 PM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#208)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:43:41 PM EST
    It's easy to count the popular vote in Washington, since they had a primary.

    Some people (none / 0) (#212)
    by 1jpb on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:27:32 PM EST
    voted in the caucus that counted, but not the later primary that everyone knew had no impact, but BO still won.  

    I am exactly such a person.


    If I ran Hillary's campaign (1.00 / 1) (#9)
    by magster on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:08:23 AM EST
    I'd advise her to drop out for the good of the party.  I wonder if they'll hire me....

    On a more serious note, since Hillary is in for the duration, should Hillary and Obama do something jointly, like commercials, to campaign against McCain?  I hate how he's getting a free ride.

    Only IF (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:09:12 AM EST
    they accept the Cuomo proposal - which I would ALSO recommend the Clinton Campaign endorse.

    Heh. (none / 0) (#13)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:09:52 AM EST
    I like the way you think. :-)

    For the good of Obama, it's best Clinton stay (none / 0) (#62)
    by Davidson on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:33:50 AM EST
    Clinton is the only buffer or main reason why he's getting such solid, good press coverage.  The longer she's in it, the better off he'll be.  The moment she's gone, the floodgates will open.

    Joint ads are an excellent idea (none / 0) (#67)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:36:55 AM EST
    and would help to unify the party after the convention.

    The problem with your statement is that (none / 0) (#2)
    by TalkRight on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:02:24 AM EST
    it is good one, but not practical from campaign standpoint, since it would not cover all scenario .. Ickes is trying to cover all bases for the just in case scenario.

    There is no reason (none / 0) (#56)
    by standingup on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:31:07 AM EST
    or necessity for Ickes to publicly discuss every possible scenario for the campaign to win.  All that accomplishes is setting up the campaign for allegations that they are willing to do anything to win which translates to winning unfairly.  Ickes and the rest should stop the public brainstorming and keep the focus on issues and explaining why Clinton is the better candidate.  

    I guess you are right.. but (none / 0) (#116)
    by TalkRight on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:59:40 AM EST
    the problem is that everything they say is made to look and twisted for the worse.. take for instance when Ickes acknowledges that the issue of Wright comes up when talking to SD's.. this is not to say that it is HE who always brings it up.. (what he meant to convey is that SD's care about Wright issue!) Also on FL/MI all he was saying is that Hillary will fight till the end (even if they are not counted .. 'cause she thinks she would be the best candidate).. but that is interpreted as thought he is DOESN'T care about FL/MI.. I just don't know how we can cast those words for him or for Hillary's campaign.

    You've hit the nail on the head (none / 0) (#167)
    by standingup on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:37:12 AM EST
    The probability that anything that is said can be distorted is reason enough to refuse to comment or to at least have strict, non-confrontational talking points that each person stick to when talking with the press.  I didn't interpret Ickes words quite the way that many have but if he had not gone there, the opportunity would have not been there either.  

    Sorry, popular vote is a very very dumb idea (none / 0) (#4)
    by digdugboy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:04:16 AM EST
    What about those states where no popular vote was tallied? You are disenfranchising those voters, who played by the rules, in favor of voters from the states who didn't. Nonsense.

    You mean the states (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:07:55 AM EST
    that intentionally disenfranchised voters by holding caucuses instead of primaries? Well, we CAN get popular vote figures for those states, they just won't be as big as for those states holding primaries.

    Disenfranchised voters? (none / 0) (#17)
    by digdugboy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:12:56 AM EST
    Choosing to exercise the First Amendment right of association via caucus instead of popular vote does not equal disenfranchisement. The core of enfranchisement is the constitutional right of association. What Tweety's proposal does is negate the associations chosen by the caucus only states and thus is analytically indistinguishable from disenfranchisement.

    I can't believe people would advocate this just to help Hillary.


    Then what is your beef? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:17:38 AM EST
    If it is not disenfranchising then how can counting their votes be disenfranchising? Your failed Logic 01.

    Look at the Washington State turnout (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:17:40 AM EST
    See also Texas. Caucuses obviously disenfranchise.

    What voter is being disenfranchised? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:05:10 AM EST
    Your comment is nonsensical.

    The voters of caucus states (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by digdugboy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:08:41 AM EST
    Those who chose their delegates by caucus instead of popular vote. You know, from

    Iowa (25-14)
    Nevada (13-12)
    Alaska (9-4)
    Colorado (35-20)
    Kansas (23-9)
    Idaho (15-3)
    Minnesota (48-24)
    North Dakota (8-5)
    Nebraska (16-8)
    Maine (15-9)
    Hawaii (14-6
    Wyoming (7-5)

    No popular vote tallies in those states. Had those states known that the popular vote would be the deciding metric, do you think they would have caucused? That's crazy.


    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:17:43 AM EST
    States that chose an election method that prevents countless people from participating really have no right to complain.

    I would be willing to consider (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:18:49 AM EST
    revotes! ;-)

    Not possible, and not necessary (none / 0) (#89)
    by digdugboy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:46:41 AM EST
    The Clinton campaign new the rules going in. Harold Ickes voted to disregard the FL and MI votes. Frankly it's outrageous that anybody would suggest throwing the nominating process into complete disarray by forcing all caucusing states to hold a new popular vote or face the fact that their delegate selection process is going to be negated.

    Indeed (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:26:26 AM EST
    That IS your argument. I propose revotes, in complaince with the existing DNC rules. Like Obama, you oppose revotes in FL and MI. thus you are willing to put Obama's fortunes ahead of the interests of the Democratic Party.

    But no matter, you are suspended today. Comment no further.


    Um (none / 0) (#58)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:32:03 AM EST
    That might be a valid argument, but it's a completely separate and unrelated point.

    States that knowingly chose a system which prevents many people from voting have no legitimate basis to complain that they expected their disenfranchising system would count just as much as the inclusive systems employed in other states.


    As BTD says (none / 0) (#66)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:35:43 AM EST
    holding new primaries in all of the states that held caucuses (plus MI & FL) would solve this problem.

    I think we won't otherwise have a legitimate nominee.


    Yes, they do have a basis to complain (none / 0) (#95)
    by digdugboy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:48:51 AM EST
    The system was allowed by the rules going into the contest, and under it their delegates get weighted equally with every other state's delegates. Changing the rules in the middle of the game so as to essentially nullify their delegate selection process is an assault of the highest order upon the First Amendment right of association.

    I don't think this is a first amendment issue (none / 0) (#109)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:54:13 AM EST
    The parties are not the government, but are private organizations. As such, the government would have nothing to do with barring any association.

    It is a First Amendment issue (none / 0) (#117)
    by digdugboy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:00:23 AM EST
    and it is an issue at the core of the First Amendment. I don't have time right now to google up some citations for you. But I was a law clerk for the federal district court judge who heard the "Stevenson vs. Illinois" case in 1986 or 87. In that case the candidate for governor wanted to ditch the Democratic Party and run for governor as an independent even though he won the democratic primary. I can promise you that in the voluminous research I did into election law at the time, the idea that associational interests of the First Amendment were at the core of election law is not controversial in the slightest.

    You have no argument (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by badger on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:41:12 AM EST
    What you're actually arguing for is special credit for states with low turnout. There are two essential differences between caucuses and primaries:

    1. No secret ballot
    2. Caucus turnout is substantially lower than primary turnout

    Basically the rules for participating in a caucus are the same as the rules for participating in a primary. If fewer voters choose to caucus than vote, why should those caucus states get special treatmentin counting the popular vote?

    The only possible answer is "because it helps Obama win". That isn't much of a principle.


    I'm not saying these states (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by digdugboy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:51:28 AM EST
    should get special treatment in counting the popular vote. I am saying that the popular vote should not be counted as a determining metric because it wasn't the established metric going into the primary race.

    Had everybody known that the popular vote was going to be the deciding metric, then no state would rationally have chosen to caucus.


    The only (none / 0) (#177)
    by americanincanada on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:42:43 AM EST
    demanding metric going into the race is that a candidate wins when they cross a certain threshold. if no candidate crosses that line then the SDs are there to make the decision in any way and using any metric they see fit.

    Popular vote has long been held in high regard in this country and our party, especially since Gore won the popular vote and yet lost the presidency. How did that work out for us? It was, after all, the rulz.

    It is also within DNC rules to seat the Michigana nd Florida delegates as is and also to have revotes.


    My plan does not disenfranchise them (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:10:16 AM EST
    The caucuses disenfranchised them.l There is nothing about what I propose that disenfranchises them.

    The Pledged Delegate system with caucuses did so.


    No. (none / 0) (#19)
    by digdugboy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:16:41 AM EST
    See my response to Andgarden. It's about the right of association. The caucus states chose to exercise that First Amendment right via caucuses. This was allowed by the rules. Now, you want to change the rules after the fact so that their choice of association doesn't count. That's unbelievably wrong.

    That is a nonsequitor to your charge (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:19:10 AM EST
    It is an indictment of the caucus system in fact.

    Of course it matters (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:24:58 AM EST
    Are you arguing for revotes by primary in caucus states? I am all for it!

    I am positive you are not arguing that.

    I am for counting the votes that were cast - in the systems that were in place.

    I am NOT for counting the existing FL and MI votes. I want revotes. If you want to expand the idea to revotes in all the caucus states, I am game.


    Revotes (none / 0) (#181)
    by rebrane on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:46:06 AM EST
    Are you arguing for revotes by primary in caucus states? I am all for it!

    Of course you are. But in elections, you can't take a mulligan.

    One thing that's for sure is that a lot of the states which held caucuses this year will hold primary elections in 2012.


    You keep missing the point. (none / 0) (#47)
    by digdugboy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:26:55 AM EST
    Voting, whether via the voting booth or in a caucus, is about exercising one's First Amendment right of association. Negating either is disenfranchising.

    States new going into the primaries that they could enfranchise their citizens, i.e., afford them their right of association, via either the caucus system or via a voting booth. Some chose the caucus system.

    Now you want to penalize those states who played by the rules by making the popular vote the deciding metric. That's Calvinball at its finest.


    I am penalizing them how? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:30:49 AM EST
    Because the system they chose disenfranchised their own voters?

    I do not follow what you are arguing here. I am counting the votes that were cast.

    Now, if you want to argue that the caucus states should revote then I might see your point. You seem to not be arguing for that.


    If the states had known before January... (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by rebrane on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:34:13 AM EST
    that delegates were going to be thrown out the window and popular vote would become the only true metric, I imagine that a lot of them would've decided to switch from caucuses to primaries. But they didn't, and now that they've already voted, BTD wants to change the rules specifically in order to dilute their impact on the race, and only because they went for the other candidate.

    I don't know why you think anybody would go for this, except for people who value Hillary's candidacy more than integrity. You can't change the way you count votes in the middle of an election.


    Caucus or primary doesn't matter (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by esmense on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:24:19 PM EST
    The issue isn't state representation -- that has already been addressed by the assigning of delegates based on the popular vote in each state, whether that state voted by primary or caucus.

    Now, we have a different problem to solve -- the problem created by the fact that that process did not (or, at least at this point looks unlikely to) produce the number of delegates needed to win for either of the remaining candidates.

    That means some additional metric must be considered to maintain fairness, and prevent the nomination from looking like something cooked up by party leaders rather than something that expresses the will of the rank and file. Using the majority will of the rank and file, based on the total number of people who chose to vote -- no matter whether they voted in a primary or caucus -- is a very valid additional way of determining the popular will.

    The fact is, even if every state had determined their state winner by primary, or by caucus, once brought to the same impasse we now find ourselves in, states like Montana and Wyoming would provide fewer votes to count than states like Pennsylvania and South Carolina. But would anyone try to claim that was disenfranchisement? I don't think so.


    The system didn't disenfranchise their voters (none / 0) (#68)
    by digdugboy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:37:06 AM EST
    Each voter was free to caucus and choose a delegate via caucusing. Now, you're disenfranchising them by saying that their method of selecting delegates is going to be overridden by a new Calvinball metric -- the popular vote.

    If those states new GOING IN to the primary season that the popular vote was going to be the deciding metric, they wouldn't have caucused. Changing the rules midstream is what is disenfranchising them.


    Wait up (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:53:18 AM EST
    So you are saying a system which produced  not even a tenth of turnout of a normal election is not disenfranchising - EVEN THOUGH you are arguing that taking into account the ACTUAL VOTE of the caucus DOES disenfranchise because, well the caucus disenfranchised voters.

    You have argued yourself into a Gordian Knot you know.


    What I am arguing is that (none / 0) (#151)
    by digdugboy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:23:50 AM EST
    the DNC approved three different delegate selection systems for states to use going into the primary season: popular vote, caucus, or a hybrid of both. In addition, these could be open or closed.

    Each state's party leaders chose how to exercise its state's rights of association to select its delegates to the national convention. They did so knowing that caucuses would result in far less turnout than popular votes. For whatever reason they selected caucuses anyway, with knowledge that their delegates would weigh every bit as significantly as the delegates from other states regardless of the methods used by those other states.

    A nominee is selected by delegate count just like a president is selected by the electoral college.

    In other words, raw turnout (on a national level) was irrelevant to the nominee selection process.

    We can criticize the caucus system for the next 100 years, but that does not change one inescapable fact: the rules going in allowed caucuses, and the delegates chosen by those caucuses would be accorded the same weight accorded delegates chosen by popular vote.

    To now substitute national popular vote as the deciding metric practically negates the delegates of caucus states.


    One other factor (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by standingup on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:52:43 PM EST
    you are leaving out of the discussion is the supredelegates.  The DNC approved a system where superdelegates are allowed to consider the popular vote and the disproportionate apportionment of delegates in caucuses.  The superdelegates can offset the problems with the caucus system if they choose to do so with their votes.  

    Yes (none / 0) (#209)
    by digdugboy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:47:21 PM EST
    Their discretion is not constrained by rule, but is constrained by political wisdom.

    I repeat irrelevamnt to YOU (none / 0) (#168)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:37:12 AM EST
    Relevant to anyone who cares about voter rights and not disenfranchising the voters.

    The Super Delegates will decide this. I am proposing a method that would be viewed legitimately by MOST voters.

    Only fanatical Obama supporters could possibly object. Reasonable ones would realize that this would HELP Obama to unify the Party and reassert a basic Democratic principle.

    As for what is RELEVANT to the Super Delegates and the Candidates, pssst, it is not in the rules.


    Right, because caucuses are just peachy (none / 0) (#74)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:39:10 AM EST
    It's a good thing we have civility rules here, because my inclination is to hurl invective at you for even suggesting that.

    Where did I suggest caucuses were peachy? (none / 0) (#153)
    by digdugboy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:25:23 AM EST
    You are putting words in my mouth and threatening to hurl invective at me for the straw man you created?

    Whatever (none / 0) (#206)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:16:21 PM EST
    The pledged delegate system is set up with biases to caucuses - namely that each delegate from a caucus state represents a much smaller number of voters than a delegate from a primary state.  If the national popular vote corrects this imbalance, even more reason for supers to consider it.

    The popular vote matters (none / 0) (#49)
    by digdugboy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:28:25 AM EST
    in each state that, going in, made it the deciding metric for choosing delegates. The national popular vote was never a relevant metric going in and shouldn't be made one this late in the game.

    Ah, the "only pledged delegates matter" (none / 0) (#55)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:31:06 AM EST
    argument. Welcome to three months ago.

    In most of the world outside (none / 0) (#63)
    by digdugboy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:34:28 AM EST
    TalkLeft, yes, only pledged delegates (and superdelegates) matter.

    Your parenthetical is the point (none / 0) (#110)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:54:51 AM EST
    of this exercise. The SDs will decide the nominee.

    Yes they will (none / 0) (#155)
    by digdugboy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:29:01 AM EST
    So the question becomes whether the superdelegates should place controlling weight on the national popular vote. The answer to that question is no.

    See this diary.


    YOUR answer is No (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:38:41 AM EST
    Obviously mine, and that of a growing number of people, is YES.

    Well, it's the wrong answer (none / 0) (#180)
    by digdugboy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:44:56 AM EST
    It ignores the rules going in and it doesn't measure electability accurately enough to be given controlling weight.

    In each state it matters? (none / 0) (#108)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:54:08 AM EST
    But it does not matter on a national level? To you perhaps. Where do you come up with this stuff?

    It's hardly controversial (none / 0) (#164)
    by digdugboy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:34:54 AM EST
    I'm surprised you can't see the large magnitude of measurement error of electability in the popular vote metric you are advocating here. That's what it's supposed to be about, right? Electability?

    Look at this diary for starters.

    What does the popular vote from a state that is absolutely certain to go red, or absolutely certain to go blue, matter in terms of electability? You have to look beneath the surface of this popular vote issue to see how flawed it is. The DNC recognized this by the elaborate formula it devised to apportion the number of delegates to each state.


    It is ludicrous (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:38:04 AM EST
    Not controversial. It is silly. Indeed, not even Obama himself would argue what you arguing.

    What is ludicrous (none / 0) (#176)
    by digdugboy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:42:16 AM EST
    is the notion that the rules going in should all be cast aside so that now the nationwide popular vote is the deciding factor. Indeed, not even Clinton herself would argue what you are arguing.

    What rule have I cast aside? (none / 0) (#184)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:51:57 AM EST
    Can you identify it?

    All of them (none / 0) (#187)
    by digdugboy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:56:44 AM EST
    You are casting aside all of the rules of decision. You are substituting an entirely different system for deciding the nominee for the one that was in place at the time the primary season started.

    Uh (none / 0) (#191)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:05:36 PM EST
    The reddest states have the MOST delegates on a proportional basis.  Your argument defeats itself.

    Not by the weighting (none / 0) (#196)
    by digdugboy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:22:20 PM EST
    mechanism the DNC employs to apportion delegates to states.

    I've never been to a caucus (none / 0) (#39)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:22:49 AM EST
    Don't they actually count votes at caucuses? I've seen some vote totals reported and they must have some means of counting to figure out who won especially by congressional district. If they don't know vote totals how do they figure the 15% threshold? Or does that not apply in caucus states?

    I'm not trying to argue, but really would like to know.


    People who caucus vote (none / 0) (#59)
    by digdugboy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:32:13 AM EST
    at the caucus. The number of people who take the time to caucus is much lower than the number of people who turn out to vote. Caucusing is much more time consuming.

    Thus, tallying caucus votes and making them part of the popular vote equation would seriously underweigh the choices of those states who caucused.


    It is not a secret ballot pall !!!! (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by TalkRight on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:05:48 AM EST
    Factors other than time that lead to less turnout and worse skew the results..

    It is not a secret ballot!!!

    Imagine Iraq/Iran/North Korea/ and other dictators start holding caucuses for elections.. who can publicly stand against their party members..


    Following this logic (none / 0) (#33)
    by magster on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:21:39 AM EST
    You could say the same thing about MI and FL in that they chose to disenfranchise their voters by running a primary too early.

    You're usually consistent (not always/often right, but consistent) in your arguments, but not here.  Are you proposing revotes in all the caucus states too now?


    Indeed you COULD argue that (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:23:18 AM EST
    Will not help you to gain their votes in November though.

    But let me ask you this - are you for revotes in all caucus states (excepting Washington and Texas of course, where we have popular vote numbers)?


    Well, it's not feasible (none / 0) (#81)
    by magster on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:42:05 AM EST
    So reality response: no.

    If it was feasible, it would help Obama in the popular vote but not delegates. But it would be fairer, so yes.  

    I believe in all primaries all the time starting in 2012 but do not know if it should be staggered over a period of time, or a national primary day FWIW.


    It would not help Obama at all (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:51:26 AM EST
    As his Pledged Delegate lead would no longer exist.

    I am for counting the votes. The ones that were cast. The caucus system IS INDEED a travesty. I am happy to see so many Obama supporters now embrace my view on this.

    But that bell can not be unrung. The poor voters  in the caucus states who were unable to attend the caucuses have ALREADY been disenfranchised.

    We must count the votes of the voters who actually voted. That is the best way to measure the will of the people.


    You're saying pledged delegates should be (none / 0) (#129)
    by magster on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:06:21 AM EST
    thrown out of the equation by aopting the tweety quote.  So my answer that it helps Obama is relative to the premise of your post.

    No (none / 0) (#144)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:18:47 AM EST
    I am saying that NEITHER candidate will win with the Pledged Delegates. It is too close.

    Thus the Super Delegates will decide and I propose they decide by reference to the Popular Vote.

    This is really quite simple really.


    Simple but unfair. (none / 0) (#186)
    by magster on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:55:13 AM EST
    Superdelegates deciding on a metric that completely excludes the results in 11 states.  

    If Obama wins pledged delegates that exceed Clinton's best case scenarios from MI and FL, the superdelegate decision should be a no-brainer.  

    If he doesn't, you need to look at pledged delegates, popular vote, projected popular vote scenarios in caucus states, FL and MI vote results, projections on what could have been if they followed the rules, momentum, head to head matchups against McCain, consequences to the party if one is chosen over the other, how each candidate's views reflect on what each individual SD believes is important, and a million other things.

    Quite complicated really.


    Wow. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:32:42 AM EST
    You need to rethink this  BTD.  

    On the subject of the diary, I agree with your advice for the Clinton campaign.

    But to propose a plan that punishes caucus state voters arguing the caucus states disenfranchised themselves by following a party approved delegate selection plan, while at the same time arguing against disenfranchisement of FL and MI voters for their states pursuing an unapproved delegate selection plan is irrational.

    Those who follow the rules are punished?

    The superdelegates can take popular vote into account as they can vote their conscience.  But at the end of the day it is the overall delegate winner (not just pledged delegate) who will and must be the nominee.  If the most basic rules governing the convention are changed midstream, there can be no legitimate nominee.


    The caucus system disnefranchises (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:48:56 AM EST
    voters unable to attend the caucus. They are ALREADY disenfranchised.

    The voters who went to caucuses had SUPER STRENGTH votes in the Pledged delegate count.

    Counting the popular vote in no way disenfranchises caucus voters. And the voters in caucusus states who did not get to vote in the caucus are ALREADY disenfranchised. You REALLY need to rethink your argument.

    Your newfound concern for voters in caucus states shut pout by the caucus system is a TERRIBLE argument for an Obama supporter. BTW, tell me again how Obama won Texas? How much concern does THAT give you?

    My proposal follows the existing rules - you do know revotes are allowed under the DNC Rules I hope - and disenfranchising no one who was not ALREADY disenfranchised by the precious system you so vigorously defend.  In short, your argument makes no sense at all.

    BTW, where were the rest of you when I was railing against CAUCUSES LAST FALL?!?!?!?


    I agree that caucuses are a bad thing. (none / 0) (#118)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:00:49 AM EST
    And yes they disenfranchise voters.  I am not expressing any newfound concern for the voters in the caucus states and I support revotes in FL and MI which are in fact allowed under the existing rules.

    But the existing rules is that delegates resulting from approved delegate selection plans are to be seated and that the delegate total will determine the nominee.  Texas was an abomination.  But it was nevertheless an approved plan.

    The state parties made their decision on whether to hold a caucus or primary on the basis of the rules in place.  To change the metric to popular vote is unfair to caucus states because it diminishes the influence of those states under the rules as they exist.

    Now, Super Delegates have every right to base their vote on popular vote should they so choose.  And it may well be that they go overwhelmingly to the popular vote winner. But it must and will be the delegate winner who carries the day.  Otherwise there is no legitimacy.


    The delegate total WILL determine the nominee (none / 0) (#142)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:17:30 AM EST
    Exactly so. This is an argument about the Superdelegates.

    But by using your definition of popular vote (none / 0) (#119)
    by magster on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:01:07 AM EST
    You are turning SUPER STRENGTH into ZERO STRENGTH in your proposal as to what superdelegates should follow.  If you really want to be fair, you have to figure a way to have the caucus states translated into a popular vote, or assign some validity to the pledged delegate totals.  

    Their votes count the same as everyone else's (none / 0) (#140)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:16:44 AM EST
    No one's vote counts more than anyone else's. Your statement is false.

    Ex post facto (none / 0) (#188)
    by rebrane on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:00:34 PM EST
    I was railing against CAUCUSES LAST FALL

    Well, good for you. Since you failed to convince the DNC not to sanction caucuses, and you failed to convince state legislatures of any of the caucus states to switch to a primary, though, this matters not at all.

    The one saving grace of the caucus system is that the number of delegates in a state is linked to the population, so the low turnout does not hurt the impact of the state as a whole. Changing the rules from delegates to popular vote in between the elections and the convention, though, compounds the error and makes caucuses worse, not better.


    repeated thoughts syndrome (none / 0) (#16)
    by TalkRight on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:12:06 AM EST
    your rationale has been thoroughly blasted here at TL.. yet you come up with the very same argument again and again.. and post it here to the dismay of all the readers.

    Point to one comment (none / 0) (#18)
    by digdugboy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:13:53 AM EST
    in which my argument has been logically refuted. Blasted does not equal logically refuted.

    It is self refuting frankly (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:18:38 AM EST
    I do not know where you came up with that argument, but I found unworthy of response. Your argument is actually a GREAT one against the pledged delegate selection system. I have made it often.

    I agree with you and Kos both (none / 0) (#84)
    by digdugboy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:43:11 AM EST
    that the caucus system ought to go. The few things that commend it -- it measures a candidate's capacity to manufacture a ground game, it captures the choices of those who are more than marginal participants and are probably better informed -- are outweighed by the downside that it is less likely to accurately reflect the wishes of the general electorate come November.

    But "fair and square" can not mean changing the rules in the middle of the game. Period.


    Ok (none / 0) (#101)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:51:39 AM EST
    How about we look at this game then? How would we account for the anecdotal and documented irregularities that occurred at caucuses this year?  And what about Texas? Are we double counting votes because you had to vote in the primary to participate in the caucus - so that would  skew towards Obama?

    I agree that the current system is flawed (none / 0) (#112)
    by digdugboy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:55:37 AM EST
    and that there are irregularities that need to be examined. But it would be far more damaging to the candidate selection process to throw out the established system, one that all states relied upon, going into the primary season, and substitute a popular vote system in its place.

    The assumption (none / 0) (#34)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:21:48 AM EST
    That popular votes in caucus states in would match the caucus results in those states is exposed.

    It's the third chapter in a book that will be published in 2010, "How the 2008 Democratic Primary was stolen."

    And the backdrop of the release of that book will be an UNrecovered economy, joblessness, inflation, the failure of the Iraqi government, amongst other things.


    Now there is a fuinny statement (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:22:11 AM EST
    Moopsy. you gave me the excuse I was looking for. you are suspended. Come back tomorrow. And If you decide not to, I will not cry.

    Imagine a national poll (none / 0) (#75)
    by AF on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:39:23 AM EST
    In which ten states were significantly undersampled and there was no statistical adjustment to correct this.

    We would not say that poll accurately represented the will of the national electorate.

    The popular vote is just like that poll: it is a national tally in which a number of states (caucus states) are undersampled.

    I understand the counter-argument: This isn't a poll, it's an election, and if some states have fewer votes because of caucuses, tough.

    I don't think that argument is absurd, but it raises serious fairness issues, since the states that are being undercounted couldn't have known that would happen.


    You see (none / 0) (#82)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:43:00 AM EST
    Every person counts once.  That's the principle of the popular vote.  It makes no difference if a particular STATE is more or less important; it's the people who are all treated equally.

    States that held caucuses did not have as many voters as they might have, but that's the fault of the state for choosing a system that excluded people, not the fault of the counting system that counts every person the same.

    All the people who couldn't participate because of the caucus system are just as disenfranchised if we use pledged delegates as the standard.  None of those people got to participate in the choosing of pledged delegates, either.


    As I said, I understand the argument (none / 0) (#91)
    by AF on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:47:20 AM EST
    I just don't completely buy it.  Changing the way an election is going to be counted when it's already underway is a messy business, leading to results that are imperfect at best.  The idea that there is a silver bullet is unrealistic.

    What? (none / 0) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:43:06 AM EST
    That is ridiculous, Simply ridiculous.

    the poopular vote can be ascertained EXACTLY. We know EXACTLY how many votes each of them got and we will know it at the end. Your comment is absurd and false.


    There is no fairness issue (none / 0) (#87)
    by badger on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:44:21 AM EST
    The eligibility rules for caucuses are the same as for primaries. The difference is that caucus turnout is low.

    What you're advocating is counting extra votes for states with low voter turnout, and the only possible rationale is "so Obama can win".

    It's not an argument and it's not based on any principle beyond favoring one candidate over another.


    That's not what I'm advocating (none / 0) (#102)
    by AF on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:52:20 AM EST
    I'm advocating sticking to the original system for choosing the nominee, rather than changing it after most of the votes are in.

    And yes, this includes allowing the super-delegates to vote their consciences, and yes, they should consider the popular vote in doing so.  I just don't think it should be the only consideration.


    Not a completely absurd argument but (none / 0) (#114)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:59:13 AM EST
    not only are the caucusing states undersampled, the sample is biased. Caucuses don't reflect the will of the people in the caucusing states. They reflect only the will of the people who were able to caucus.

    The results in WA and TX clearly show that caususes give you significantly different results than primaries. And this is to be expected since caucusing requires voters to invest additional time, follow arcane rules, and publicly announce who they support.

    Absent a revote in caucus states, what could be done to include them fairly? I could devise a system that would be pretty fair based on electorate composition and pre-election day polls to recalculate the vote in all states. (Any statistician could do this.) But obviously throwing out actual votes cast would be so contrary to our system that it's a non-starter. So, absent re-votes, what do we have to go on other than actual votes cast whether in caucus states, primary states, or MI and FL?


    Pledged delegates (none / 0) (#121)
    by AF on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:02:12 AM EST
    Neither measure is perfect, but neither should be ignored.  If one candidate wins both, he or she should be the nominee.  If it's a split decision, there is no clear winner and the super delegates will have to decide.

    I agree n/t (none / 0) (#210)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:58:57 PM EST
    Bottom line of popular vote argument... (none / 0) (#192)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:07:30 PM EST
    ...is that whether you're are talking about a caucus, open primary, closed primary, same day registration, or whatever the nuance of any particular state, everyone that wanted to vote in the Democratic primary this year, could vote and we can count those votes when its all over.  

    You make a valid point that caucuses do not always reflect a popular vote.  In Iowa, for example, Edwards and Obama benefited from being the the second choice of non-viable Richardson, Biden, Dodd, and Kucinich supporters.  And in Nevada, Obama was the second choice of more Edwards supporters. But the dynamic only existed in Iowa and Nevada (and benefitted Obama)-- the other caucuses were a two person race.

    As for caucuses generally having low turnout. This is true, but the two biggest caucus states -- Iowa and Nevada-- had turnouts that you would expect in a primary. The rest of the caucus states have pretty low populations and it is balanced out with the fact that the demographics of Obama supporters are much more likely to participate in a caucus than Hillary supporters.

    All and all, looking at every state individually, the conditions for Obama to rack up popular votes are still are more favorable to him, than Clinton. Just one example: His home state had an open primary and her home state had a closed primary-- this alone would have given Hillary another 250K+ in the popular vote tallies.


    I don't disagree, but (none / 0) (#15)
    by dk on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:11:20 AM EST
    the fact of the matter is that Hillary also needs to win many of the remaining contests, and win them big.  To do that, she also needs to focus on good old fashioned campaigning (i.e. focussing on targeted markets in those states/territories, and speaking to the issues that concerns the people in those markets).

    The "will of the people" argument is definitely an important one, particularly for Hillary obviously given the numbers, but it is not the only thing she can focus on.

    The popular vote is the wrong standard (none / 0) (#20)
    by fladem on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:16:49 AM EST
    And if you look at past primary fights (1980, 1984) it was never used as the standard.  

    The popular vote standard is an outrageous standard. Its adoption is tantamount to dis-enfranchising those states that used caucuses to select delegates.  Adopting that standard ex post facto is simply wrong.  

    It was not uised as a standard by whom? (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:21:05 AM EST
    1980 had a winner - Jimmy Carter.

    1984 had a winner - Walter Mondale.

    You repeat this line often but you know very well that no Dem race has ever been this close. NEVER have we had a pledged delegate leader NOT be the Popular vote leader. EVER.


    Uh (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:23:14 AM EST
    I can't believe the terrible logic on display here.  Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that twice as many people would have voted if the state had chosen to have a primary instead of a caucus.

    Those people who didn't vote because of the caucus system are ALREADY DISENFRANCHISED.  They do not magically become disenfranchised if and only if we use the popular vote as a metric.  Even if we look exclusively at pledged delegates, those excluded people played no role in the selection of pledged delegates either.

    I cannot believe this bogus argument has become the talking point of the day.  I guess it's just that Obama supporters see the power of the disenfranchisement argument and are itching to use it themselves in some way.  But it makes no sense.


    He is usually better than this.

    Caucuses (none / 0) (#53)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:30:25 AM EST
    let's make a list of folks that are disenfranchised by caucuses: hourly employees, military, out of state students, the infirm, the handicapped, those without transportation, people who don't want their neighbors and bosses to see how they are voting...  Yes, I can see where their votes wouldn't matter.

    Adopting new ex post facto standard is wrong (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Simplicissimus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:32:37 AM EST
    I'm absolutely in favor of a popular vote selection process in future nominations cycles.  
    But what I can't endorse, is changing the selection process in mid nomination cycle.
    In other words, when we agree to a contest of best two out of three (however imperfect that may be) we shouldn't lobby for four out of seven when the count starts to go against us.
    What you do is make sure the next time around that all parties agree at the outset on four out of seven.

    Ex post wha? (none / 0) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:41:55 AM EST
    What a joke. No delegates are being awarded based on this.

    the SDs would enforce such an agreement.

    Nothing ex post facto about it.

    You folks are funny. Are you REALLY that afraid Obama will lose the popular vote? Heck, more reason for Clinton to press this issue.


    If I ran Hillary's campaign (none / 0) (#21)
    by Marguerite Quantaine on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:16:59 AM EST
    I'd say I want primaries in ALL the states since caucuses disenfranchise a majority of  the people.

    But I'd hold firm on Florida and Michigan, while  demanding to know why Obama is in control of the final decision.

    And since her name is first on the ballot and first in alphabetical order, I'd demand to know why she's always positioned second to him in the media, and party politics.

    Then I'd call for a million women march.

    And I'd add, "Oh, yeah. The Bonsia story was boneheaded of me. File it next to Rezko in a compare-me folder."

    that bugs the hell out of me, too (none / 0) (#32)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:21:17 AM EST
    And since her name is first on the ballot and first in alphabetical order, I'd demand to know why she's always positioned second to him in the media, and party politics.

    Of course, she always gets the first questions in the debates.


    Is this a travel back in time fantasy (none / 0) (#65)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:34:45 AM EST
    where Hillary did all this a year ago and pressurised the DNC to push for Primaries in all 50 states,  or are you suggesting should be doing this now,  where it looks like the transparently self interested and impractical ploy that it would be.

    I don't care how it "looks" (none / 0) (#162)
    by Marguerite Quantaine on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:33:03 AM EST
    I care that all the American people get an equal opportunity to say who gets to be nominated for president.

    "To see what is right, and not do it, is want of courage, and of principle."
    -- Confucius

    Dean and Brazille, Pelosi, and Obama are interested in rules, regulations, and "perceptions."

    Hillary is doing what is right on behalf of the American people.

    She will prevail.


    And they say Obama supporters... (none / 0) (#178)
    by rebrane on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:44:07 AM EST
    ... have drunk the Kool-Aid! Sheesh.

    Look, I'll help you out here. Both Obama and Clinton are politicians who want to be President. While they're running for President, everything they say and do is part of their attempt to be elected President.

    The only place where 'what is right' comes into it is that they both believe that if they become President, they can do what is right. So whatever argument makes them more likely to be President is the argument they say is right.

    Before Super Tuesday, Clinton was saying the nominee would be decided on Super Tuesday. Now that she's behind, she's saying the nominee won't be decided until everybody has voted. Before it was clear she needed Florida and Michigan to win, she supported the DNC's decision. After it became clear she couldn't win without them, that decision became disenfranchisement. Before she was behind in delegates, Clinton said it was a delegate race. Now that she's behind, she says the popular vote is the most important metric. From this it's pretty clear that if she was behind in the popular vote and ahead in delegates, she'd still be saying it was only delegates. Doing what is right doesn't factor into it.

    Obviously the same goes for the Obama campaign, who would, for instance, be in favor of Florida and Michigan revotes if he'd benefit from them, but I doubt that needs to be pointed out again here.


    Hillary started lobbying (none / 0) (#179)
    by americanincanada on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:44:15 AM EST
    for Fl and MI to count after winning NH.

    So you're saying if a leader (none / 0) (#216)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:56:14 PM EST
    decides to do something, they should stick to what they decided, no matter how the facts change?  (You apparently like the GW Bush approach then)

    The fact a year ago was that nobody thought that Fl/Mi would potentially change the outcome of the election.

    Nobody thought the vote would be close.

    Now the vote is close, Fl/Mi could potentially change the outcome.  Now we have to count them.

    This is analogous to recounting votes in a close election. Are you against that too?


    Fair and square? (none / 0) (#38)
    by digdugboy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:22:38 AM EST
    BTD says
    For this nomination to mean anything for either candidate, the nominee must be perceived to have won fair and square.

    Obama supporters will perceive that Obama won fair and square if MI and FL aren't counted. Why? Because fair and square means within the rules established for the game at the outset. The nomination process isn't Calvinball.

    If the Calvinball principle applies, and Clinton wins, Obama supporters won't view the result as fair and square.

    For most people the perception of fair and square depends upon whom they support. We are beyond the point when there can be consensus about fair and square. So let's not make it worse by playing Calvinball.

    Obama supporters are not the problem (none / 0) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:39:47 AM EST
    for his fair and square. And vice versa. Funny that.

    Exactly. (none / 0) (#169)
    by digdugboy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:37:14 AM EST
    It's about whose ox is being gored, and that is on both sides.

    Then you should stop perpetuating (none / 0) (#130)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:06:55 AM EST
    the falsehood that revotes aren't within the rules established for the game at the outset. Simple solution to incorrect perceptions.

    I'm not perpetuating that (none / 0) (#174)
    by digdugboy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:39:47 AM EST
    I agree that revotes are allowed by DNC rules. Where BTD and I diverge is that he believes that the nationwide popular vote should have controlling weight on the superdelegates, and I believe that notion is complete nonsense.

    Heck, I agree with Harold Ickes in part: even if Obama wins the pledged delegate count and the popular vote, if there is some reason that superdelegates believe they should choose Hillary, and they think they can sell that reason to the democratic electorate at large, they should nominate her. It's be a really tough sell, IMO, though.


    True (none / 0) (#197)
    by Claw on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:22:54 PM EST
    But forcing all caucus states to revote in a primary system is:
    1. Completely unfeasible
    2. Certain to piss off state dem parties (and dems) who don't like being told what to do
    3. A bit unfair to those who did take the time to caucus.

    I absolutely advocate a revote in MI and FLA, and while it's clear that Clinton is pushing revotes for political reasons (just as Obama doesn't want them for political reasons), she's on the right side of the issue.  You don't have to be a die-hard Clinton fan to think those states should get another shot.  
    If we want to argue caucuses should be eliminated, fine.  The time to do it is not during a campaign and after the states have caucused within the DNC rules.
    It doesn't pass the laugh test.

    Whoops (none / 0) (#199)
    by Claw on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:24:21 PM EST
    I meant "you don't have to be a die-hard Obama fan."

    If I ran the campaign -How cool (none / 0) (#45)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:26:07 AM EST
    If I ran the campaign, I would have been more Pro-Active.  First, I would have found out why his key encouragers were so against her. Maybe make a deal. I would have hired Obama's stratigic advisers. They planned it well. A man against Hillary would not work. It had to be a different man. One who will pull from her base. They contained Bill. If you dare make any remark about this man, you were not being PC. That tied up your hands. And lastly, I would not have gone with the assumption that you were the winner before you started. Hillary was not cocky but her campaign staff was and took too many people for granted. Lastly, I guess I would have told the DNC that it was a bad idea to disenfranchise Michigan and Florida.  

    Why would Obama, who is currently (none / 0) (#57)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:31:58 AM EST
    90-95% likely to win the nomination,  effectively going to give up his advantage,  unilaterally disarming,  to give Hillary a mulligan as she has managed to blow her current campaign.  It's just nuts,  and you can guarantee that if the positions were reversed that Hillary would not give this proposal 1 seconds thought.

    Are you not confident Obama can win the PV? (none / 0) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:38:55 AM EST
    you expect him to lose by over 800,000 votes the rest of the way? Not very confident I see.

    I was hoping there was more confidence from Obama supporters. Let me put it this way, if Obama loses the PV lead, he probably is going to find his hold on the nomination precarious at any rate.


    As the polls stand now (none / 0) (#77)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:39:53 AM EST
    I project that he will lose the popular vote with Florida included.

    Are you including MI as well (none / 0) (#97)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:49:04 AM EST
    in your "projection"?

    Your projection has zero relevance anyway if it including votes from the earlier beauty contests in FL and MI.


    I think if you include a revote in MI and FL (none / 0) (#90)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:46:53 AM EST
    he would do reasonably well,  keeping it within 5% in Florida,  and about 50-50 in Michigan.  Factoring in the pv from PR and elsewhere I still think Obama would be 60-40 or 70-30 for the nomination.

    I still think it's pie in the sky though,  it makes no kind of sense for him,  whereas for Hillary, as she is running out of options it would at least keep her alive.


    IMO as someone who lives in Florida (none / 0) (#123)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:04:02 AM EST
    Obama would come no where near 5% in Florida.  He would do well to stay within 10%.

    Personally, (none / 0) (#138)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:16:12 AM EST
    I think Hillary would win big in FL, and come close or win in Michigan too.

    But it's pretty hard to predict these things, although it is a lot of fun to speculate...


    Wait, let me get this straight... (none / 0) (#64)
    by mike in dc on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:34:38 AM EST
    ...so, in this scenario, Puerto Rico, which is not a state and whose vote does not count in the general election, would matter more than half a dozen states which happened to hold caucuses?  Clinton could win there 70-30, with a million votes cast, and that could be her "margin of victory".  Meanwhile, there'd still be debate about how to estimate caucus votes.  

    Talk about changing the rules in the middle of the game.  If the states holding caucuses were told at the beginning of the process that only the cumulative popular vote would matter, they would've held primaries, and Obama's strategy would have been different.  

    I think it's actually too late, logistically speaking, to put together re-votes in Michigan and Florida.  The two campaigns will have to reach a compromise on seating the two delegations, and the nominee will simply have to do their best to smooth things over.  

    Interesting (none / 0) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:37:23 AM EST
    So you have something against Puerto Rico I see?

    What is that pray tell? Lou Dobbs might find new warmth for Obama.

    BTW, FL and MI are not being counted. Bother you much?


    Why should PR have a greater say... (none / 0) (#106)
    by mike in dc on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:53:42 AM EST
    ...in who our nominee is than half a dozen states?  They don't even vote for President in the general election.  It's no insult to a dead man to point out that he is dead.  Clinton could rack up a large margin there, and the race could be close enough elsewhere that using the popular vote would result in a territory that does not even vote in the general being the decisive margin of victory for her.  How would that be more "legitimate" in the eyes of American voters?

    Basically, you're making the argument that the person who wins the most pledged delegates according to the rules agreed upon by participating states and candidates is not legitimate unless they also meet an additional criteria which did not exist at the time those rules and conditions were agreed to.  

    MI and FL were sanctioned according to those rules, perhaps excessively so, but the optimal time for aggressive protest of those sanctions was weeks or months ago.  The reason why the sanctions of halving their delegates wasn't imposed was probably because those states would still have a decisive early impact on the shape of the race even with their delegate counts halved, that it would completely defeat the purpose of the schedule plan, that other states would have been tempted to jump in line as well, and the whole thing would have become an even bigger mess.  

    It bothers me that there's no revote, but I asked you in another thread whether the existing DNC bylaws and existing MI and FL state laws, and simple logistics would permit re-votes before June 10, and you did not answer.  
    This "popular vote winner is the nominee" idea will tick off a bunch of caucus states, and I'm not so sure the citizens there will see it as more "legitimate" to toss the rulebook out the window and declare a winner based on a standard which didn't previously exist in the process.


    You're missing something (none / 0) (#72)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:37:31 AM EST
    The nomination system as it's currently designed can't produce a winner who is obviously legitimate to everyone.

    And... (none / 0) (#92)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:48:20 AM EST
    I think it's up to the states to decide how they will vote, since the states run the "elections". Which is why many smaller states have the dreaded caucuses - because they are cheaper.

    (Of course, the DNC can choose how to pick its nominee - it doesn't have to hold ANY elections if it decided to change its charter - it could literally have an arm wrestling contest, throw darts, or go to the street outside its headquarter and pick the first person who walked by).


    I dont think so. (none / 0) (#85)
    by ajain on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:43:26 AM EST
    I think the real question is that if Puerto Rico's vote count, why shouldn't the votes of Florida and Michigan count?

    I mean Florida and Michigan are actual swing states that vote in the GE.

    Also, there is still time for party-run (privately-funded) re-votes. And Sen. Obama will have a huge problem in Florida and Michigan. He has actively worked to block re-votes there and people in those states know that.


    I agree about the moral high-ground (none / 0) (#69)
    by ajain on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:37:07 AM EST
    And I would love to see her embrace your plan.
    But I think another part of her plan is to make Obama unelectable.
    Having said that, I don't think she will get the nomination if she doesnt get the popular vote.

    Hillary cannot "make" Obama unelectable. (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:45:10 AM EST
    This is Obaman spin that makes me really, really angry.

    If Obama doesn't win the nomination or the GE, it's 100% his responsibility. It is not Hillary's fault.  Conversely, if Hillary doesn't win the nomination or the GE, it's 100% her responsibility.

    I am absolutely astonished that anyone would try to claim otherwise.


    Stiop repeating this comment (none / 0) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:40:19 AM EST
    I am deleting it as you have written 3 times already.

    Your opinion is not an obstacle (none / 0) (#159)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:31:28 AM EST
    Don't know if anyone has seen this yet (none / 0) (#93)
    by frankly0 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:48:31 AM EST
    but Dean is now saying FL delegates will almost certainly be seated.

    God only knows what the arrangement might be, though  -- no commitment on that point.

    Indeed... (none / 0) (#104)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:53:15 AM EST
    and will it be before or after the nominee is chosen?

    Inquiring minds want to know.


    After. (none / 0) (#111)
    by sweetthings on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:55:25 AM EST
    There's simply no way to do it before.

    Maybe Obama will win PA and it won't matter. Or maybe Hillary will blow him away in NC and it won't matter. Unlikely, I know, but one can hope.


    Sure there is. (none / 0) (#115)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:59:20 AM EST
    There are party rules that would cover allowing them to be seated now. The "Strip 50%" solution, for example. Plus, there's the re-vote idea, which would give Hill and O a chance to see where the electorate stands now.

    I just can't help feeling that the Powers That Be are just rigging the game in favor of Obama by demanding that some party rules apply and some don't. What they're doing really doesn't make sense to me otherwise.


    Indeed (none / 0) (#161)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:32:00 AM EST
    The buzzer will sound, Obama will have won a close contest, and we'll look up and see that 35 fouls were called during the contest, and all of them were called against Clinton, and none were called against Obama.

    what everyone is missing here (none / 0) (#120)
    by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:02:06 AM EST
    is the entire situation is unfair to someone,

    why does not one bring up Edwards voters? if they voted Uncommited because he was not on the ballot and he gets no delegates is this not unfair to them? doesn't this equally disenfranchise them?

    you can make an argument for all sides, because everything about this situation is unfair to voters, THIS is why we need a compromise, and why they need to sit down again agree.

    but no FL and MI should not be seated as is, yes a revote would have probably been the fairest (if those who cross over were allowed to vote in the re-do, otherwise no)

    but now they are out of time neither state really wants to hold a redo and they aren't fighting for it.

    so to talk about it is a waste of time,

    the question is, if we can't have a revote, what is the next fairest thing to the most number of voters.

    Perhaps it's my cold medicine talking (none / 0) (#152)
    by Chimster on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:23:54 AM EST
    but I can't see anything wrong with this proposal. It's brilliance is in its sheer simplicity and common sense.

    The only question I could see come from naysayers would be "does this change the rules?" ( I honestly don't know if it does or doesn't), but if so, is that change alright with the majority of voters?

    agreed BTD, it's the only way (none / 0) (#158)
    by cpinva on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:31:18 AM EST
    to be sure. i'm a staunch clinton supporter, but if obama wins the popular vote, fair & square, i'll gladly vote for him in nov. personally, i think he's already lost the GE, but i'll swallow that bitter pill for loyalty sake.

    this absolutely requires that MI & FL be counted, in order for it to be legitimate. a real count, not some borderline dahliesque formula.

    I don't see where it applies. Can somebody help me out here?

    I would take the advise (none / 0) (#173)
    by bjorn on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:39:06 AM EST
    from BTD.  I think she should be saying this over and over.  Bottom-line the DNC and Obama are not going to let revotes happen now. I think it is too late.  The party elite are already signaling they are going to support Obama.  Clinton needs to keep winning big, win the popular vote, and when she talks about her vote total include MI and FL, and then just keep saying she thinks superdelegates should look at her total number of votes.  The polls out in PA, OH, and FL can also be used to persuade SDs, assuming they stay them same as it gets closer to June.  The important point is to keep trying to take the high road, hammer the popular vote argument every chance she gets, and maybe she will be able to persuade enough SDs.  The argument falls apart if she does not keep winning states, and NC is really, really important. She needs to at least stay close to Obama there.  I wish PA was voting this week because it would help her momentum to win a contest now! She needs to turn the tide of thought among the SDs.

    Good Point (none / 0) (#175)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:40:07 AM EST
    The DNC has de-legitimized itself too.

    Ssssh (none / 0) (#182)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:47:24 AM EST
    That is what we do not want people to say.

    BTW, have you heard of Super Delegates?

    This is a blog popular (none / 0) (#183)
    by 1jpb on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:49:55 AM EST
    with lawyers so it is reasonable to point out that there are legal and logistical problems that prevent votes in MI and FL.  In FL the D Party has ackowledged that it is impossible to run a revote, regardless of BO and HRC.

    The MI D Party hasn't acknowledged this.  But, they haven't addressed the all of the legal and logistic issues.  I understand that some will argue that it is undemocratic to point out the law in this situation, I don't agree.  

    Even if it is popular to ignore the legal and logistic problems, (which is not a tactic unique to one side) it is undeniable that the new MI plan would have left out BO supporters who trusted everyone (including HRC) who said that the D primary wouldn't count, so these BO supporters went into the R primary for a second or strategic choice (32% of R vote were Ds and Is.)  First time voters (a strong source of BO support, not to mention Party building, who wouldn't have been motivated for the first no-count, no-BO option, vote) would also be excluded from an absentee voting plan.  

    Here is a link with the legal issues.  And, in the interest of honest debate, it gives the HRC view.   I can summarize the HRC POV, as I see it:

    1. Both candidates promised not to "participate" in MI, but HRC kept her name on the ballot anyway.  (In FL it was impossible to remove BO's name, even though there was the same non participation agreement as in MI.)
    2. Some rules are more important to HRC than others.
    3. HRC supporters want to finance the plan they like.
    4. Some rules are more important to HRC than others.

    And there is a memo from two Clinton administration folks that says, "If a formal Delegate Selection Plan is received we will convene a meeting of the RBC to consider such a Plan."

    Your comment is incorrect (none / 0) (#200)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:40:19 PM EST
    And I assume you did not see my moratorium on discussing the particulars of MIO/FL revotes. We discussed it to the minutest detail for six weeks before the rest of you were paying attention.

    No rehashing. No more commenting on this issue please.

    For the record, it is the view of this web site, after a careful study, that your comment is wrong in almost every particular.


    If the popular vote is not close, (none / 0) (#189)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:01:04 PM EST
    then it will be a very strong factor in deciding the nominee. Ickes said that.

    I don't think this will happen, though. What if Hillary loses by 100,000 votes? Or Obama loses by the same margin? Does that really show a clear winner? Especially given the obvious controversy over caucuses and primaries?

    The SD's will HAVE to consider other factors as well. It would be foolish in the extreme for Hillary to say "I will ONLY go by the popular vote," since she likely knows that it alone will not be enough to make either candidate seem legitimate.

    Eliminate Superdelegates THIS YEAR (none / 0) (#190)
    by pluege on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:01:40 PM EST
    A key point that could be raised is that since the purpose of the Superdelegates is to prevent the anomalies of the primary process from picking an unelectable nominee, and since we are clearly past that risk this year, the Superdelegates should be eliminated THIS YEAR. It is a very valid argument that the Superdelegates serve no purpose this year and yet can still screw things - therefore they should not used.

    Likewise, given the current state of the nominating process, the elected delegates serve no useful purpose this year, except to distort the nomination; they too should be suspended this year in favor of a straight popular vote provided Florida and Michigan are included.

    This is the type of election (none / 0) (#193)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:11:22 PM EST
    in which SuperDelegates are absolutely necessary. There is no clear delegate winner and neither candidate can reach the "magic number."

    I must admit I don't understand your post at all.


    If there weren't superdelegates (none / 0) (#194)
    by rebrane on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:17:36 PM EST
    the magic number would be lower, and it would be impossible that one candidate wouldn't end up with a majority of delegates (as long as they made an odd number of delegates...)

    But there ARE delegates and superdelegates. (none / 0) (#198)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:23:29 PM EST
    We have to work with what we've got now, as flawed as it is. And it IS flawed.

    I sincerely hope that the powers that be will reform the primary system after this year, but for now we're stuck.


    let democracy reign (none / 0) (#218)
    by pluege on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:30:05 PM EST
    The point is that there is no purpose for the superdelegates this election because all of the remaining Democratic candidates are electable. Let the decision be made on simple majority rules without superdelegates or delegates, i.e., let the voters pick the nominee.

    I have no doubt at all (none / 0) (#211)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:12:51 PM EST
    that Sen. Obama will ever agree to a revote of FL and MI. He knows he will lose. He has shown consistently that he would rather win and tear up the Democratic party than do anything that would mean he would lose - even when it is clearly best for the party.

    This is exactly why it should NOT be up to Obama and Clinton. The DNC should be the ones to dictate the terms - either accept a revote, or seat them as is. Anyone who thinks we can possibly prevail in November without seating FL and MI while it matters is living in a dream world. Clinton supporters are never going to accept Obama as a legitimate nominee without those delegates getting seated, either by a revote or as is. I have serious doubts that Obama could win in November WITH Clinton supporters on board. It will be an impossibility without them.

    And that tells me something right there: he doesn't care about the GE. He is really in this just to knock off Clinton.

    I love your solution but I wonder how it will work (none / 0) (#213)
    by g8grl on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:06:53 PM EST
    How will they take into account the caucuses?  will the caucuses count 1-1 delegate to voter? or will each caucus delegate count for some number of actual voters?  If we just say that the number of people in the caucuses count 1-1 will the people from those states feel disenfranchized?

    I say we count the states winner take all.  That's the way the electoral college does it and the Republicans do it.  Ultimately, in an ideal world, we should abolish the electoral college and take the popular vote in both the primaries and the general.

    Oooh, fun (none / 0) (#215)
    by MaxUS on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:44:44 PM EST
    If I ran Obama's campaign, I'd have him shut it down in light of the Wright fiasco.

    Then again, I'm not one of his supporters so it would be pretty silly for me to be running his campaign, no?