Hillary Campaign Chief Sends Memo: Let Everyone Vote

Maggie Williams, Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, has sent out a memo addressing why she's staying in the race. It's very simple. Politico has a copy.

As of today, the citizens of 42 states, the District of Columbia, Democrats Abroad and 2 territories have had an opportunity to vote – and they have exercised that right in overwhelming numbers. But the citizens in Pennsylvania, Guam, North Carolina, Indiana, West Virginia, Oregon, Kentucky, Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota have not yet had the opportunity to exercise that fundamental right. Together, this adds up to nearly 43 million Americans. Are their voices any less important than those of the citizens who have already voted?

....The simple fact is that this election is too close to call. After 46 primaries and caucuses, by virtually every measure, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are neck and neck – separated by roughly 130 of the more than 3,100 delegates committed thus far and less than 1% of the 27 million-plus votes cast, including Florida and Michigan. Less than 1%! With hundreds of delegates still uncommitted, neither candidate has reached the number of delegates required to secure the nomination. And either candidate can reach the required number in the coming weeks and months. This is indisputable.


No amount of editorials, articles, blog posts, calculations, formulas or projections or friendly, but heated political conversations can change the basic fact that either candidate can win. We have all been there before when the pundits have proclaimed that Hillary had no hope of winning. Hillary Clinton has been counted out of this race three times before – and each time, with their votes, the American people asked her to stay in the race.

Elections are important because they allow voters to decide how they want the big issues confronting them addressed.

Millions of voters are awaiting their turn to answer the questions: Who is the best candidate to address the economic, health care, environmental and security issues confronting our country? Who is the best candidate to go toe to toe with John McCain? Which of the candidates is best positioned to win the 270 electoral votes needed to become the next president?

This campaign will wait to hear from all of the voters.

As it should.

< Late Night: Working Class Hero | FL, OH, PA >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    but wait! (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by cpinva on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:32:49 AM EST
    i've been told, repeatedly, that sen. clinton "has no chance to win", that she's "tearing the party apart", that "her ego, ambition and willingness to do whatever it takes to win" will "cause the loss of the nov. election!", that "she should drop out, for the good of the party and the country".

    further, i've been advised that "obama's the one!" (cue pic of a pregnant lucy, finger pointing out, and "nixon's the one!" printed on the bottom! lol). sen. obama has been deified as "the saviour of the country", the "only person able to unify both party and country", as a "new kind of politician".

    can all these people possibly be wrong?

    ah, i love the smell of "please drop out now!" in the morning, it smells like................desperation!

    It is a statistically impossibly (1.00 / 4) (#3)
    by jtaylorr on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:52:20 AM EST
    for Hillary to have no chance of winning.
    According to one of her advisers, it's around 10%, but it's probably lower now because that was before sniper-gate and her lies about NAFTA finally being picked up by the media.
    But don't kid yourself. Hillary isn't dumb and she knows she has very little chance of grabbing the nomination. The only reason she is staying in the race is because for every day she stay in, the division within the party grows larger, which she thinks will allow her to force a unity ticket with her as VP. If Obama wins the GE then hey, she'll have actual experience to base her campaign around when she runs again in 2012 or 16. And if Obama loses the GE she can say I told you so.
    But will this plan work? I don't know.

    More Unity! (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by sarahfdavis on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:19:01 AM EST
    Thanks Unity team! Your ugly accusations and tone make me see the Obama light! Why on earth would I ever dream of supporting anyone other than Obama! You guys are so inclusive and above it all. Yes we can be nasty bullies!

    I've never said I'm an Obama supporter. (none / 0) (#10)
    by jtaylorr on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:23:09 AM EST
    I just don't support Clinton.

    Anyways, even if I was an Obama supporter, judging a candidate by their supporters is pretty inane.


    Y'all need to chill out. (none / 0) (#17)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:10:26 AM EST
    The nasty way you're talking is really not making the case for your candidate. At all.

    Concern Trollery or not (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by blogtopus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:49:39 AM EST
    Your hostility is making it difficult for actual Obama supporters - not followers - to make his case.

    And as you are so fond of pointing out, Obama is likely to win the nomination. If you want him to lose the election, please continue.

    I may not support Obama, but I'm not stupid enough to deliver the presidency to McCain by turning fence-sitters away with tantrummy vitriol.

    Honestly, it is almost as if most Obama trolls are GOP operatives. It's getting pretty ridiculous.


    You do realize (none / 0) (#135)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:52:14 PM EST
    your comments are archived don't you?  Anyone can look up every statement you have made, every rating you have given and been given?

    Forget about the sniper "lies" (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Prabhata on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:52:20 AM EST
    It's the Wright anti-American speeches that we're concerned.  Now most white voters are voting against Obama.  Her chances because of Write have increased immeasurably, but most Obamabots don't want to see how devastating Wright is to the Obama campaign.  It takes weeks for the bad feelings of those speeches to sink into the psyche.  The polls will begin to reflect those views.

    Yes, this is the main argument (none / 0) (#36)
    by marcellus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:00:24 AM EST
    For the Clinton camp.  It's probably why she went to the Pittsburgh Trib.

    burden shifting, not conversations (5.00 / 5) (#100)
    by wreck on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:26:02 AM EST
    I've been reading this blog for a while now and it is always interesting to me how every few days, there's another group of pro-Obama supporters who refuse to read any other post on this blog, derail conversations and force Clinton supporters to once again do the heavy intellectual lifting of explaining everything. It's always starting from scratch. Why are these people here? If you want to have a genuine conversation about these things, read some of the other posts -- about Scaife, about FL/MI, about the "monstrous" mischaracterization of Clinton's political agenda first. Then talk. Stop burden shifting. Marcellus, you've posted like a million times in this thread in a really combative fashion. If the people here wanted to be badgered and bullied and told they're stupid without being able to get a word in edgewise, they'd go over to DKos or TPM. It's really arrogant to mistake the civility here for stupidity.

    Is this supposed to be irony? (none / 0) (#112)
    by marcellus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:34:23 AM EST
    I've always been civil here (or elsewhere) and don't attack people personally.  I only came here to correct what I considered an egregious error in Maggie Williams' memo that the pop. vote is less than 1%.  Then, I'm personally attacked and accused of 1)burden shifting, 2)badgering, 3)bullying, 4)being combative, 5)arrogant and 6)telling people they're stupid?  Six insults, none of which I engaged in...all as a response to a short post where I agreed that the Wright issue would be damaging to Obama and my only crime was to make an oblique reference to Scaife?  

    Where is the civility?


    no irony intended (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by wreck on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:44:14 AM EST
    Let's point to your 15 posts, Marcellus, in this one thread as an example of your incivility. Do the "math." Even if you were NOT doing the combative tit-for-tat that you actually are doing, 15 posts in one thread are a good indicator that you are taking up a lot of space, drown out other voices and the main thread of the conversation and hog the blog -- there's a 200 post limit. You post more that BTD or Jeralyn. Go ahead, get the last word. You win, I capitulate!

    What about McCains "pastors"? (none / 0) (#47)
    by BobbyK on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:32:34 AM EST
    This type of comment just kills me. The vicious anti-american diatribes coming from such "pastors" as Jerry Falwell, John Hagee, etal goes way past anything Wright said. The response from the right wing media machine? Crickets.

    First of all, (5.00 / 5) (#56)
    by ChrisO on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:43:32 AM EST
    the response to Hagee, et al is irrelevant to the discussion. People can be offended by Hagee and Wright. And I find it interesting how people keep claiming there was no response to Falwell's remarks. I remember that he received a great deal of criticism. It's only logical that the spotlight would shine brighter on something like this during an election.

    And like it or not, the voters can sort through some of this stuff. They see a difference between pandering to a guy like Hagee for his endorsement, and the relationship between Obama and Wright. And all the wishing in the world isn't going to make that go away. McCain isn't getting as much heat as he should over Hagee because no one's paying any attention to him, which is a good thing, and one of the reasons I have no problem with the campaign continuing.

    And let's face it, if Obama's the nominee, he won't be bringing Hagee up any time soon. He's lost that advantage.


    I don't like those guys either (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:44:58 AM EST
    So that is two people I do not want to vote for.

    Who's kidding here? (5.00 / 8) (#34)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:57:35 AM EST
    But don't kid yourself. Hillary isn't dumb and she knows she has very little chance of grabbing the nomination. The only reason she is staying in the race is because for every day she stay in, the division within the party grows larger, which she thinks will allow her to force a unity ticket with her as VP.

    I think you are the one who's kidding yourself, if that's what you believe about Hillary's candidacy. You certainly did not obtain this special insight by talking to any Clinton supporters, or to anyone on her campaign team, or by reading anything she has written, or by listening to anything she has said while campaigning.

    So how did you find out about this "plan" of hers?


    10% is not statistically impossible (none / 0) (#5)
    by marcellus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:14:31 AM EST
    But I do agree between 5-10% are the most likely odds.

    Question for Hillary supporters, what do y'all think the odds are?


    Who the hell knows. (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by sarahfdavis on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:21:34 AM EST
    And everyone prognosticating with such moral authority is a huge part of the problem.
    I will say that if Mr. Unity is the nominee, there's a 50% chance I won't be able to vote for him.

    50%'s not too bad (none / 0) (#20)
    by marcellus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:18:48 AM EST
    That would mean that you'd compare your 2 options and choose the best one.

    Current odds for Clinton are 7 to 2 against, ... (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:25:15 AM EST
    ... according to a London bookmaker's site. That's about 28.5%.

    As a statistician, I believe this number provides a much more realistic estimate than numbers like 5% or 10% that are simply plucked out of the air by pundits, with no basis whatsoever.

    As a Clinton supporter, I expect these odds to shorten significantly over the next few weeks, so now would be a good time to bet on her, if you are so inclined. Winning that bet might provide a modicum of consolation, assuming you are an Obama suppporter.

    (I don't charge for my tips, either ;-).


    Its jumped very suddenly in Australia and NZ (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by Rainsong on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:20:28 AM EST

     - suddenly, as in since the weekend on the major Australian/NZ election betting sites. They post their odds at the pay-out per dollar placed. But they include Gore, currently at 25-1.  

    Last week they were offering around $1.50 for Obama and its remaining roughly steady, but it was $10-$12+ for Clinton.  

    But she has just quickly risen to around $3.50 - $4.80, just in the last few days on the nomination.

    Some speculators in Oz/NZ suspect, the spike in betting, is in response to the newly elected Aussie PM's recent visit to the USA - he met face-to-face with Hillary and also with McCain, but Obama was 'too busy' campaigning, but agreed to a phone call.

    The meeting with Hillary was widely televised downunder, and he said some very nice complementary things to her in front of the cameras, after the closed doors private meeting, that had the downunder talking-heads wondering.

    he spent a lot of time with her - nearly an hour, and in private, away from the cameras.
    Followed by a very public gesture of genuine goodwill for the cameras.

    He met McCain too but with cameras attending, and for about 10 mins of polite smalltalk, and just a bare mention of a telephone call with Obama, as in - don't blink or you'll miss it.

    Talking heads were all puzzled - Huh?
    What does -that- mean? <grin>
    He can't endorse her of course, but he came as close as you can, in foreign diplomatic terms, with that act - Or did he? Maybe thats just how he is, with all women in relatively high office? Is he just being extra gracious for a former First Lady? or does he know something? If so, what?

    Whatever it means - something has definitely spiked up the Clinton betting markets downunder.


    thats fascinating (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:29:12 AM EST
    perhaps just shares my feeling that Hillary is going to take this thing and nobody is going to stop her.

    Nobody can stop her (none / 0) (#117)
    by blogtopus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:01:55 AM EST
    I like that sentiment, but it also plays into the tinfoil hatters who have been telling me that the Clinton / Bush Conspiracy has it in the bag, that Hillary will take it whether we want her to or not. They tend to vote for Kucinich.

    Geesh, it takes all kinds of people to fill a democracy, don't it?


    I wonder if this has to do with the MI/FL endgame (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by joc on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:49:47 AM EST
    According to the DNC rules for the convention, it appears that if there is no agreed plan on what to do with the MI/FL delegates (agreed in this case by both Clinton and Obama), the question of whether to seat the delegates will go to the floor for a vote. The credentials committee isn't the deciding factor (see BDB's post at Correntewire and the comment by bringiton for discussion on this).

    So, what do you think will happen if all the delegates are asked to vote, while on national TV, to disenfranchise two of the biggest swing states. As BDB points out, can you see Al Gore voting to not count votes in Florida? There may be some who will want to put candidate above party, but I'm betting that most will not, and cooler heads will prevail. It is not best for the party to have the Democratic convention vote to disenfranchise MI and FL, and certainly not if we want to have any credibility in the future when we might need to demand again that all the votes must be counted. This extends to most of the so-called compromise plans (i.e. giving Obama 50% of the MI delegates).

    Obama stood in the way of a revote happening, and that may leave seating the original vote as the only palatable/simple option for the convention delegates.


    Ok that's a good number (none / 0) (#26)
    by marcellus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:27:52 AM EST
    but for those odds you'd have to concede any claim to the popular vote total as being the primary factor as per Maggie Williams.

    Why? That seems to be a non sequitur. (none / 0) (#29)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:38:45 AM EST
    The popular vote is an important measure of popularity and electability, which the SD's must take into account when casting their votes.

    I'm not arguing it can't be 1 factor (none / 0) (#31)
    by marcellus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:50:13 AM EST
    But if it were the sole factor as implied by the calls for "just let everyone vote, dammit!" "disenfrancisement!" then the odds of Clinton winning would be closer to 10%.  (If we took only pledged delegates then it'd be closer to 5% and finally if the SDs take multiple factors into account then only do the odds increase to 25% you quote--4:1 was what I just found online )  

    I was not aware that the discussion of odds ... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:16:35 AM EST
    ... related to anything other than the odds of winning the nomination. But if you want to start figuring out other odds, go ahead -- to me, they don't seem to mean much.

    (Maybe you could start with the odds of Clinton winning in PA, which I currently estimate at 100% ;-)


    I put odds of Pa. at 88% (none / 0) (#46)
    by marcellus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:24:58 AM EST
    I mention the odds to point out the discepancy in Maggie William's memo at the top of the thread and the current "let every vote count" meme... a strict popular vote contest would lower Clinton's overall odds by half to 10%.  TBy letting the contest go on longer and introducing more factors, the odds are increased to 25%

    Sorry I am not following your analysis (none / 0) (#107)
    by Manuel on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:03:34 AM EST
    What are the distinct events and probablilities you are assigning in coming up with these estimates?

    As for betting markets, after the initial lines are established, the odds are determined by the market participants.  It is just a different kind of polling relying on the wisdom of crowds.

    No one knows what the odds are which is why it is a good idea to let the process run its course.

    What were the odds the Giants would win the Superbowl with two minutes to go?


    As a statistician (none / 0) (#81)
    by AF on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:38:20 AM EST
    Wouldn't you say that 7 to 2 against is 22%?

    oh yeah (none / 0) (#89)
    by marcellus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:55:49 AM EST
    I was tricked! I wasn't paying attention!

    Thanks AF, you're correct (none / 0) (#125)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:58:15 AM EST
    It was late, and I miscalculated. It is 2/9, not 2/7. It was not a deliberate trick!

    Well (none / 0) (#8)
    by jtaylorr on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:20:31 AM EST
    of course 10% isn't statistically impossible because 10% is.... 10%.
    I meant that saying Clinton "has no chance to win" is untrue because there's always some chance.

    Yup (5.00 / 7) (#22)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:19:49 AM EST
    calling the candidate I support a LIAR and suggesting that she's trying to DIVIDE the Democratic Party is a sure fire way to get me to climb on the Obama Bandwagon. Strange ideas some people have about how to get the two sides to come together. Add an insult or two and we will all see the light.

    I was just correcting the facts (none / 0) (#24)
    by marcellus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:24:21 AM EST
    The race is not practically tied or less than 1%.

    sure it is (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:06:56 AM EST
    They said the popular vote if you count MI and FL has a difference between the two of around 1%. It does. There are a number of ways to count the popular vote, but that's what you get. And when the primary is over it's very likely Clinton will lead in that popular vote, incl. MI and FL.

    Now for the delegate count, of course there is only a 10% chance she could be ahead in that. Neither can win that of course, we all know that. So the SD's will decide the race either way.

    And remember, no matter what all the SD's say between now and the convention, they can change their minds according to the rules. So to really know, we have to wait until the convention. No matter what everyone says.

    And by the way, the race is statistically tied since the votes are within the margin of statistical errors found in actual voting.


    oh sorry didn't notice the doub (none / 0) (#19)
    by marcellus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:17:03 AM EST
    didn't notice the double negative :)

    I (none / 0) (#51)
    by sas on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:20:06 AM EST
    don't care what the odds are.

    She's n it, and I'm with he.

    When she's out, I'm out.


    Need to re-do (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by sas on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:22:15 AM EST
    My typing is too fast for the computer....

    I don't care what the odds are.

    She's in it,and I'm with her.

    If she's out, I'm out.


    I'm with you, sas (5.00 / 8) (#55)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:29:43 AM EST
    and please don't anyone rush in and threaten my reproductive rights if McCain takes the presidency.  I can easily see the Pelosi dems cakewalking an otherwise liberal but anti-choice Obama nominee to the Court but I cannot imagine them doing the same for a conservative McCain nominee.

    Obama has made it very clear in many ways that Choice is not a priority.  It is a "moral" situation wherein he can see "both sides."  He has nuanced his position into obscurity, much with every other position presented to him.  I can very easily see him restricting reproductive laws back into the stone age ("time out" for grown women, anyone?) in order to get compromises from the republicans.  That is, if the republicans don't laugh in his face.

    I'm supporting Clinton to the very end.  She still has a dog in this race, and she's the best candidate we've had since the first Clinton.  Go, Hillary!


    I'm with you, Kathy, even though (5.00 / 5) (#61)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:01:59 AM EST
    my reproducing days are over.  I'm fortunate to live in a state that has laws that buttress Roe v. Wade, so that if the worst would happen and Roe v. Wade would go, the women who live in my state would still have the right to determine their own reproductive future.

    Unfortunately, the only thing that is allowing women in some states the freedom to make reproductive decisions is Roe v. Wade, and when it goes, so will that freedom.

    I have seen nothing from Obama that suggests this is a fight he is willing to have on behalf of women, and his initial desire to vote to confirm Alito disturbed me greatly.  Yes, he was talked out of it before he cast his vote, but really - what was he thinking?  And if he thought Alito was acceptable, what kind of nominees will he give us as president?  We know that the next justices likely to retire are Stevens and Ginsburg - if their solid pro-choice stance is not replaced, it's over, probably for my children's generation, and the one they will bring into the world.

    There are other issues and concerns that I have about Obama - I sometimes wonder if he wakes up in the morning and asks himself which Obama he feels like being that day, possibly having to check his schedule to see who he is meeting with to get some hints.  Yes, it's Congress which introduces and passes legislation, but it is the president who makes critical appointments to the Cabinet and government agencies and departments where decisions are made that directly affect the lives of Americans.

    MAggie Williams is right - let the people vote.  

    To all the people who support one candidate or another, who want to get bogged down in what this one said or that one said, or what this one meant or that one intended, who fear that a decision will impact one candidate at the expense of another - just stop.  This is about your vote - the right to cast it and the expectation that it will be counted.  This is about precedent that, if allowed to stand for Florida and Michigan, could be affecting you the next time.  It's also about credibility - when Democrats make the argument that it is wrong to work to suppress the vote, to make it harder for people to vote, the disnfranchising of Florida and Michigan voters will come back to haunt us for a long, long time.

    It's easy to look at the short-term, as it seems to me Obama and his surrogates and some at the DNC want to do, but this has long-term consequences that will extend far beyond the immediate outcome of the nominating process.  It's time we all got over ourselves and did the right thing - and that includes people at the DNC and in both campaigns.

    Sorry for the long rant.


    To me (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:00:41 AM EST
    it all boils down to tone.  I don't know, tone is really important.   And up to now I have not seen anything in the tone that I like.  

    I agree also (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:12:26 AM EST
    I don't think Obama is really pro-choice. I just see too many red flags on this issue, too many "presents" too many we need to see both sides. No, we don't. It's either the woman's body and her choice, or it's the states body and not her choice. There's very little room in between. I don't think he's on our side on this one.

    So blackmail over the SCOTUS and the abortion issue won't work. If the Democratic primary is not democratic, then it's not my party and I won't play.


    Here! Here! (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by felizarte on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:48:38 AM EST
    It's Hillary or No way for me! The Door will open for her. The working class in all the remaining primaries will come through for her.

    Popular vote totals (none / 0) (#4)
    by marcellus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:07:59 AM EST
     1. Less than 1% is a misleading estimate of the popular vote total since it counts +300,000 votes for Clinton without Obama's name on the ballot.

     2. Harold Ickes said that the popular vote won't matter.

    A 'will of the people' argument needs to account for these 2 discrepancies.  Namely, is popular vote only one of the deciding factors for superdelegates to consider, or should the loser of the popular vote estimate automatically bow out after the last primary?


    The FL ballot included Obama's name (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Prabhata on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:59:30 AM EST
    And the Obama campaign worked diligently to get the message out in MI to vote against Clinton by voting "uncommitted".  Obama chose to pull his name out of the ballot in MI.  He did it for political reason because he was way behind in MI.  Obama chose to block a re-vote in MI.  Now he must accept the January primary.

    You're mixing up your political reasons (none / 0) (#38)
    by marcellus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:05:06 AM EST
    He did it for political reasons, but to appeal to Iowa not because he was behind in the polls.  In a contested election most polls show an even race for Michigan.  Actually, he mustn't accept the January primary, because the default mode is that they don't count.  

    Although (none / 0) (#6)
    by jtaylorr on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:16:16 AM EST
    it not as simple as looking at the popular vote because that would be totally ignoring caucus states. RCP gives Obama another 110,000 votes in it's estimate of caucus state results.

    Caucus votes are not representative of the will (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Prabhata on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:03:00 AM EST
    of voters.  TX is a perfect example of how caucus are unrepresentative.  Those who work, the base of HRC, cannot take time to go to caucuses. The number of voters in caucuses should not be mixed with primaries because they are apples and oranges.

    So you don't want to have any (none / 0) (#39)
    by marcellus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:07:52 AM EST
    representation for caucus states?  That's not 'will of the people' either

    No, they should be represented ... (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:34:06 AM EST
    ... at the convention, of course. But in a close race like this one, the superdelegates should definitely discount those results when casting their own votes. It would be the height of foolishness for them to do otherwise, considering that their role is to select a nominee who stands the best chance of winning the GE.

    Let me correct this for you... (none / 0) (#67)
    by proseandpromise on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:15:52 AM EST
    "It would be the height of foolishness otherwise, considering IT WOULDN'T BE CONDUCIVE FOR MY CANDIDATES CHANCES TO WIN."  d

    Why can't you see that letting the process (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Manuel on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:14:52 AM EST
    run its course (finish all primaries) and holding revotes in FL and MI helps Obama's legitimacy as a candidate and improves his chances of uniting the party?  I am actually starting to see some signs (minus the revotes) that the Obama campaign sees this.  Why can't his supporters?

    Come back! (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Davidson on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:41:39 AM EST
    Disenfranchisement is anti-democratic.  Period.  I don't care what Clinton or Obama said before.  This is about principle and not shooting ourselves in the foot during the GE.

    Your welcome.

    Oh, and can you please cite when Clinton said what you alleged she did say?  Thank you.

    Citations you requested (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by RickTaylor on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:07:09 AM EST
    Here's a radio interview in which HIllary Clinton said of the Michigan primaries, "Well, you know, It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything."


    And here is a pdf of a document she and all the other candidates signed agreeing not campaign or participate in any of the sanctioned primaries. Whether it was a good idea or not, the states were sanctioned, no candidate protested this at the time. Under the circumstances, I'd say that agreeing not to "participate" in an primary and then trying to get the results counted after it turns out they were in her favor was a violation at least in spirit of her pledge. That's not a reference to her pushing for a revote (which would be good and which I wish she would have pushed for from the beginning)



    Oh! (none / 0) (#14)
    by Davidson on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:44:23 AM EST
    And the DNC rules allow for both MI and FL to be counted and not just in terms of punishing them by halving their delegates but also by including all of them since both states seemed to have fought against moving up the primary, thus, presenting a possible case of "good faith."

    Clear one thing up quick (none / 0) (#15)
    by Davidson on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:46:04 AM EST
    Obviously, the DNC allows for either the pledged delegates being halved or fully seated if an investigation shows both state Democrats acted in good faith against pushing up their primaries.

    The DNC leadership vs the voters (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Prabhata on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:45:05 AM EST
    I'm of the opinion that it was the DNC leadership that decided to disenfranchise the voters of FL and MI and that the voters of those states went out and voted as was required of them to exercise their choice.  The DNC leadership must be put on notice that we the voters from the other states will strike and not vote if FL and MI are not counted. I don't care about who didn't follow what rule.  The individual voters had nothing to do with the choice of when to vote (January, March or June) or how to vote (primary or caucus).  If we all let the leadership of the DNC (I will sign the petition and keep my word) that we will not vote in November for Obama or Clinton if FL and MI January primary votes are not counted, the leadership will change their tune fast.

    A Change of Tune (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by AdrianLesher on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:53:21 AM EST
    The original Hillary Clinton campaign strategy was to rack up enough primary wins by Super Tuesday to drive others from the race. It was only the failure of that strategy that has now forced her to take a stance of  arguing that the natural course of things is to go to the convention.

    Does anyone believe that if Clinton were winning now she wouldn't be using all of her political will to compel her competitors to quit?

    This make her current outrage at being asked to leave somewhat humorous.

    Knowing What Others Would Do (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by NeuralPlasticity on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:18:55 AM EST
    Does anyone believe that if Clinton were winning now she wouldn't be using all of her political will to compel her competitors to quit?

    Yes, I believe that because neither you nor I know what any other person would do under any given circumstances. You think you know what Clinton would do because you have preconceived notions about her, based on your feelings.

    The discussion should be about one's right to vote, not about which candidate you believe will win. Given the complexity of the process, and the role of the superdelegates, I don't think we can reduce the issue to a simple matter of "math".


    Do I know what she would be doing (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:22:19 AM EST
    if things were not the way they are now but were the way they used to be? Of course not. And neither do you or anyone else unless you crystal ball works a whole lot better than mine.

    It's a truism that we see ourselves in others (5.00 / 7) (#40)
    by Prabhata on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:09:04 AM EST
    Hence because Obama demands that HRC quit, you think that HRC would do the same.  I'm 60 years old and I've been around enough to say this is the first time I've seen one campaign pushing to have the other camp quit.  If I'm wrong, I'll stand corrected, but It's not in my memory bank.  It's possible that one campaign might hint at the possibility, but never like Obama and his minions.

    they are finding interesting ways to push back (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:15:40 AM EST
    like Elizabeth Edwards this morning on the Obama network saying a.) healthcare is the most important issue in the campaign and universal health care is the only  answer and b.) Hillarys plan is the only plan that provides universal health care.
    this is not an accident.  these things dont happen by accident.

    Obama is not demanding Hillary quit (none / 0) (#110)
    by RickTaylor on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:21:45 AM EST
    Quite the opposite, he made a public statement that Hillary was entitled to stay in the race as long as she liked.

    It's possible his minions did (minions? that makes him sound like a comic book villain. Heh.) But he's unequivocally and publicly said otherwise (undoubtedly because it was the politically prudent thing to do, but nonetheless he did). Actually, most of the pressure I've seen hasn't been from Obama and his "minions", it's been from pundits and political commentators, and even some politicians. At any rate if anything it has helped Hillary, given the backlash.


    Yes hed did...but (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by nashville on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:47:52 AM EST
    only after some evidence of blowback coming after all of the demands that Clinton drop out in a very close race.  Plus, he said it in a very condescending way. IMHO

    All true, (none / 0) (#133)
    by RickTaylor on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:40:58 PM EST
    and I'm under no illusions that Obama is anything other than an extremely ambitious talented politician. But he did do it, so it's fair enough to so.

    Also, I didn't think he was so much "condescending" as getting in a dig of his own, while on the surface seeming to be completely gracious (complimenting her by saying only a tough campaigner would stay in after losing ten primaries in a row). He did the same thing before, when he was asked to condemn and reject Farakhan, conceding but cleverly getting in a little jab in return subtly suggesting the people asking the question were being silly without saying it. Assuming he's the nominee, I believe I will really enjoy seeing him use that against McCain, even as I have to admit it's not really fair.


    Hillary is a saint... (none / 0) (#65)
    by proseandpromise on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:13:55 AM EST
    so shhh.  Let her defend democracy.

    BTW, what happened the last time we had a president who used "defending democracy" as a smoke screen for their own personal political ambitions?  Oh, that's right.  5 years of unnecessary war.  I can't wait to see what the Clinton administration will give us, and then tell us we're unpatriotic or undemocratic if we stand in opposition.

    None of you are willing to be honest, but you have to know that HIllary has no integrity on this issue.  Her campaign has repeatedly said that many states (and therefore, their voters) "don't matter" and she ran a done-by-Feb.-5th campaign.  


    done-by-Feb.-5th (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:19:58 AM EST
    you know what, you are right.
    and I think all the people who advised her to do that should be run out of DC on a rail and never allowed to work in another political campaign in their miserable lives.
    it was the stupidest thing I have seen in a presidential campaign since Kerry ignored the swift boaters.

    Wow... (none / 0) (#73)
    by proseandpromise on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:23:17 AM EST
    thank you.  This is the firest time a Clinton supporter on here has recognized something I've said on this issue as being true.

    Sorry if I was over the top, this issue really gets me worked up.


    its undeniable (none / 0) (#74)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:27:23 AM EST
    they believed their own spin and press while Obama was quitely building a serious ground operation.
    it was a blunder of monumental proportions.
    I was in Atlanta while much of this was happening and kept reading how "Hillary has more support in the AA community"
    well, that was not what my on the ground experience was telling me.  it was telling me Obama was on fire in that community and I kept saying it and nobody believed me.  

    Shh! (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Davidson on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:32:31 AM EST
    Don't tell anyone that this is not about any individual candidate but about letting the voters help decide the nominee.

    Obviously, the supers will play a deciding factor, but what is so pitifully vile with letting voters have their voices heard when neither candidate can claim the nomination on pledged delegates alone?  That's the entire point of a primary race, for crying out loud.  If Obama is truly the stronger GE candidate, then what's the problem?  He should do quite well against her, right?  If anything, this allows him the opportunity to better his track record in critical GE states (PA).  At the very least, it'll provide him a head start in GE campaigning, grassroots building.

    And you need to check yourself before claiming that Clinton is basically immoral, going so far as to compare her to Bush, when in fact, the comparable analogy would not be Bush since he was against letting every vote count.  Your hysterical contempt of Clinton shouldn't cloud your ability to make a sound argument.


    What's unsound? (none / 0) (#79)
    by proseandpromise on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:36:31 AM EST
    I don't hate Clinton but I hate what she is doing right now.  For her, this IS about a candidate - herself.  So, as I said, hiding personal ambition behind universal principal is not only dishonest, it is immoral.  It is a way of shaming and guilting people into agreeing with and supporting you.  It makes me extremely angry.

    Sounds like (5.00 / 5) (#88)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:55:38 AM EST
    you dislike Clinton and that is ok, we all have opinions but do not be extremely angry today. How do you think we were made to feel on other sites because we don't hate Obama but like Clinton better? Why do you think we are here and not there? Yes, she does have personal ambition, but don't all the candidates do? Aren't they all trying to win and hiding things? Why would Obama tell Rev Wright that he could not be there when he announced his desire to be President? Was it because he knew that there was something to hide? In the end, we, you and me, are not going to have a big say in the final decision by the DNC and thus, we can be happy or sad, but not angry. We are just voters who have become passionate over our own candidate.

    Let me know when... (none / 0) (#98)
    by proseandpromise on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:20:45 AM EST
    Obama claims that Hillary stands in opposition to democracy.  If he does, or has and I just missed it, I will be equally outraged.  It's this kind of argument, not who is making it, that upsets me.

    you have mentioned... (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:02:30 AM EST
    Hillary's 'personal ambitions' several times this diary as if you consider hers to be negative and Obama's to be positive.

    Your judgment lacks all objective assessment and is strictly subjective, partisan and applied unfairly.

    Perhaps you can find something intellectually defensible for an argument because you simply aren't getting it done here.


    Yet another mindreader (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:10:56 AM EST
    Whatever you may think about Hillary's personal motivations, you don't know her. You have no way of knowing what she's thinking.

    This type of attack - calling a candidate immoral and dishonest - used to be perpetrated by rightwingers against Democrats. Now we are doing it to ourselves. How Rove and his minions must be chortling at our gullibility!

    As for me, I don't pretend to know what Obama is thinking or what he's really like. I just know I don't like the way he or his supporters have acted during this election cycle. And frankly, Hillary is winning the spin war on this issue because Obama's position is INDEFENSIBLE from a democratic AND Democratic standpoint.

    If I were an Obama supporter, I'd be mad at him for handing my opponent such an obvious weapon. I wouldn't be calling Clinton names and pretending to read her mind.


    That's pretty much the story of Obama's (none / 0) (#87)
    by allimom99 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:55:29 AM EST
    ENTIRE plitical career. He could barely maneuver his way into one office before he started running for the next. Spare me your sanctimonious ravings about priciple.

    what's unsound? (none / 0) (#97)
    by workingclass artist on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:16:38 AM EST
    is your denial of HRC's hold on the other 2/3 of the democratic base. This base is made up to registered democrats over a broad democratic spectrum and OBAMEDIA continues to denigrate as uneducated, working class women old folks etc... Obama does not impress these voters and his campaign alienates them. Thought his bowling techinique was interesting,it's pretty hard to bowl that low. Was my best laugh of the day. I say that they settle this with a matchup of traditional working class persuits,
    bowling,basketball ( obvious obam advantage ), pool,poker,truck pulls,mud wrestling, baseball, the list could go on. Maybe darts.

    Even anti-HRC types shouldn't be blocking voters (none / 0) (#102)
    by Ellie on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:33:44 AM EST
    What's the logical or moral basis here: you've made up your mind, she should quit?
    I don't hate Clinton but I hate what she is doing right now.  For her, this IS about a candidate - herself.

    Huh?? Look, this mind meld is all very interesting but how did you establish that it's about "herself" (but that, say, Obama's bid for the WH isn't about "himself" nor McCain's bid isn't about "himself".)

    How did you arrive at this astonishing inside poop?


    Either... (none / 0) (#103)
    by proseandpromise on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:49:08 AM EST
    I'm not writing as clearly as I think I am, or you aren't trying to understand.  I'll try to lay this out in a clear, logic 101 type of way, and you can tell me which premise you object to.

    Premise A:  If a politician uses something like "democracy," "patriotism," or "freedom" (especially when this is set up against a candidate who is said to be "un-democratic," "un-patriotic" or "against freedom") to bolster his/her campaign, I find it offensive. .  (I get angry because this kind of argument is intentionally designed to belittle and shame opposition into submission.  I believe this is what has been done by the Bush admin. for years)

    Premise B:  Hillary Clinton is using "democracy" to bolster her campaign, and yesterday said she believed that the Obama campaign didn't want people to vote (they are, then, undemocratic).

    Conclusion:  I am offended.

    See how my complaint isn't that she has "ambition?"  My complaint is that she is masking her ambition.  She doesn't seem to think that "I want to win" is compelling enough, so instead she's going with "He is standing against democracy and I am defending democracy."  As a good example of this same argument in action, I suggested that the following is the same:

    When some people opposed the war (like some people oppose the continuation of the primary) because they thought the war was bad for America and the world at large (like some people believe that an on-going primary battle is bad for America and the Democratic party) those who supported the war misrepresented their arguments (like Hillary speculating about what she thought the "get out now" arguments were about) and argued that people were opposing the war because, secretly, they were un-patriotic (like Hillary saying she thought the real reason for Leheay and others to cut the primary short was because they opposed people voting - i.e.  they oppose democracy or are undemocratic)

    So you are right.  All politicians want to win.  All of them are ambitious.  But some are willing to go places in their pursuit of winning that I find completely offensive.


    OK (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:13:28 AM EST
    So when one side tries to win by keeping people's votes from counting, the other side is supposed to salute humbly and go along with it?  What do you call disenfranchising voters?  I call it undemocratic, whether it's the GOP doing it or Obama and I see no reason not to say so, or for Hillary not to say so.

    And yes, by all means, let's talk about how "some are willing to go places in the pursuit of winning" that are "completely offensive."

    Like smearing a whole gaggle of some of our best Democratic leaders of two generations as racists.  When that started up is when I took my foot off the steps to the Obama train.  It is by far the vilest thing I have ever seen one Democrat do to another in my 60 years, and it is unforgiveable.


    So just to clear this up (5.00 / 4) (#121)
    by blogtopus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:23:32 AM EST
    You find talking about undemocratic behavior offensive, but not the perpetration of it?

    It is undeniable that people in FL and MI are not having their voices hear, and it is also undeniable that the Obama campaign was the missing link needed to ensure those voices were heard; if you contest that basic fact then I'm sure BTD would have a few posts to show you.

    Obama's campaign, if not the man himself, is trying his hardest to make sure that FL and MI are not seated unless they are seated for him. If you want to say Hillary would do the same thing if the roles were reversed, then go ahead, but the fact is the roles aren't reversed and Obama is on the wrong side of this Democratic Republic.


    Even paranoids can have enemies (none / 0) (#126)
    by badger on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:01:55 PM EST
    there really are people who hate America, and even self-serving politicians can be on the side of democracy - or opposing it.

    The fact is you can make all of the "let people vote" arguments without any reference to candidates. You can't make the "but that would be unfair to Obama" arguments without mentioning Obama.

    Getting your opponents kicked off the ballot, getting opponents divorce papers unsealed (twice), or blocking counting the votes of millions of voters are all anti-democratic IMO, and the last one is the worst. It sounds like a candidate who'll do anything to win.


    130 Out of 3,100 Cast (5.00 / 10) (#18)
    by bob h on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:16:34 AM EST
    is about 4%, or the equivalent of a 33-30 football game at the end of the third quarter.  The team with 33 points has no right to demand the concession of the loser because further effort will tire him out for the next game.

    Nor can they ask for points scored earlier ... (5.00 / 7) (#28)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:31:55 AM EST
    ... by their opponent to be taken off the scoreboard because the game is still too close to call!

    Why are people (5.00 / 11) (#27)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:31:45 AM EST
    that are so sure they can't lose doing their level best to end the contest now? If she can't win, then what's your problem? Tearing the party apart? The DNC and the Democratic Party Leadership has all ready accomplished that feat with their mishandling and sheer stupidity about FL and MI.

    And please spare us the "roolz" rant. There are more than "one" darn rule and a competent party would have been able to quell this impasse long ago.

    And please spare us, "but, but Clinton" because this problem is about "voters" not "candidates" and Democrats now behaving no better than the disenfranchising Republicans they pretend to abhor.

    Being willing to ignore the votes of over 2 million voters from these two states seems to me not only to be undemocratic it also appears to be stupid. Why on earth would any party want to anger two states?  

    Because this is where (none / 0) (#60)
    by Salt on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:58:40 AM EST
    she can win the nomination, wide margins, big states and the big MO, and Fla and Mich will need to be counted prior to a nominee being selected or the Party loses all creditability with a Base that will swing or some large chunk that will swing if they believe the Race was rigged for Obama which is already a prevailing thought and it will not take much more to tilt that anger further.  Anyway enough will swing to lose for example my District and open seat lost by only a 1,000 or so votes in 2006 and a white female a little older than Obama but the same flaws the extremist Dems have pinned on their view of Hillary.  

    Clinton herself... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by BlacknBlue on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:54:43 AM EST
    Clinton herself said this would be over by Super Tuesday. Obama's camp is simply agreeing with the Senator.

    Do you have a cite for this? (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by ChrisO on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:46:54 AM EST
    When did she say it would be over by Super Tuesday?

    This was Terry McAuliffe's plan (none / 0) (#59)
    by marcellus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:49:23 AM EST
    And as the Clinton campaign strategy it
    s pretty well accepted to be true.  Hillary herself said it...on George Stephonopolous, I think.

    Terry wasn't in charge of Hillary's campaign. (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Angel on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:17:45 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton on Dec. 30, 2007 (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by marcellus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:00:47 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton: "...I have a campaign that is poised and ready for the long term.  We are competing everywhere through Feb. 5.  We have staff in many states. We have built organizations in many states.  You know George, you and I went through an experience in 1992 where Bill Clinton didn't win anything until Georgia.  He came in second time and time again in a much less volatile [and much less compressed] environment.  So from my perspective you get up everyday and you get out there an make your case and you reach as many people as possible.  That's what I intend to do, so I'm in it for the long run.  It's not a very long run, it'll be over by Feb. 5"

    This primary season was created with a compressed schedule for a frontrunner.  'Let every vote count!' & 'caucuses are undemocratic!' is a revisionist history of the process of selecting a nominee for President.


    John Edwards dropped out. (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:14:54 AM EST
    Clearly she didn't count on that.

    But now that the race isn't over by Super Tuesday, and no one can get enough superdelegates to win, every vote should count.

    She isn't revising history, she's dealing with the facts as they are right now.


    It was done to confuse Obama (none / 0) (#43)
    by Prabhata on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:16:51 AM EST

    If FL and MI had counted (none / 0) (#53)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:25:17 AM EST
    in place, then Obama would have been out before Super Tuesday.

    On Super Tuesdsay (none / 0) (#72)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:22:17 AM EST
    For FL and MI to count they would of voted on Super Tuesday or after.

    This the change Obama told supporters to become? (5.00 / 19) (#41)
    by Ellie on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:11:12 AM EST
    Pushy, bean counting concern trolls trying to sow division and discontent while shifting the goalposts?

    Doing Obama's and team Obama's dirty work while the candidate stood off to the side avoiding saying what he meant and meaning what he said?

    Getting all in a bunch because one standard is applied transparently to both candidates?

    This doesn't seem new at all. I've waited for Obama to show leadership, guts and honesty. If those qualities haven't affirmatively been on display by now, they ain't comin'.

    Simply put, HRC has shown more honesty, more guts and more fight in her.

    Calling her names, repeating empty insults or pleading for her to quit doesn't equal "leadership" from Obama personally.

    Nor does having pushy, persistent followers count for anything. Look, it's fabulous that people feel so attached to him (for whatever reason) but I'm not voting for the followers and ESPECIALLY not voting when they try obnoxiously transparent desperate sales pitches (eg, Oh, so you're going to let McCain win, huh?)

    Once more with feeling: if HRC has no chance, this desperation is misplaced. If she does have a chance, this desperation is insulting beyond articulation.

    Well said! (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:21:53 AM EST
    If .. (5.00 / 12) (#44)
    by Rainsong on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:17:50 AM EST
    If I was Super-Delegate For A Day, and didn't have any personal or political career stake in the outcome, and had no clear preference for either candidate, then I would look at 2 things (a) electability and (b) ability to do the job.

    I would not look at delegate numbers too closely, they are skewed and biased in various ways, and for reasons that have nothing to do with either popularity or electability of a candidate.

    Electability is state-dependent and demographic-dependent.

    I would exclude most caucus states as being meaningless and unreliable this year, more so than usual. They disenfranchise too many demographics and are designed to be informal at the best of times anyway, with inadequate voter records, inadequate (or absent) voter elegibility checks etc, the list goes on.

    Caucuses are mainly designed for the Party faithful who, unfortunately, through no fault of their own, live in small and/or red states. My heart goes out to them, it must be demoralising to be lonely blues doomed to be on losing side by reason of zip-code, so they get lots of extra delegates and butts on seats at the convention.

    Then to top it off, you have some very creative caucus states like Nevada, practising the "Las Vegas Roolz" of caucusing to allocate delegates. In the Nevada State Party Rules, the caucus chair can shuffle a deck of cards, and one volunteer rep for each candidate cuts the deck and the highest card wins. Its fair, in the roolz chuckle How about best out of 3? Or a runoff on a blackjack table for double-or-nothing?

    In theory, I dont have a problem with it, as long as it stays in Nevada. But when it comes to looking at the national delegate math, or even national popular vote, I would exclude it entirely. Stick to surveys from something with reliable numbers, like SUSA.

    So electability being state & demographic dependent, need to look at which states, and who inside those states is voting, and are they voting Dem downticket as well, and which campaign messages are working, and with which demographics.

    As of today, which is probably unfair as its still too far out from the GE, with several key primaries still to run their ocurse - but I would say the trends suggest that Hillary's dem base is far more solid in most of the key states, and the key demographics in those states.

    Obama's, apart from the A-A vote, is too soft and fickle and unreliable, based on historical trends in those population groups, and not enough downticket Dem flow-ons.

    On the capability side, thats much simpler -
    Clinton wins - no-brainer - just use her wikipedia biography as a proxy resume, stacked against Obama's.

    She dates back a long way with the Party, although being on McGovern's campaign staff, or a Dem Party lawyer on the Watergate team etc may be seen in a different light in 2008. But she even has longer legal career experience with an impressive number of positive achievements, including a lot of pro bono work in social welfare areas. Ohhh.. sorry forgot, she's a woman, that means her career resume doesn't count.

    In Obama's much shorter resume, and much thinner public office record, he's managed to rack up a pretty large number of fuzzy question-marks in such a short period of time, (if not outright firm negatives), with very few solid positives that can be validated, to balance it up.

    But then I don't count great oratories, or MSM love-ins either - other super-dels might, but I personally wouldn't bet a Dem WH on that basis.

    Sorry Obama-supporters, no can do - my superdel-for-a-day vote goes to Clinton, she may be a weak candidate with a lot of baggage, but if the Party got its act together for once, and put effort into it in the GE, then I think that can be managed.  

    But, I would prefer to wait to see how the remaining primaries play out, in Penn & Indiana especially.

    We can only hope the actual superdelegates ... (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:38:33 AM EST
     ... will approach their responsibilities as systematically as you would.

    Well, (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by magisterludi on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:13:10 AM EST
    Sort of OT, but Elizabeth Edwards was on Scarborough a few minutes ago. It didn't sound as if they would endorse either candidate.

    She discounted the reports she found O arrogant. she said she found him "charming".

    The big news was that she said Hill's healthcare plan is better than O's, especially in light of cost reduction. Scarborough is touting this as an EE tacit endorsement. Interesting.

    According to (5.00 / 6) (#54)
    by sas on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:28:32 AM EST
    Survey USA, who I trust

    Clinton up by 9 in Indiana

    Clinton up by 12 in PA

    Clinton down in NC by about 12

    Clinton up in Kentucky by 29

    Clinton up in W Va by about 27

    no idea about SD, Ore, Mont,Ouerto Rico


    This of course (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:14:20 AM EST
    is what Obama surrogates are concerned about...the voting ending up with a high percentage of significant losses...or as David Brooks suggested, Hillary ending the voting strong.

    The political calculation is that a strong Hillary Clinton is a diminished Barack Obama.

    The political calculation is that including MI and FL in the process likewise contributes to Hillary's strength and Obama's weakness.

    One has to wonder what the ultimate cost is that will be paid by the winner of the nomination process if it requires insult to a considerable portion of Democrats to achieve.


    it's amazing (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:43:38 AM EST
    how just noticing that the vote is kind of close and making a statement to let the rest of the voters have their say makes the Obama supporters sooo uncomfortable. Calm down folks. Let the voters decide. Just sit back and let democracy happen.

    the popular vote and what the SD's should consider (5.00 / 5) (#86)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:55:26 AM EST
    Here is an interesting comment on the topic of the current delegate count and how it happened. I actually noticed it here first.

    Below is the comment. Apologies if this has already been referenced. It's quite an interesting take on the Obama strategy and how they gamed the system to get out ahead in a way that was not designed for. And it lays out why the SD's should take this into account.

    The Obama campaign undoubtedly gamed the nominating process better than the Clinton campaign. They figured out that they could get a lead in pledged delegates by winning Republican and GOP votes in small Red States. But it is pretty clear that the system wasn't actually designed to produce a Democratic nominee who lacks a majority of actual Democratic votes, nor a candidate for November who does well mainly in states the Dems will lose in the fall while doing poorly in states the Dems have to have to win.

    I'm a game designer. It is how I make my living (such as it is). And thus I'm speaking professionally when I say that any complicated set of rules can be broken by those seeking to exploit ambiguities and loopholes over the intent of the designer. In my field we call them "rules lawyers" and when they "break the system" we issue changes to the rules (errata) to force them back to playing according to our intent.
    The Dem nominating process was a very poorly designed set of rules (probably because there was no single designer) and the Obama camp broke the system. Well, good for them, but it places the Super Delegates in the roll of the Designer: they can in effect say, "Sorry, it wasn't our intent that the system be gamed in that way so that we have a candidate a majority of actual Democrats rejected, and moreover who has the lesser chance in November."

    And just as I have the authority to issue such changes at any time to my own designs, the Supers have the authority to issue their own "errata" on the campaign by voting for Hillary over Obama. And it is hypocritical for the Obama camp to complain about that: it is, after all, in the rules (the same set of rules the Obama camp swears by) that they can do so.

    Interesting article but. . . (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by RickTaylor on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:57:34 AM EST
    Obama did not break the system, or somehow engineer what happened.

    Obama did not somehow make the Florida and Michigan legislatures move their primaries before the DNC approved dates. He did not engineer or select the punishment the committee placed on those two states. He was not responsible for the two states continuing to be defiant. None of this was anything he engineered.

    Moreover, all the candidates at the time agreed to the penalties. No one protested. In fact they all did the opposite; at the DNC's request they all signed a pledge not to campaign or participate in primaries that violated the occurring before the DNC approved times. Hillary Clinton went so far as to remark during a radio interview of Michigan that "Well, you know, It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything." Now maybe this wasn't right or wise, but Obama was not somehow gaming the system when Hillary Clinton signed the pledge and along with all the other candidates and chose for whatever reason along with all the other candidates not to contest the DNC decision.

    So it's not Obama's campaign that is gaming the system, it is Clinton's. How else can one describe agreeing to one set of rules before an outcome has occurred, and then violating one's original agreement and seeking to enforce a different set of rules after the an outcome is determined where a different set of rules would have benefited one had they been in place?

    Now I'm not referring here to Hillary's efforts to push for a revote in the states. I agree a revote would be the best outcome, and I'd have a great deal more sympathy for her position had she pushed for this early on instead of waiting until the end. But she originally pushed for and still pushes for seating the delegates selected in contests the rules declare void in which she agreed not to participate and which she said wouldn't count.

    Now I can understand why people would be unhappy with the rules in this case; I think the DNC penalties were draconian. But it was Clinton who agreed to the rules in advance along with all the other parties and who sought and is seeking to change them after the event because a different set of rules would have helped her had they been in place. This is the very essence of gaming the system, and Clinton's campaign is doing it, not Obama's campaign.


    of course he engineered this (5.00 / 4) (#113)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:39:02 AM EST
    and that's OK. He and his team are great at what they do. They saw a way to win in a system where he could never win with democrats, with the popular vote (I think, but time will tell), and on the issues as they've even admitted. I don't blame him for doing this. It's quite brilliant in fact.

    This commentator (Jsilverheels is his username over at TomWatson) just noticed that they gamed the system in a clever way and made the analogy of how gamers sometimes do that in a similar way by finding a way to win that was not intended by the game designers. In the game world, when that is noticed, the rules are changed to close that unintended way of winning, that loophole. This commenter is just saying, the SD's are like the game designers and their job is to notice this sort of thing and take that into account. That's the rules.

    I'm sure Obama supporters won't have a problem if the SD's follow the rules and make such a correction since they like the rules so much. Snark.


    I don't get it? (none / 0) (#122)
    by RickTaylor on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:27:47 AM EST
    How did Obama game the system? I literally don't see it, what was the unintended way of winning? Seems to me that went and campaigned hard and won more votes and more states than anyone predicted; that's the intended way of winning.

    And no, I won't have any problem if Hillary wins on superdelegates, as that is part of the rules. Or if I do have trouble, I'll call for the rules to be changed in future elections, but still honor the results in this one. On the other hand, If Hillary wins by counting the delegates from primaries she agreed not to participate in, stated would not count, and in one case ran virtually unopposed as a result, well I'd still support her because we need a Democrat in the white house and she'd make a great President, but that would be gaming the system.


    Caucuses (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:34:45 PM EST
    He invested a lot of resources in a lot of states that are usually not that contested and 1) had rarely, if ever, held caucuses before and 2) had moved up their elections (which contibuted to 1).  Few thought these states would matter and would have small turnout regardless.  He, intelligently, took advantage of this to rack up big (by percentage) wins and many delegates.  

    That's within the rules, certainly, but it exposes a fundamental flaw in the system where wins in relatively small states with relatively few people voting end up "mattering" more than places like California and New York.


    Ahhhhhh. Interesting. (none / 0) (#128)
    by RickTaylor on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:20:40 PM EST
    This must be what people mean when they talk about Obama running a great "ground game."

    Another from Jay Cost.. (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Rainsong on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:16:18 AM EST

    More for the real math junkies on the Dem delegate allocations, by Jay Cost and how they can be gamed at:

    Dem Horse Race stats

    My theory is that, the skewing of the bias towards the little reds, and even how individual state Parties also skew delegates in odd ways, eg towards county/district levels based on how they voted last time etc -- is no big conspiracy or  design.  

    It was just simply a "reward" for loyalty mechanism, ie give them larger batch of delegates or free tickets to Denver. This year I understand that the back-end primary states are getting extra delegates, as a reward for going late in the season.

    If some of the states received only a "fair share" relative to the big states, then Wyoming, Utah etc, would be lucky to get one lonely person at the back of the convention hall, and being proportional that one person would be split maybe 55/45 <grin>. They need to be big enough delegations to give an audible 'rah' for their state.

    But they weren't meant to be counted so heavily in the nomination, as they usually came later in the primary calendar when a clear front-runner had already emerged.

    Dems in Wyoming & similar - are aware that their state is not important in the GE, but hey? getting a free ticket to sit at the Denver Convention and seeing all the famous "elders"?

    For these states, because the nomination is usually all but over, the competition at caucusing is more in competing to be one of those delegates, and get one of the plane tickets to Denver. Hence the long caucus and re-caucusing processes, you have to be a very keen partisan, to go through all that, and most years it doesn't matter which candidate you are pledged to. Thats why I dont even have a problem with Nevada's creative "Las Vegas rules" with the card cuts, as it was designed for the benefit of delegate selection - not the candidates.  

    The 'magic number' threshold, seemed to be set high enough to offset all these biases - until this year anyway. Thats why the DNC rules are that anything less than the 'magic number' is meaningless.

    But after reading Jay Costs analysis above, I saw how it could be gamed, and coupled with re-setting the calendar in a specific order or "roll-call of the states" - you can give bumps or an advtange to candidates in media momentum.

    The problem-child states were Michigan and Florida - I suspect it was set up to somehow force the exclusion of Michigan and Florida, even from the Super-Tuesday lottery barrel.

    They would have given Hillary a momentum bump even if they had gone by the rules in Super-Tues. Those two states had to be kept "out of play" for as long as possible.

    A string of small caucus states gave Obama the expected momentum, which presumably would then help him through Ohio and Texas, he was even polled to win Texas. But it didn't go according to plan.  Hillary slam-dunked Ohio, and Texas was pretty cool too :)

    And now I read that Texas State Party rules have  State Super-delegates? Heheh
    Who are free to vote, like the national ones, and they can outweigh the caucus-derived delegates?

    So at the Texas State Convention, those "projected" caucus delegates Obama won, can theoretically be wiped by the state party convention superdelegates?  I honestly dont know whether to laugh or cry :)


    Fast forward to November (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by dianem on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:32:54 AM EST
    The Democratic candidate is 1% behind in the vote count and 5% behind in projected electoral delegates needed to win the election. Do we call off the election and just give it to the Republicans?

    of course they'll say the dem should pull out (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:29:56 AM EST
    if those were the numbers. Otherwise they'd be hypocrites. And I'm sure they'd never be that way. Snark.

    If Obama is the one.... (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by LCaution on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:20:04 PM EST
    This seems kind of elementary to me, but if Obama is "The One", the most popular, the choice of the majority, why don't people want to let him rack up more wins (delegates & the popular vote) in the remaining primaries?

    After all, they would consolidate his position as the front-runner, even if he still lacked the requisite delegate votes.

    The only reason, explain to me if I am wrong, for wanting Hillary to get out now is that Obama and his supporters are afraid that he won't rack up lots more votes & delegates. But if he can't strengthen his lead against another Democrat, then perhaps that will say something about his strength against McCain.

    And, BTW, McCain, unfortunately, was the one Rep. candidate I did not want Hillary or Obama running against.  I rather suspect that Edwards would have done better against McCain than either of those two.

    Jeralyn, apparently you can travel into the future (none / 0) (#2)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:48:40 AM EST
    ... since you posted this on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:17:00 AM EST. So, can you travel a bit farther forward and tell us how this election will pan out?

    Actually, it's very disputable. (none / 0) (#12)
    by DA in LA on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:40:24 AM EST
    Not 1%, it's 2.5%.  It's called math.  I learned it in grammar school.  Someone on the Clinton campaign should give it a shot.

    nope, 1%, sorry (none / 0) (#69)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:19:26 AM EST
    you might look into your math skills again. The popular vote includes MI and FL and does not include caucuses. That's how you do it. And that adds up to around a 1% difference. And after the rest of the states, Clinton will lead in that number.

    Making up numbers (none / 0) (#76)
    by marcellus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:30:25 AM EST
    is a terrible way to win an argument.  But go ahead and try, superdelegates have access to data and can read.

    Indeed. n/t (none / 0) (#96)
    by Faust on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:16:03 AM EST
    If Hillary had this locked up like McCain (none / 0) (#62)
    by lilybart on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:02:01 AM EST
    there would be no push to let everyone vote.

    As soon as enough delegates are secured in the early primaries to put a candidate over the number needed, the rest of the voters might as well stay home.

    So, this is a bogus arguement.

    GIve me a call when that actually happens (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:32:25 AM EST
    on the Democratic side.

    The race should keep going... (none / 0) (#80)
    by proseandpromise on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:38:01 AM EST
    but she SHOULDN'T act like she is fighting on behalf of democracy and her opponent is opposing democracy.  That is just dishonest.  She should just say, "I'm still in this thing, I can still win, we're going to keep going, and we're going to win the nomination!"  I could get behind that.   But don't pretend this is about some higher ideal.  

    asking a politician to not (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:42:10 AM EST
    "pretend this is about some higher ideal" is like asking a lion to be a vegetarian.

    If either of these candidates had won (5.00 / 6) (#84)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:43:46 AM EST
    the number of pledged delegates necessary to secure the nomination, the other one would have conceded.

    The reality is that neither has enough pledged delegates, and there are 10 contests left, which, barring some sort of cataclysmic event, will not secure for either candidate the delegates to put him or her over the magic number.

    In other words, it's still a race.  Use whatever sports analogy you want - it's the third quarter and the score is 33-30, it's the seventh inning and the score is 7-6.  In sports, the team that is behind does not just walk off the field with more game ahead - they keep playing until the last second ticks off the clock, or the last out is made.

    It may be hard for you to believe, but I think the people who have yet to vote are pretty excited and energized about voting - look at the voter registration numbers if you need proof of that - and having a say in the outcome.  How is that a bad thing?  As far as I'm concerned, if there is any damage to the party, it is being done by people who want to stop a process there is no reason to end now.

    As near as I can tell, the ones with the bogus arguments are those who want to make those arguments based on scenarios that do not represent reality; try dealing with what is, and not what your crystal ball tells you would be happening on the basis of a completely different fact pattern.


    The only error... (none / 0) (#118)
    by Josmt on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:13:04 AM EST
    ...it's your analogy doesn't make sense with these primaries, since neither candidate has locked in the nomination.

    Even if she got out of the race (none / 0) (#114)
    by Jgarza on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:39:44 AM EST
    people would still get to vote.  It would be something like Florida, and since the results of that contest are held with such high esteem by team Clinton, this point just doesn't seem valid.

    Did you hear the actual interview? (none / 0) (#123)
    by blogtopus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:46:06 AM EST
    That comment she made was in the same tone as one would say 'oh, OBVIOUSLY that worked out GREAT' with sarcasm and frustration.

    I was looking for the recording of it, someone posted it at TL a few days ago. She sounds angry about the votes not counting, not supportive of it.

    I guess you'd have to hear it to believe it, but it's there.

    Here's the link to the whole thing. (none / 0) (#130)
    by RickTaylor on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:19:23 PM EST
    Everyone can make up their own mind.



    Plus it's worth listening to the interview (none / 0) (#131)
    by RickTaylor on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:20:49 PM EST
    for its own sake.

    I listened to the whole passage in context (none / 0) (#132)
    by RickTaylor on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:47:09 PM EST
    and I certainly didn't hear what you heard. She was speaking in a matter of fact manner; there was no indication she didn't mean it. Now she did lay some warnings about how we had to be sensitive to the concerns of Michigan and not write them off, and that's why she didn't remove herself from the ballot, but her position was not ambiguous; she said in no uncertain terms of course the results of that election wouldn't count. But everyone can listen to the whole thing and make up their own mind.

    TRUTH TRUTH TRUTH (none / 0) (#129)
    by OhioBuckeye on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:59:22 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton and her campaign could care less about allowing the vote to continue, that is if she were leading the delegate count.  Hillary Clinton signed the same agreements that the other canidates signed as it pertained to allowing Michigan and Florida's delegates to be seated.  If she were leading, we would not be having this conversation.  If she truly believed that every vote should count, why did she sign the agreement not to let MI and FL be seated?  

    The truth is, Clinton was so confident that she would have this contest sewn up on Super Tuesday.  She never planned for the contest to go past that date and that my friends is arrogance.  Moreover, financially, she has not ran her campaign well.  So if I am to believe the hype that she is more experienced, then why is she behind in delegates and why has her campaign suffered financially?  

    Yes Obama is out spending her to win but that is the name of the game.  Obama has run his campaign much better than hers.  She has been playing catch up throughout this process when if I am to believe the rhetoric, she is the "incumbant".  I am a little worried about her being the nominee and in charge of our governments budget because she has not done such a great job of managing.

    I will vote for her in the general election should she be the nominee but she should be a little humble because with her 36 years of experience, the newby to the block should not have been able to make her work so hard or look so bad and that is the truth of this primary season.  

    Say what you want to about Obama, his camp has run a tighter ship, anticipated the votes better and simply made the Clinton camp look bad.  Experienced or not, right now I am more comfortable with him at the helm and it has nothing to do with sexism.  I would trust Nancy Pelosi over Clinton.