Contempt For The Voters And Their Votes

Jonathan Alter tops himself with this one, Popular Vote Poison. Alter's premise is that it is "pernicious" to care about who the voters actually voted for:

While [Clinton] knows that the nomination is determined by delegates, Hillary insists on saying at every opportunity that she is winning the popular vote. And she has now taken to touting the new HBO movie "Recount," which chronicles the Florida fiasco of eight years ago. Everyone can agree that the primary calendar needs reform. But popular-vote pandering is poison for Democrats. . ..


(Emphasis supplied.) "Popular vote pandering?" So it is the Media vs. the Voters yet again. JUST LIKE IN 2000! It so happens that I believe that Barack Obama is leading in the popular vote by about 110,000 votes because I believe Michigan uncommitted voters were overwhelmingly Obama voters. I also count the caucus votes where there were no primaries (thus excluding Texas and Washington caucus results.) But it is breathtaking how like in 2000, the Media has no qualms in demonstrating its blatant contempt for voters. Indeed, Alter inadevertently makes the point of why "Recount" will so resonate - the Media has not changed - they still hate the voters.

Oh, and about Michigan and Florida, count the votes!

Speaking for me only.

Comments closed

< Obama Courts Jewish Vote in Florida | The Popular Vote And The Will Of the People: It's Not An Electability Argument >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • This year, the nomination (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by lilburro on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:23:50 AM EST
    is determined by SUPERdelegates.  Pledged delegates alone will get neither candidate either of the two magic numbers (w or w/o MI/FL, I mean).  And since Superdelegates can vote on whatever criteria they may... Alter is just wrong.  And obviously sounds terrible.

    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:25:49 AM EST
    But that is a different point.

    I was struck by the notion that counting the votes was pernicious.

    I could have written about the other silliness in Alter's article, but the language at the top was so astounding that I focused on that.


    Apparently it's always pernicious (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by lilburro on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:35:39 AM EST
    That pundits are now saying her bringing up the popular vote will hurt the party, is sort of astounding.  Popular vote issues didn't matter to them in 2000.  And to everyone else, mainstream dissent and anger about the election just dribbled away (in part because of the media).  I don't think the party (the average member, that is) is "scarred by the experience of 2000, when Al Gore received 500,000 more popular votes than George W. Bush but lost the presidency," as Alter says.

    Apparently when you win the popular vote (which Alter admits is a possibility!), you're just supposed to shut up about it.  Duh Hillary.

    "Given that more than 35 million voters took part in the Democratic primaries and caucuses, the math games on both sides look awfully silly. Everyone should agree to call it a tie."  Yeah, see if that works, Alter.


    Exactly like in 2000 (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:41:59 AM EST
    Bringing up the popular vote in 2000 was an evil according to the Media.

    that is why I wrote that Alter was inadvertently making the HBO movie Recount very relevant yet again.


    Recount (HBO) (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Kathy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:32:23 AM EST
    will resonate much more than anyone is predicting.  This is a holiday.  Folks will be watching and talking about it.  Remember what Tina Fey did?

    Well, since the party (none / 0) (#61)
    by lilburro on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:47:04 AM EST
    numbly went along in 2000, I'm sure it will numbly go along again.

    Despite the fact that Obama said at the Faith debate/conversation, "I do think he [Gore] won, BTW"...


    I dont think (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:48:50 AM EST
    they are numbly going along.  I think they are actively participating.

    voters scarred by 2000 "(s)election" (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by noholib on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:02:18 AM EST
    Dear Liburro, Thanks for providing us with another gem today, quoting:
    I don't think the party (the average member, that is) is "scarred by the experience of 2000, when Al Gore received 500,000 more popular votes than George W. Bush but lost the presidency," as Alter says.

    Well, some of us voters, long-time Democrats, are very scarred by the experience.  Some of us think the Supreme Court pulled off a judicial silent coup in 2000.  That was the root of so much of the evil that has happened since.


    I certainly bear the scars (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:07:09 AM EST
    It's not "bringing up" the PV (none / 0) (#63)
    by Laureola on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:48:23 AM EST
    It's manipulating it.

    It's Hillary's count (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:53:27 AM EST
    Tthe objection is Hillary is arguing for Hillary.

    Thus, the argument from you and Alter is basically WWTBQ.

    This is very 2000, as the Media argued Why Want Gore Quit.

    Thanks again for making the parallel very stark.


    How Clinton supporters feel (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by lilburro on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:03:00 AM EST
    depends on whether they are respected in the process.  The feeling of being robbed is going to happen no matter what.  Also, when the final shoe drops, she may actually be ahead by just about every pop vote count.  Even Alter admits that, with an insult to PR, of course.  

    Do Obama supporters (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by cawaltz on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:20:32 AM EST
    have some quota or insult a demographic a day plan? It sure seems like it to me. They have insulted WV and KY and written them off as racist. Insisted that MI and Florida don't count. Basically said their "new" coalition doesn't need white working class or LatinasLatinos and now they are going to slight Puerto Ricans. I swear it is like they are determined to make sure the Obamacamp offends and alienates as many as possible.

    Assumption may apply to some (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:28:01 AM EST
    but I sure don't get the sense Clinton supporters are judging every step of this process on whether or not they were respected.

    Alter is trying to, again, make Clinton look like a "do anything, say anything to win" politician who can't be trusted. If the numbers were reversed and Hillary was in the lead on delegates and Obama in popular votes, the argument would be reversed.

    They do what they have to in order to convince the people to follow behind them and the support the candidate THEY want, and they believe the people won't notice. They get away with it.


    Um (none / 0) (#111)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:07:19 AM EST
    Actually, RCP uses her count in one if it scenarios.

    So you are worng.

    I happen to disgaree with her count.

    But she gets to argue her case, not me. Not you and defintiely not Jon alter.


    counts (none / 0) (#155)
    by Teo1234 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:30:20 AM EST
    I think this all goes back, again, to the process and the need to reform the process. I think it's great that a nominee will emerge in June. The country has received a dose of Democratic politics for essentially six months. And, the country has not really heard much from McCain during that time.

    But, it's unfortunate that the party could not establish a proper way of counting votes. For example, as one poster noted, Iowa doesn't release its popular vote total. It seems fair to expect it to do so. Washington has a binding caucus, but also a non-binding primary. WTF?  

    So, Hillary is free to waltz around and claim that she's winning the popular vote. But, doing so is certainly raising more questions than it's answering. It all goes back to her campaign style. It's very lawyerly (I say that as a practicing lawyer) and, well, not very politically astute.


    In June? (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by pie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:33:06 AM EST
    There's absolutely no guarantee of that.

    It would be better, frankly, for this to go to the convention at this point.


    And I disagree with your count. (none / 0) (#171)
    by alexei on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:37:50 AM EST
    But, not how you present your arguments.  They are pretty much objective except for the uncommitted going to Obama (but at least you do preface with I think).

    Thanks for the commentary.  OT - are you going to do an updated post on PR?


    No it isn't (none / 0) (#156)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:30:49 AM EST
    This is not like 2000 whatsoever.  

    Even if Florida is seated as-is and even if Michigan is seated as-is with Obama getting none of the uncommitted delegates, Hillary would STILL be behind in the delegate.  

    Hillary framing the argument that this is all about the popular vote, a metric that has no official value.  She is doing this to convince superdelegates  that she should be the nominee.  

    The only way 2000 could be comparable would be if Gore argued that since he received more votes nationally he should win Florida as well.  Of course we would all have realized that was a silly argument.  But Gore didn't have an extrademocratic  entity such as the superdelegates to convince.

    This race is over if it weren't for the superdelegates.  


    Yes it is. (none / 0) (#179)
    by alexei on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:45:52 AM EST
    Clinton used the Fl Supremes argument.  In a nutshell: rules don't trump voters, as long as the voters intent is apparent, you count those votes (that is also why the MI uncommitted can't be given to Obama - you can't discern their intent as to whom they were voting for), and the voters did nothing wrong or illegal - they just voted.

    It continues to amaze me how "Democrats" can be arguing that it is ok to disenfranchise voters.  I don't give a d**n if the elected officials in those states "broke the rules".  The states have been punished and the voters have too; no money for the state and local Parties, no money for the state and the voters didn't get to see the candidates in this historic election.  Stop the abuse and Count the Votes.


    Like I said (none / 0) (#195)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:53:40 AM EST
    I'm all for counting all the votes as-is.  As long as we eliminate the superdelegates.  If we are making an argument for Democracy then let's make sure we do it properly.

    Sound good to you?


    If that's his argument (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by cawaltz on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:55:29 AM EST
    It's ironic that he's arguing toward the end that each voter in Florida and Michigan only counts as half a vote in order to give Obama the popular vote total lead.

    I wouldn't be surprised though. One thing I have learned is that Obama's camp seems to believe that the end justifies ANY means.


    Hillary Hatred (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by madamab on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:10:01 AM EST
    is a terrible thing.

    If she does it, it's bad.

    End of story.


    How can you count (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by talex on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:58:43 AM EST
    count 'estimates' of caucuses? How can you count 'estimates' that are not official counts? And whose estimate do you use? Obama's? Kos'? Chris Bowers'? Joe Blow's? The bias MSM's?

    Sorry but estimates should not count and they are nothing more that fabricated spin. If a state does not provide official counts it is because the totals would be so embarrassingly low and serve to point out just how undemocratic and exclusionary caucuses are.

    When we start including voting estimates in determining a winner in any category of a political election we are entering dangerous waters. Where would it stop?

    As for Michigan that too is a guessing game. If a candidate is dumb enough to take his name off the ballot then he deserves no votes at all. You can't run if you don't run for chrissake.

    Many states has a 2-3-4 percentage of non-committed voters. So if you open the door with Michigan then what do you do with the other states? Where does it stop?

    I'm kind of surprised that for someone who sees that the Democrats nomination process has to change because of it's many faults that you would add to the chaos by counting gueestimates with two categories of voters.


    that's what Hillary is saying! (none / 0) (#184)
    by Josey on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:48:54 AM EST
    >>>>If one can say "More Americans went out on an election day to support ME" that carries a lot of weight, especially in the Democratic Party.

    but the states she won "don't matter" to the new Obamacrat Party that will turn Utah blue in Nov.


    Because (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:05:46 AM EST
    the Washington primary was contemporaenous with the caucus and had over 3 times as many participants.

    the caucuses chose the delegates byt the WILL OF THE PEOPLE, the popular vote is reflected in the primaries.

    If all the people who voted in the primary could have gone to the caucusues, they presumably would have voted as they did in the primary.

    this is about the POPULAR VOTE, not the delegate count.


    The primary was skewed though (none / 0) (#153)
    by zzyzx on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:29:28 AM EST
    There were school levies in Pierce County (outer suburbs and Tacoma) that caused people to go out to the polls there.  King County (Seattle) had nothing else on the ballot.  That effected who came out and who didn't.

    Voting at my north Seattle district was exceedingly slow; I only went because I was guilted into it.


    Well (none / 0) (#162)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:33:50 AM EST
    caucuses are skewed too. IMO count them both to make it fair.

    Not accurate (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:20:17 AM EST
    WA caucus and primary were not "weeks and weeks" apart. Ten days separated them. What was more a "referendum or name recognition exercise"? Did you attend a WA caucus with your friends?

    The number of people in WA who vote absentee/mail-in gets bigger and bigger every year. If your young friends didn't check that preference when they registered to vote, they should know the option is available, and preferred. We will be mail-in only by the 2012 GE.

    I expect much of what you said was also not well researched.


    they weren't weeks apart... (none / 0) (#157)
    by zzyzx on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:31:10 AM EST
    ...but the primary got little to no press on election day (neither the Times nor the PI had front page stories about it reminding people to vote).  There also was no GotV operation whereas I had multiple people come to my door before the caucus.

    It is pernicious (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:26:34 AM EST
    An outbreak of Democracy is not what America is about these days.  

    America looks more and more like a banana republic and this time the Democrats are leading the way to that unfortunate status.

    Bush busily did this for 8 years, not Brazile and Dean are determined to compound the problem.


    "not" should be a "now" (none / 0) (#149)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:27:13 AM EST
    Look at your basic data and axioms. (none / 0) (#203)
    by befuddled on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:08:47 AM EST
    Your basic data is votes, whether in a primary or a caucus. Your representative data is pledged delegates. Your conclusions about which count more are completely irreconcilable because the process of changing the primary data to the representative data was not uniform. Consequently, the argument that the pledged delegates count more may be rooted in rules and processes, but not in reality. For this reason the basic data, raw votes, is better.
    My mathmatical side has to admire the devious mind that studied out all these aspects to game the nomination system so well as it has been (in my opinion, of course) -- although I don't have to like it. But it's there, the system is exploitable and the logic is flawed to the core so there is no way to end the argument of which metric is better on logic alone. Stick to that EC math.

    Hillary's Surrogates.... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by northeast73 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:29:27 AM EST
    ....need to get better about speaking about this issues, because the Obama Pundits will keep saying "its about delegates".

    Obama will end the primary season WITHOUT ENOUGH PLEDGED DELEGATES TO WIN.

    Therefore, Superdelegates are the deciders.  And Obamanation has been SCREAMING for months, that SDs MUST follow the will of the voters.

    Which is reflected in the POPULAR VOTE COUNT.

    Its that simple.


    counting what ? (5.00 / 4) (#112)
    by margph on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:08:35 AM EST
    Are you forgetting how the Obama campaign is all for the supers (Kerry, Kennedy, Patrick) from Mass to side with them.  The state went for Hillary, not Obama.  This is just an example of the hypocrisy.  

    It seems that whoever is making the argument starts first with their espousal of a candidate and then they try to rationalize how their interpretation of the numbers is right.

    In the end, it is a question of who is going to beat McCain. The supers better get it right.


    And as BTD points out (none / 0) (#53)
    by riddlerandy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:42:47 AM EST
    Obama is leading

    But he's not (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by pie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:35:20 AM EST
    won it.

    Big difference.


    I'm not reading it like you are (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Kevin on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:29:02 AM EST
    Sorry, but I don't think the article is anything like you say it is.  You are choosing to take one line and attack it instead of the heart, the meat of the article.  

    The point of the article is not that the popular vote is meaningless, but that by going out and constantly giving a misleading popular vote and claiming victory based on it, comparing it to Gore and the Civil Rights and Sufferege Movements, Hillary is making it more and more difficult to unify the party afterward.

    Now, I know the response, "then count the votes and it won't matter". Which is a fair point, but you guys realize that the meeting on the 31st is for exactly that purpose and things will be almost definately settled then with some or all of the votes counting.  So what is the point of this divisive language other then to anger and inflame her supporters even more?  That is the crux of this, not your selective quoting.

    You dont get it... (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by northeast73 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:31:27 AM EST
    ....if FL and MI are not COUNTED...WE WILL NOT UNIFY...EVER.

    Unity starts..... (1.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Laureola on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:43:40 AM EST
    .....when Clinton concedes.  If she wants to crusade for MI and FL afterwards, fine.

    But there has never been any doubt that eventually there will be a fair compromise.  This is just a diversion to keep her failed campaign alive in hopes that Obama will get struck by a comet before the convention.  


    Your mind-reading abilities (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by madamab on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:19:09 AM EST
    are truly staggering.



    What point is it to "count" the votes... (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by alexei on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:49:11 AM EST
    if the election is already decided?  And it he is the "winner", then why doesn't he just Count the Votes now?

    Or when Obama says he needs more time w/ family (none / 0) (#94)
    by jawbone on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:00:44 AM EST
    Could happen. Just hopin'.

    "struck by a comet" (none / 0) (#166)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:35:23 AM EST
    it could happen.  meteor. lightening.  volcano etc etc.

    almost 50 states have voted! 50!! (none / 0) (#200)
    by Josey on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:02:56 AM EST
    and still the "unity" candidate hasn't united the Dems.
    He's tried sexism, ageism, boomerism, racism, race-baiting, trashing the Clinton administration...
    Maybe Obama could make it happen if there were 57 states?

    Oh (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:32:17 AM EST
    So he does not like Hillary making an argument for herself.

    How shocking! This is so Josh Marshall.

    As a matter of fact, I did not address the meat of the article because I found it silly and LESS IMPROTANT than the biogger problem in thee article, the contempt for the voters is displays.

    The rest of his article is also crap and if you like I will write another post destroying that part as well.

    But I see what you are trying to do, change the subject. What of the part of Alter's article I do quote? Did you like it? Agree it with it?

    Why not discuss that? We both know why.


    "This is so Josh Marshall." (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Laureola on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:44:46 AM EST
    Thank you for the compliment.

    If you think so (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:47:22 AM EST
    You're welcome.

    Yes us poor backward (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by cawaltz on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:45:22 AM EST
    uneducated hillbilly Appallahian Hillary supporters are so easily duped. (rolling eyes). Obama supporters are Obama's worst enemies. They simply can not seem to open their mouths without inserting a foot.

    IMHO the popular vote is the only legit one (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by goldberry on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:02:48 AM EST
    The delegate allocation system really screwed states like CA and NJ.  Sparsely populated states get way too much influence in this system.  My state moved its primary up to Feb 6 so that it would be able to have at least some influence and was trumped by a handful of conservative Republican states where the only Democratic populations with any critical mass were in college towns. The popular vote is more representative of what the will of the voter truly is.  And when all is said and done, Hillary will have won it.  
    The way this whole primary system has played out has been a travesty.  It looks like it was designed by committee.  Dean and the DNC have a lot to answer for after this is all over.  I want his head on a platter.  

    The net delegate count (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:36:20 AM EST
    that Obama got from 6,000 caucus goers was comparable to the net gain that Clinton recieved by winning Texas's primary.  Or Penns primary where millions votes and she got hundreds of thousands of votes in majority.

    It's a screwy system.


    Totally agree (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Kevin on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:42:49 AM EST
    but really, that can't be solved for this election.  But it must be changed.  I just read that Puerto Rico has more delegates then over 15 states, and they can't even vote in the GE.  

    Hardly possible (none / 0) (#26)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:34:23 AM EST
    to alienate us even more!  Or maybe, he could, at that.  BTW, who has been claiming victory and the primary race over?

    BTD: my retarded daughter got a NEWSWEEK subscription cause she had left-over FF miles.  I look at the few non-political things and then toss it--as far as I can.


    your what daughter? (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:37:45 AM EST
    Do you want me to delete your comment?

    Ok, cut it out! (s) (none / 0) (#204)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:08:57 AM EST
    You want me to call her mentally challenged?  She has never been mentally challenged in her life!

    Do not repeat your comments (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:40:06 AM EST
    I deleted your repetitive comment when you have responses to your first comment.

    If the intention is..... (none / 0) (#100)
    by Laureola on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:02:48 AM EST
    ....to influence the meeting, that's fine.  But I believe the intention of most Clintonites is to carry Clinton to the convention for a fight that will doom the Democratic candidate - whichever one survives.

    Obama is a lousy candidate in many ways. (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:34:03 AM EST
    He'll lose under his own steam. Clinton won't affect his out much at all.

    Man, you are as much a diplomat as your... (none / 0) (#190)
    by alexei on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:51:24 AM EST
    candidate.  Now all we need to see is "your surrogates" coming out with WLRM.

    If that is true it is easily thwarted (none / 0) (#198)
    by ruffian on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:57:36 AM EST
    Count all the FL and MI votes and delegates, get the SDs to commit in June, and either Clinton or Obama will be acknowledged as the nominee by July.  No need to go to the convention at all.

    Why won't Obama agree to that?


    Why does it spell doom? (none / 0) (#210)
    by abfabdem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:40:13 AM EST
    If Obama is that strong of a candidate, he will prevail and it won't matter.  It is ironic that he has lost primaries by big margins so close to the end of the primary, but whose fault is that?  Oh right, it's Hillary's fault.

    bingo (none / 0) (#173)
    by Teo1234 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:38:11 AM EST
    This is exactly right. The point of this sort of Hillary-led discussion is to enrage her supporters to the point where she says to Obama (starting today) that only she can bring them back to the party by joining his ticket.

    How could anyone seriously think that this is the same as a poll tax?  The party is allowed to set rules. The party set rules. Michigan and FLorida ignored the rules. Simple.


    As did NH, SC and Iowa. (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by alexei on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:53:56 AM EST
    But no punishment for those states.  Look at the lawsuit - equal protection is one of the points because these other states broke the rules, but nothing was done.

    They're floating this argument (5.00 / 6) (#30)
    by cawaltz on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:35:32 AM EST
    because the lead you project is dwindling and they need to switch to an argument that gift wraps the nomination for Obama if it disappears.

    Counting the vote is less important than installing the individual of their choice. Sadly, some of these folks are so deluded they seem to have forgotten that the primary is the first step, not the final one, to getting a Democrat in the WH. They have lost complete sight that they NEED the voters.

    The Obama game plan is always (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Jim J on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:40:13 AM EST
    to have the goal gift-wrapped, just like the legislation he "sponsored" in Illinois and the two meltdowns which put him in the Senate.

    Why should this be any different? What are you, racist or something? </typical kossack>


    For whatever the reason (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by coolit on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:37:35 AM EST
    (and it doesn't really matter why), the media hates Clinton and loves Obama.  That much is obvious.  All that matters is the reality. As much as the voters decide the election, they usually can't overcome such overwhelming media bias.  It's a sad thing, but we've been dealing with it for 8 years now.

    But they are overcoming the media bias. (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by alexei on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:56:42 AM EST
    It is just the DNC that punishes certain states and lets Obama continue to disenfranchise these voters that is not being overcome.  But, that lawsuit in FL just might be the factor that breaks this log jam.

    More garden variety sexism (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by Jim J on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:37:42 AM EST
    The typical no-win situation women are always forced into. If she pushes for the popular vote, she's a b**h. If instead she tries to sway the SDs, she's a crafty b**h.

    The only way she can "please" is to just go away. The men always, always want women to just go away so that they can claim full credit for everything. It's an age-old story.

    asterisks do funny things to posts (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Jim J on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:38:09 AM EST
    Pushing for the popular vote (none / 0) (#167)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:35:47 AM EST
    is the exact same thing as trying to sway the SDs.  

    It amazes that so many of you think the only reason people oppose Hillary is because of her gender.  Somehow I doubt that you find that the only reason people oppose Obama is because of his skin color.  


    Um, yes, (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by madamab on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:40:15 AM EST
    since the SD's will decide this election, of course both Obama and Clinton are trying to sway them.

    Is it only offensive to you when Clinton does it? Golly gee, if so, I wonder why?



    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:50:48 AM EST
    I don't offend easily.  

    I already know how this is going to play.  So does Hillary, at least she is pretty sure she does.  

    That is why she is going to continue to throw out various arguments in an attempt to convince the SDs to swing towards.  So far none of them have had much sway with them as SDs continue to swing towards Obama(note 2 more SDs went to Obama today including one who is switching  from Clinton to Obama

    I don't care much for some of the divisive stuff she has used recently but I also know that we have 5 months before the GE and most of this stuff will be forgotten.


    what divisive stuff? (none / 0) (#208)
    by Josey on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:14:39 AM EST
    whatever it is, thanks for admitting her "divisive stuff" is so trivial that it will all be forgotten by November.
    Obama's divisiveness won't - because he focused on character assassination rather than the issues.

    its a double whammy (none / 0) (#176)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:42:12 AM EST
    she a woman and a Clinton.

    And the latter (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:51:33 AM EST
    is something that affects a LOT of people far more than the former.

    I guess (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:45:44 AM EST
    the Dem problems from 2000 are still haunting us. Counting the votes only resonates with those who vote I guess. How would the media liked to be stripped of their votes? I'm so tired of these idiots.

    Un-effing-believable! (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by angie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:48:52 AM EST
    I think it cannot get worse, and yet it does. What fresh hell will tomorrow bring?

    She doesn't have to shut up (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Kevin on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:53:22 AM EST
    if she makes fair points.  But please, the civil rights movement?  Gore v. Bush? The suffrege movement.  Zimbabwe????  

    That isn't making the case.  That isn't getting her anything but mockery and scorn.  It surely isn't convincing any superdelegates.  All it is aimed at is pissing off her supporters and making any sort of reconciliation possible.

    Clinton supporters (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by cawaltz on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:00:04 AM EST
    were pissed long before this and if you didn't know that you ain't paying attention.

    As for reconciliation it ain' gona happen as long as Obama supporters continue to exist that Clinton needs to step out and gift wrap the primary for Obama. He doesn't get votes he hasn't earned.


    Oh (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:01:19 AM EST
    you didn;t like her speech.

    Well that justifies the vitriol being hurled at her for sure.

    sheesh. You folks are simply ridiculous.


    Furthermore (none / 0) (#93)
    by andreww on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:00:37 AM EST
    If it were a civil rights moment issue, why wasn't Hillary saying this in January and telling the DNC to screw off and then go campaign in MI and FL.

    We can all agree both sides are doing what they believe to be in their best political interest right?  No one really things Hillary would be making this argument if the delegate count were flipped do they?


    Hmmm (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:02:04 AM EST
    I take it this is your first involvement in politics.

    How stupid can these comments get?


    Oh wise one (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by andreww on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:48:03 AM EST
    please explain how my comment is so stupid.  For someone who berates Dkos for being disrespectful you should take a look in the mirror.

    You and TL have become increasingly belligerent to those who dare try to make a point or disagree with you.

    This is not the first time I have engaged in political discourse.  I am simply making a point that Hillary isn't leading a noble civil rights movement.  She's trying to win an election the last way possible for her campaign.

    She and her supporters would have people believe otherwise.  Nice way of dodging the question though.  Do you agree or not?


    Yes BOTH are (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by cawaltz on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:08:45 AM EST
    However, only HILLARY is being pilloried for it. When was the last time you heard an Obama supporter admitting that he wanted a 50-50 split in MI because it was advantageous to him and heard it being decried in the same manner Hillary's argument is as "evil?"

    They were not happy to see (none / 0) (#178)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:43:33 AM EST
    Mighigan and Florida stripped.  I can guarentee you that.  Inspite of any public announcements to the contrary.

    Everything she says (none / 0) (#199)
    by ruffian on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:00:59 AM EST
    gets her mockery and scorn in some quarters.  It just never used to be the left.

    That has never stopped her before, it won't now.


    Everything just gets uglier and uglier (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:02:07 AM EST
    and other bloggers who were less concerned about holding themselves to standards of intellectual honesty and principles first, careen from whining and feeling sorry for themselves to continuing to make silly arguments that I'm sure soon they will whine about and feel sorry for themselves about.  Not to stroke an ego that is very healthy without my strokes, but I really really do appreciate your punditry this election cycle.  Without it, I certainly would have told a few idiots out there to just go F themselves.

    Just to make sure I wasn't (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by oculus on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:20:32 AM EST
    imagining things, I looked at DK last night.  All the comments to one diary about Clinton were pile ons in quite insulting ways.  

    The Votes Wouldn't Count???? (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Richjo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:03:32 AM EST
    I have never understood people who could in any seriousness make the claim that there was a true good faith belief that the votes in Florida and Michigan were not going to count. To those making this claim I would appreciate an answer to simple question-Why would it be necessary to get a pledge for candidates not to campaign in states that were holding a vote that everyone knew wouldn't count? I am pretty sure if Mexico had decided to hold a Democratic primary there would have been no need to get the candidates to make a pledge not to campaign there. That would have been a vote that didn't count, but everyone knew that the votes in Michigan and Florida would eventually be counted in some way. The Obama campaign with the help of their friends in the press decided to treat these votes as nothing to help their favored candidate and in doing so basically said to the people of Florida and Michigan that they didn't matter. The DNC delegitimized its own process by making a huge blunder in ignoring its own guidelines and making two states invisible in the process. The Obama camp went along because that was the only way its candidate could win, and the press went along because it helped their favorite candidate and it helped to maintain their little manufacutured for TV events in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina that dominate the narrative of the race. Obama decided that Michigan and Florida could have no say in this process by driving the media narrative that ignored these states' contests and delegitmized them in spite of the fact that clearly they were important and did count in some way else there would have been no need to force candidates to pledge not to campaign in them. He then blocked revotes. He must think the people of these two states are extremely stupid because now he is coming and asking for their votes in November. I can see how he could believe they are dumb enough to vote for him, after all according to his reasoning millions of them wasted their time voting in an election that didn't count.

    Obama's entire strategy (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by madamab on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:03:43 AM EST
    is to win the nomination by elevating smaller numbers of "better" voters over the vast, unwashed, racist, uninformed masses. Hence the 48-state strategy, the insistence on meaningless delegate counts, the dependence on red-state caucuses for his "insurmountable" lead, the excuses for, and unconcern about, the narrowness of his coalition.

    To paraphrase "Animal Farm," all voters are equal, but some voters are more equal than others.

    The media, if we go by the 2000 mess and Alter's article, apparently feels the same way.

    Meaningless Delegate Counts? (none / 0) (#138)
    by EddieInCA on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:20:07 AM EST
    "the insistence of meaningless delegate counts?"

    That says it all...

    Wow. Just wow.

    So now the delegate count - the universally agreed-up upon metric that picks the candidate - is meaningless?



    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Steve M on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:23:35 AM EST
    I assume the reference was to the made-up metric of the "pledged delegate majority."

    You would be correct, sir! (none / 0) (#169)
    by madamab on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:36:43 AM EST
    A "pledged delegate majority" does not a "magic number" make.

    Had Obama or Clinton been able to reach 2209 by means of the primary process, the delegates would of course be quite meaningful. ;-)


    Strictly speaking (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:46:20 AM EST
    under the rules, Obama's lead in pledged dels is not a winning number.

    The Superdels decide it all based on subjective criteria now.


    Delegates are not meaningless (none / 0) (#187)
    by Teo1234 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:50:12 AM EST
    This, in my view, says it all. Hillary's most ardent supporters claim that delegates are "meaningless."  Do electoral votes matter to Hillary's supporters?  

    Toobin and Kevin Spacey on Charlie Rose last (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by jawbone on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:08:57 AM EST
    night talked about the 18 FL counties which never even had a machine recount after the 2000 election.

    Which I knew but had forgotten.

    They also went into the 1000's of mostly AA's disenfranchised by FL's cute little voter elimination program: Gather names of felons from all the country and then eliminate voters with any names remotely simlar to those names. In 2000, there were no provisional ballots -- that at least seems to have been fixed. Counting the provisional ballots? Not so clear!

    Charlie kept trying to say the HBO film favored Dems and would be used (Hillary is mentioning it now) to encourage Dem voting. Jeffrey Toobin and David Boies kept saying everything had possible had been done to get at least one person from each situation on record and got their input as to veracity.  

    Conclusion was that the Repubs came prepared for a street fight, and the Dems thought they were working under the rule of law. Boies said if he could have done things over again, he would have had more Dem feet in the street, that the Brooks Brothers "rioters," the Repub staffers and operatives who shut down the vote recount clearly had an impact on the media and the coverage. Did not impact the judicial outcome, but had there been more ballots counted the Supremes might not have been able to pull off their stunt.

    Obama, His Surrogates And His Supporters (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:11:52 AM EST
    can ride the mantra of Votes and Voters Don't Count all the way to defeat in November. If that is their choice, they need to accept that choices have consequences. As far as I'm concerned, if Obama has this wrapped up, it is foolish to give people a reason to vote against you but hey the Rulz Are The Rulz.

    Advocates For Obama (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by OxyCon on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:17:48 AM EST
    It's one thing for an "A-List" blogger to throw their credibility away by deliberately taking "news" stories and giving them all a pro-Obama slant. It's another thing entirely for "journalists" to be doing the same thing. What Jonathan Alter and so many of his contemporaries have become are nothing but advocates for Obama. There's nothing newsworthy or fair about what they write or report on. History will not look very kindly on the "work" they have done.

    tempers flaring (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by margph on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:26:00 AM EST
    Seems to me that tempers are flaring today.  Am reminded of a poster called TRUTHSHOUTER who was admonished in a blog post to "Quit shouting" as he posted all in caps.  Well, I hear the caps today even if I don't see them.

    Again, I will point out that individuals are moving from their candidate choice (Hillary or Obama) and then trying to rationaize why the votes should be counted this way or that -- or in fact, which votes should be counted.

    In the end, the SD's will have to be held accountable to settle this whole mess.  If they do their jobs right, maybe we can beat McCain.  If they try to pander to this group or that, to this moneyman or that, to this political crony or that instead of thinking of the good of us all, then it is on their heads.  Read Kristen Breitweiser's post, "You Broke It, You Own It.":  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-breitweiser/you-broke-it-you-own-it_b_101673.html, also at TM and maybe here.

    Even if you ignore caucus states... (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by zzyzx on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:37:51 AM EST
    ...this isn't an Apples to Apples comparison.  We have open primary states, semi-open primary states, and closed primary states.  Counting popular vote retroactively gives more power to states solely based around who they decide is eligible to vote.  That's why the metric bothers me.

    Contempt of voters is fine by me. (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:38:52 AM EST
    Remember, we're talking about voters who gave us eight years of Bush, eight years of Reagan, and only  returned Clinton by a plurality in both elections.

    That's a record worthy of contempt.

    What the anti-count lobby is engaged in, however, is the contempt of the concept of universal suffrage and democracy itself.  While I may not like the voters who've given us such lousy leadership I fully recognize their right to do so (excepting, of course, the 2000 results).

    There may be a very small group of people who support the disenfranchisement of the rogue states as a matter of calendar purity principle, but the vast majority simple want to gain some advantage for their candidate.

    It appears to me..... (1.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Laureola on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:26:42 AM EST
    ...that Alter has contempt for candidates that claim the popular vote under false circumstances.  He is supportive of the candidate that actually has the most votes under a fair count and does not try to mislead people in order to flog a failed campaign.

    It appears to me (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:29:30 AM EST
    that you are making stuff up as there is NOTHING in alter's article that says what you say.

    Please quote the part of the article that you think says that.

    He quibbles with the count by disrespecting the voters who voted. He has contempt for the voters, as you seem to.


    Quote the part for me.... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Laureola on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:36:06 AM EST
    ....in which he expresses contempt for voters.

    I think my post did it nicely (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:37:03 AM EST
    Then so did mine. (none / 0) (#43)
    by Laureola on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:39:11 AM EST

    Then let;s leave it there (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:40:53 AM EST
    We both have had our say. No need to say anything else.

    The part where he (none / 0) (#154)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:29:53 AM EST
    calls invocations of the popular vote to be pandering?

    That's contempt on the face of it.


    Dean says (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:30:09 AM EST
    popular vote in Fl and MI does count and should count, I believe.  And remember, until the roll call, no votes are in from delegates, who are free to change their minds.  Pledged or SD.  I think he also said the momentum of the last races will be noted by the SDs.

    It counts..... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Laureola on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:34:38 AM EST
    ...but it doesn't matter.  The real process of seating a delegation from those states is now entirely up to the committee that will meet at the end of May, and the popular vote - especially the contrived Clinton count - carries little weight with them.

    then stop worrying about it (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:36:45 AM EST
    Let us do our whine and soon it will all be over.

    Why do you persist in NOT caring about it in our comment threads?


    I care...... (1.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Laureola on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:40:32 AM EST
    .....that you are engaged in a fruitless effort that  will damage the party in the general election.  

    Uh (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by cawaltz on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:42:31 AM EST
    You damage the party when ou DISREGARD over a milion voters becaue it is politically convenient for your candidate.

    But it does not matter? (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:46:30 AM EST
    How could it be damaging?

    Unless, people DO care in contradiction to your pronouncements that people do not.

    So which is it, people care or they don't?


    It doesn't matter.... (none / 0) (#91)
    by Laureola on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:59:33 AM EST
    .....in the selection process.  It matters if you mess up the general election by postponing it until September.

    The FL and MI issues will soon be settled in a fair compromise, and I think you know it.


    I know manny things (none / 0) (#103)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:03:41 AM EST
    I know that you seem to CARE a lot about this despite pretending you do not.

    Why? (none / 0) (#194)
    by Kevin on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:53:14 AM EST
    I know you are smart enough to realize the point being made.  It won't matter to this primary.  The SD's aren't going to be duped by the silly comparisons to Zimbabwe.  But look at how angry people on her side are getting.  

    You have one of the hosts of the View going on national television now saying that the a man is trying to steal the presidency from a woman.  Why?  Because she's bought into Hilary's bogus popular vote claims.

    So you don't think that is going to have an effect in the GE?  Please, you are smarter then that.  I know people are getting angry, but don't pretend that this doesn't have implications beyond the primary that could seriously hurt the chances of electing a sane person to the White House.


    And yet (5.00 / 3) (#205)
    by Steve M on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:09:29 AM EST
    Obama could make all those GE problems go away in a heartbeat, just by saying "okay, count the votes."

    The fact that he is not, because winning these meaningless battles is somehow more important than winning the war, is what has BTD writing all these frustrated posts.


    Fear mongering (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:50:16 AM EST
    damage the party in the general election.  

    You have to understand that democracy demands dissent.  And you have to tolerate it, encourage it and let it thrive.  What are we fighting against the Bush years?  The mantra of an idealized unity to the detriment of democracy and various opinion.  If you think dissent and discussion will ruin the party, then let it go down the toilet if it cannot stand it.  


    I'm unimpressed with your logic... (none / 0) (#107)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:06:57 AM EST
    and your very 'you centered' (e.g. "if I don't care about it, it doesn't matter...but it only matters cause someone might perceive it as mattering...at that point, since I don't care about it, it must be damaging the party) focus.

    Obama's rather done that already (none / 0) (#158)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:31:50 AM EST
    by conceiling his politically damaging associations (with a weird special assist from the media).

    He's likely to lose at this point.


    The new politics (none / 0) (#1)
    by Lahdee on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:20:34 AM EST
    doesn't pander, does it?

    Why would an allegedly (none / 0) (#2)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:20:57 AM EST
    good politician let this issue fester?  

    The SD's are "afraid" to take (none / 0) (#3)
    by zfran on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:22:14 AM EST
    it away from Obama because they think the aa's will revolt. What about the rest of us. This is the good ol' USofA. "We the people" One person, one vote, not one person, maybe a vote!!

    Disenfranchisement works both ways (none / 0) (#4)
    by andreww on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:22:28 AM EST
    The one thing that really bothers me about the FL and MI discussion is no one ever mentions the people that didn't vote because they were told the MI and FL primaries wouldn't matter.  They were told this by the DNC, by Obama, and yes, by Clinton.  Making these states with the votes as is also disenfranchises everyone that didn't vote - not because they didn't want to - but because they were told their votes wouldn't count.  It's disenfranchisement either way - and it sucks either way - but can we at least not pretend that the MI and FL results are fair?

    Lastly, if popular vote were to be the factor, then Obama could have set up camp in Chicago for a few days to get another 200,000 votes.  Many people didn't vote - on both sides - because they are told popular vote doesn't matter.  Take IL, lots of people stayed home knowing it was a blowout. I suspect the same thing happened in NY.

    Revotes would have solved the problem (5.00 / 12) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:24:34 AM EST
    But an honest observer would note that Obama blocked revotes in Florida and Michigan. Oh he did not do it directly himself, he did it through surrogates.

    So an honest observer would then do what we must, count the votes that were cast.


    The Florida vote was (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:26:47 AM EST
    a very important vote.  The Democratic party was trying to get all the voters out to vote against a state wide initiative that would have affected the funding for education.  The turnouts were very high.  Obama got the boost from Kennedy the day before with the endorsement.  

    I wonder what the under votes (none / 0) (#13)
    by zfran on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:28:45 AM EST
    amounted to with no vote for pres. plus weren't all the votes actually certified? And, if so,  they didn't count for pres., why certify?

    You want to got there? (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:44:49 AM EST
    Bad strategy. What if I were to tell you that the Presidential line was the most voted of all matters put to the voters in Florida? What say you then?

    BTW (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:27:57 AM EST
    this delegate strategy vs. popular vote strategy is sheer nonsense.

    Obama cxampaigned to get votes wherever he could.

    do you REALLY think he left 200,000 votes lying aropund in Chicago? He won Cook County by 400,000 VOTES!!! He got every vote he could in Cook.

    That talking point is just an insult to your own integrity and our intelligence.


    A candidate can campaign for (none / 0) (#20)
    by zfran on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:31:31 AM EST
    every vote she/he can get, however, if the people don't/won't/can't come out and vote, there's nothing anyone can do about it. And, so the votes lay!!!

    This seems a nonsequitor to me (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:35:07 AM EST
    I believe your point (none / 0) (#23)
    by andreww on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:32:39 AM EST
    is fair about Obama not actively pushing for revotes and I feel he mishandled the situation.  So, I will give you that.

    I do however believe that many many people did not vote in Chicago.  I live in Chicago, in cook county. And I live with my wife who supports Obama but didn't vote because of the exact reason I state.  There were no major get out the vote drives, no TV commercials, nothing.  If you believe Obama campaigned to get out the vote in Chicago you are mistaken.  I live here.  You are just mistaken.  Again, I concede your first point.


    If you can explain how (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:34:37 AM EST
    Obama win Cook by 400,000 votes due to a lack of GOTV efforts please let me know how that works.

    IL loves the guy (none / 0) (#79)
    by andreww on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:55:23 AM EST
    that's how.  you make it sound like 400,000 is a lot of people - which it is I supppose.  But my point is that with a concentrated effort, people thinking popular vote matters, and an investment in resources it's not crazy to think he could have won by 500,000 or 600,000 votes.  You realize cook county is really large right?

    This doesn't include the "collar counties" that also support Obama overwhelmingly.

    All this combined - Obama could have won by a much larger popular vote margin.  It may not have won him many more delegates though.  Which is sort of my point.


    It is absolutely crazy (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:58:12 AM EST
    Obama has the money to spend to go after every vote in every jurisdiction and we know that he did just that.

    your argument is utterly specious.


    Are you really (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:14:33 AM EST
    prepared to argue that Obama should get the nomination because the people in his state want him to, over the rest of the country?  You do realize his current small popular vote lead is entirely due to Cook County votes?

    The bottom line is we're essentially tied here.  Hillary is entitled to make the argument that her support is broader overal and most fervent in swing states the Dems. actually have a chance of winning.


    Delegates vs Popular Vote (none / 0) (#49)
    by kpatton1 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:41:51 AM EST
    Is not that you just leave votes lying around.  Its about the tradeoff of investing more time in one area that will pay off with more popular votes, or in another area that could net you more delegates.  If we structured the contest so the popular vote was what mattered in the end, I'm certain both campaigns would have acted significantly different.  Maybe you are of the opinion that their strategies would have been the exact same.  I just couldn't agree with that.

    "That talking point is just an insult to your own integrity and our intelligence."

    I respectfully disagree with your opinion here, but I'm not going to attack you for having it.   I'd definitely love to have a reasonable discussion on these matters, but petty comments like this make me not want to come back here again.  Its shameful when I can find more constructive discussion on sites like dkos.


    Givre me one example of this so called (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:43:35 AM EST

    Tell me what delegate collection strategy actually led to winning LESS VOTES than you would have otherwise. Please, explain it to me.


    The Electoral College (none / 0) (#73)
    by kpatton1 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:53:24 AM EST
    I know the state delegates aren't based exactly off of it, but considering the GE- when we founded the country we decided to give smaller states more representation than they would normally receive proportionally based off their population.

    Campaigning more in smaller states and less in more populous states = more delegates, the reverse = more popular votes.

    Its certainly a tradeoff.  But at the same time, when the government was originally set up they decided it was worth it.

    If you want to work to change the system, I'm 100% behind you.  But I'm not going to hold it against anyone for following the laws of the contest.


    Give me one REAL example (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:57:02 AM EST
    where Obama adopted a strategy, as opposed to choosing a different one, that rendered him LESS VOTES.

    Please. just one. you can not. there was no such strategy adopted.

    If Obama had limited financial resources you MIGHT have had an argument, but in fact, Obama has and had more money than MIDAS, he could compete and did compete FOR EVERY VOTE in every jurisdiction.

    this is the most specious argument I have ever heard.


    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#110)
    by kpatton1 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:07:17 AM EST
    Its not all about the money.  Its also about making campaign appearances in the state, moving supporters around, etc.

    And as I'm sure you probably noticed, Obama ended up taking more states.  That is specifically what I am talking about.

    "this is the most specious argument I have ever heard."

    Its more spacious for you to hold me towards finding a REAL example because I can't show you what happened in an alternate universe where the popular vote is what mattered.  We didn't have an election based on it.  Therefore I have no physical proof.  All I can do is show you what happened in this one- and based on the states that Obama ended up taking, I believe I have a reasonable claim that his strategy would have been different.

    You might disagree, but I'm still 100% confident that neither candidate would have run their campaigns in the same manner if the popular vote was all that mattered.


    and give me specifics on campaign appearances and whatnot to back up your specious claim.

    So you don't dispute (none / 0) (#206)
    by kpatton1 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:11:05 AM EST
    The large state vs small state strategy?

    If you aren't going to dispute this effect (which is largely what has given Obama the delegate lead) then I feel my point is settled.


    This is so obvious...... (none / 0) (#121)
    by Laureola on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:12:39 AM EST
    ....that it's hardly worth arguing.  It's common knowledge that Obama focused his efforts on accruing delegates in caucus states that Clinton neglected.  Yes, he pursued more of the votes that were available in those states, and he succeeded.  That's why Clinton failed as long ago as February, and has since been trying to change the rules.  

    Nice specific example (none / 0) (#192)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:52:18 AM EST
    you provide. Name ONE state where this was done. Just name a state. any state.

    It is true that some people probably (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:12:15 AM EST
    did not vote because they were convinced that the election would be meaningless, but honestly if the polls are open - no matter how many people say it isn't "worth it" to go - you should always go vote regardless.

    I was pretty irked by the prominent bloggers who kept insisting that MI and FL wouldn't be important.  They not only contributed to this problem we have now, but also showed unbelievable political naivete.


    Wasn't there an important issue (none / 0) (#182)
    by nycstray on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:47:11 AM EST
    on the FL ballot? Something to do with property tax?

    "People were told" (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by befuddled on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:12:45 AM EST
    People have been told so much stuff this primary season that they had to learn a long time ago (like back in 2007 when the campaigning really began) how to filter noise from information and make their own decisions. SOME people may have said the vote wouldn't count. OTHER people said it would. So? This is new, in America, that we get contrary views all over the place? Obviously a lot of people had faith that their votes would count somehow in spite of the noise to the contrary. And even if "will NOT count" had been sealed in stone and presented by Moses, then I would have to say that millions of people made a massive protest against the decision.

    And just like in 2000, when (none / 0) (#6)
    by zfran on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:24:01 AM EST
    a re-vote option was suggested, it was declined due to every reason except that it seemed fair.

    I believe I heard (none / 0) (#11)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:26:54 AM EST
    that there was an extremely large turnout in Fl.  Maybe people don't listen when someone says, "Don't bother."

    It's a contrivance. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Laureola on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:31:19 AM EST
    I've yet to see any person from Florida or Michigan that is as worked up as outside Clintonites.  They understand perfectly well that the primaries in their states were screwed up by their own state governments and local party officials, and that the nominating selection constituted little more than a straw poll of people that showed up to vote for down-ticket candidates and issues.  

    Well that settles it (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:33:41 AM EST
    Laureola's circle of acquaintances are not interested so it does not matter.

    Sheesh. How obtuse can you get?


    In reality (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Steve M on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:39:53 AM EST
    I doubt the commentor knows a single person from either MI or FL.  The notion that everyone in those states understood the vote as a meaningless straw poll is so obviously unrealistic and contrived.

    I lived in Michigan.... (none / 0) (#78)
    by Laureola on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:55:11 AM EST
    ....was involved in politics there, and still have many friends.  As for Florida, I've seen my viewpoint expressed online by a number of Floridians.  I've yet to see anybody from Florida similarly say that they will not vote for Obama because of their screwed-up elections.

    I have friends (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:58:52 AM EST
    in both states and relatives in one and I have heard exactly that.

    Look (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by Steve M on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:13:57 AM EST
    I just don't believe you.

    You post many fictional things on this site.


    I'm not interested in anything ...... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Laureola on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:38:34 AM EST
    ......but most delegates.  The popular vote - even if if it was fairly calculated - has no bearing on the selection process.  It's a fig leaf for a failed campaign.

    then we need not hear from you (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:42:41 AM EST
    anymore on the subject. Wonderful.

    See you in the next thread.


    Counting delegates.... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Laureola on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:52:15 AM EST
    is the argument against popular votes, sot it's not surprising that you don't want to hear it.  At least leave it up today - OK?

    I thought you did not care? (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:54:53 AM EST
    And yet here you remain.

    Methinks you doth protest too much.


    I care.... (none / 0) (#129)
    by Laureola on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:16:24 AM EST
    ....that Clinton is trying to change the rules in the middle of the contest and is playing a dangerous game that could cripple the Democratic candidate in the general election.

    The issues of FL and MI will soon be decided in a fair compromise, and you know it.  You protest too much, methinks.


    Which rule is that? (none / 0) (#186)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:50:07 AM EST
    What rule is Clinton changing?

    Please tell us.


    Well, here's one person from FL (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by ruffian on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:53:04 AM EST
    Yes, I understand that it was screwed up.  I also understand that the Democratic party is supposed to be about democracy for the little guy.  At the time of the primary I also knew I had Sen. Bill Nelson doing everything he could to get this penalty taken off, and also Hillary Clinton came out before the primary and said she would try to do the same thing. So those of us that were paying attention to the story had good reasont to believe that our votes would not be in vain.  So we voted.

    Count the votes.


    Count the votes.... (1.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Laureola on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:56:17 AM EST
    ....when the rules are changed.

    Yet you seemingly have no problem (none / 0) (#161)
    by Chisoxy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:33:24 AM EST
    With the rules being changed that blocked the votes in the first place.

    The rules allow for lifting this (none / 0) (#202)
    by ruffian on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:05:53 AM EST
    part of the penalty.  No one is asking to changing any rules.

    RECORD BREAKING TURNOUT.... (none / 0) (#22)
    by northeast73 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:32:38 AM EST
    ...for down ticket candidates and local issues.



    ....and widespread discontent.... (none / 0) (#134)
    by Laureola on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:18:40 AM EST
    ...with the current state of affairs.  A number of other people just showed up to lodge a protest against Bush, and they selected the candidate on the ballot with the most name recognition.

    why is this person (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by english teacher on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:21:20 AM EST
    being allowed to violate the site rules without any warning?  frankly, i am tired of clicking on the thread link for "new" comments to find half of them from this same poster repeating the same garbage.  

    A Fair point (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:51:05 AM EST
    I have used her as a foil in this thread and that was wrong of me.

    I'll not do that again.

    I apologize.


    Oh, this is too funny. (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by pie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:23:11 AM EST
    Seriously, I'm in tears here.

    Also.... (none / 0) (#66)
    by Laureola on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:50:03 AM EST
    It disenfranchises the caucus states.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Steve M on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:53:20 AM EST
    Each voter in a caucus state counts one, just like each voter in a primary state.

    heh (none / 0) (#145)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:24:06 AM EST
    A single vote in Alaske is worth about 150-200 votes in California.

    Yay Alaska!


    that of course is false (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:54:08 AM EST
    their votes count.

    Nope (none / 0) (#83)
    by Step Beyond on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:57:08 AM EST
    No it doesn't. They vote. The state party supplies the vote total. We count the vote total. See how simple it really is?

    yes - (none / 0) (#163)
    by Josey on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:33:52 AM EST
    >>>>they were told the MI and FL primaries wouldn't matter.  They were told this by the DNC, by Obama, and yes, by Clinton.

    but prior to the FL primary Obama was still saying their votes didn't matter while Hillary was encouraging Floridians to vote.

    Jan. 16, 2008

    >>>...Obama spokesman Bill Burton offered a reminder that the primaries in Michigan and Florida will "have no bearing on the Democratic nomination contest" because the states won't have any delegates at the national convention.

    "While Sen. Clinton will honor her commitment not to campaign in Florida in violation of the pledge, she also intends to honor her pledge to hear the voices of all Americans," the campaign says. "The people of Michigan and Florida have just as much of a right to have their voices heard as anyone else. It is disappointing to hear a major Democratic presidential candidate tell the voters of any state that their voices aren't important...


    The time frame is too far apart (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:38:46 AM EST
    I do not think it is fair to count the Nebraska primary over the Nebraska caucus.

    Then why have a primary at all? (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by goldberry on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:08:50 AM EST
    This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of.  First have a caucus that few people can attend or only the most committed to braving the elements who also have time on their hands.  Then, LATER, have a primary that most of the state can participate in and has a better feel for the candidates.  Then discard the results.  What, pray tell, was going through Nebraska's legislature when they made this up?  Why even bother going through the motions at all?  Why spend the money?  There must be a reason why they had a primary but for the life of me, I can't figure out what it is.  Sounds like the delegates in Nebraska would be fairly evenly split in Nebraska and Washington if we went by the primary results.  
    Can't have that.  It might disadvantage Obama.  

    It's da' roolz in WA. (none / 0) (#207)
    by wurman on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:12:35 AM EST
    WA used to have an "open" primary in which gaming it with cross-over voting was a biennial sport.

    The GOoPerz got fed up with being gamed (Democrats would vote for some lame-brained wingut fundagelical) & coming out with a bona fide loser on the ballot in the general elections.  So, the State Republican Party went to the Supreme Court of the USA & got a decision.  The net effect is that WA voter must now choose a party ballot & vote it. [SCotUS "gamed" WA & LA in the same ex cathedra encyclical.]

    Soooooo . . . the Dems set up a delightful caucus system to select candidates--totally outside the primary system that the SCotUS force-fed at the behest of the idiotic brethren on the dimwitted side of the aisle.

    And, this year, the Obama campaign probably gamed the caucus system by sending large numbers of people who were never involved with the party before & who are becoming increasingly obviously not involved currently--they were present at the caucuses but do not show up now at the on-going party meetings & operations.

    At this year's caucuses, the Democratic Party defeated all proposals to drop the caucus system & attempt to use the primary as a selection method.



    That's Where You're Wrong (none / 0) (#89)
    by cdalygo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:59:12 AM EST
    You need to count ALL the votes, BTD. Nebraska did vote for presidential candidates. We have a national media so they had full access to both campaigns.

    If I remember correctly, you also skip counting Washington, right? (Forgive me if I'm wrong.)You do so because it had a caucus and the primary didn't count.

    Those votes represent the will of actual voters. Moreover, they show stark differences between caucus and primary results.

    Nor should you give the uncommitted votes to Obama. He chose to take himself off in Michigan and should follow the RULZ.


    OMG, read Sam Stein in huffpo today (5.00 / 4) (#123)
    by goldberry on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:13:27 AM EST
    Hysterical.  It's about how Obama didn't take his name off the ballot because he never asked to be put on in the first place so stop making it sound like he was gaming the system.  
    If that is true, he has even less of a claim on the uncommitted delegates than previously thought.  Not only did he ask to be removed from the ballot but he never asked to be put on it in the first place.  The Michigan Democratic Party took the initiative without asking his permission.  That's the argument.  
    Ok, no delegates then.  

    Weirder and weirder. (none / 0) (#152)
    by pie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:29:15 AM EST
    It's about how Obama didn't take his name off the ballot because he never asked to be put on in the first place so stop making it sound like he was gaming the system.

    Guess he didn't want his name on the Florida ballot either.


    Actually (none / 0) (#150)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:27:21 AM EST
    while you do have a point about them being far apart you also have to realize that the primary came out post Wright and there may have been people who regretted voting for him previously if in fact they did.

    BTD: how do you get that he is 150k (none / 0) (#84)
    by jes on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:57:29 AM EST
    ahead still? I thought you had agreed last Monday that Obama led by only about 150K votes. So since Tuesday, shouldn't they be only about 30K or less apart?

    Show me your math? (none / 0) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:59:30 AM EST
    I had him at 260k lead and he lost about 150k Tuesday.

    So actually I should say his lead is around 110k.


    Perhaps, I misread your comment (none / 0) (#109)
    by jes on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:07:11 AM EST
    linked above? It was your math from Monday that I was questioning. Perhaps you only agreed to reduce your uncommited MI total down from 180k to 150k? If so are you still sticking to that?

    I do not think (none / 0) (#125)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:14:14 AM EST
    an adjustment down from the uncommitted makes much sense at this point.

    I suppose you could knock off 60,000 more votes if you wanted to be especially Hillary favorable but I would rather not do that.


    Then we agree to disagree (none / 0) (#136)
    by jes on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:19:36 AM EST
    I give only 3/4 of the uncommitted. Thus, using the rest of your math, Obama is only about 80k ahead. Thanks for the clarification. Cheers.

    Media Comeuppance (none / 0) (#130)
    by fctchekr on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:16:32 AM EST
    If anyone doubts for a moment that Clinton had this in her back-pocket for months...they're really underestimating her..

    This is about fairness and having votes count; the media needs to be exposed and slapped with a
    legal suit for violating FCC fair reprorting standards..

    Unfortuneatly if there are any such standards, they don't go so far as to actually protect the public from this overt monopolization and distortion of information...

    I'm getting my news by comparing blogs and then
    verifying the information with media. It's astounding how much of the news is not being covered..

    Right now the media is flipping over the FL law suit..the comeuppance couldn't be more deserving..

    The delegate math (none / 0) (#170)
    by szr on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:37:32 AM EST
    Considering that as of this morning (According to CNN's delegate tracker) Clinton is behind 199 delegates, it doesn't make much difference.  Even in Clinton won 100% of the remaining pledged delegates (86) and got the most favorable possible seating for Michigan and Florida delegations (a net gain of 54, if we assume Obama gets zero MI delegates) she would still be trailing Obama and have to convince about 70% of the remaining 211 superdelegates to join her.

    Given the above factors, is there are question as to why Clinton is pursuing the strategy of trying to argue she won the popular vote?  That is literally the only argument left to make to convince the uncommitted superdelegates.

    Now, the fact that she will need Puerto Rico's popular voters (who do not vote for President) is a tiny fly in the ointment, but it is much more powerful and frankly, appropriate, argument than "he can't win because reasons XYZ (insert flavor of the month- Ayers, Wright, white voters, etc.)" stuff.

    But the point is that right now we're down to the very end of the game and Team Clinton is behind.  They ARE entitled to a hail mary pass into the inzone for the win.  It most likely isn't going to work, but they sure as heck are entitled to try.  They've earned the right.

    To my Obama supporter friends - you've almost won the race.  Clinton will most likely not have the delegates to win the nomination.  Be nice to Clinton supporters.  Especially now.  No one likes a sore winner.

    To Clinton supporter friends - losing sucks, and your competitive spirit is commendable.  No one likes losing, but if you do, you need to think very hard about whether a President McCain or President Obama would be more likely to do things like: end the war in Iraq; appoint more judges in the mold of Ginsberg instead of Scalia; fight for better access to health care; etc.

    In the end, we're Democrats because the policies are better.  We can leave the cult of personalities to the Republicans and their Bush-worship.

    The delegates can change their minds. (none / 0) (#180)
    by pie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:45:56 AM EST
    Let's take it to the convention.

    i am hurrying to get my comment in. (none / 0) (#209)
    by hellothere on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:38:24 AM EST
    ok, so i work. 10 minute imposed break for me. i make my own time though. anyway, yeah contempt for votes. now isn't that just special, and doesn't it sound too familiar?