home

The Moral Imperative For Super Delegates: The Will Of the People

It is my expectation that at the end of this process, Barack Obama will have had more voters go to primaries and caucuses expressing support for him than Hillary Clinton. In short, I believe Barack Obama will win the popular vote and thus his likely nomination will reflect the will of the people.

I imagine the above paragraph will be viewed as a strange opening graf to defend Hillary Clinton's right, indeed, duty, to fight to see that all the votes are counted. But there it is. I believe the Democratic nominee should be the choice of the People (as defined by the Democratic Party, the electorate eligible to vote for our Democratic nominee in the nominating contests). As Jeralyn's post below conclusively demonstrates, there is virtually no moral imperative in terms of the Will of The People attached to the pledged delegate count. Not only is it fundamentally flawed and undemocratic, the pledged delegate count has no rules based mandate either. So when Barack Obama trumpets his so called winning of a majority of the pledged delegates (excluding Florida and Michigan), it is an entirely trumped up metric, as Jeff Toobin of CNN pointed out. As for the popular vote, even opponents of Hillary Clinton, as Greg Sargent points out, like Hendrik Hertzberg are forced to concede the moral weight of the popular vote:

[T]he popular vote, however juridically meaningless, carries immense moral and political weight with Democrats, for whom the 2000 travesty is a station of the cross and vote-counting a kind of sacrament. The superdelegates understand this. That’s why it has been clear all along that if one of the candidates is able to claim an indisputable majority of actual flesh-and-blood Democrats it will be difficult to deny him—or her—the nomination.

I agree with Hertzberg on that. But of course, Hillary can not be allowed to escape unscathed, even when she has a point. Thus Hertzberg, sadly, feels compelled to treat a fight to COUNT the votes as an evil act:

In an eerie echo of the “Brooks Brothers riot” depicted in the HBO movie, when shouting Bush operatives and Republican congressional staffers who had been dispatched to Florida managed to shut down the Miami-Dade County recount, CNN reported on Thursday that Clinton supporters “are planning to swarm the capital in a little over a week to pressure Democratic Party leaders as they gather to decide the fate of the Florida and Michigan delegations.” In 2000, the candidate most willing to deploy principles and trash them, according to the tactical needs of the moment, was awarded the prize. In 2008, maybe not.

Hertzberg equates a protest to COUNT the vote with a Republican operation to STOP THE COUNT of votes. But this is the landscape we occupy now. Up is down. Paul Krugman is evil and deranged. Andrew Sullivan is wise and progressive. Counting votes is bad. Not counting them is good.

Of course, Hertzberg's article is an attempt to deflate a point that he knows is powerful - count the votes. The value of the popular vote. And in order to do this, he seems intent on delegitimizing Clinton's perfectly honorable efforts to have the votes counted. And by delegitimizing the popular vote total in this contest, Hertzberg is implicitly arguing that the moral imperative for super delegates is to follow the pledged delegate leader, even though it is, in Hertzberg's words, "juridically meaningless." And we also know it is morally meaningless as well because the pledged delegate selection process is fundamentally flawed and undemocratic. It does not provide the imprimatur of the Will of the People.

Indeed, these glaring flaws have been, sadly, studiously avoided by the Media and major blogging figures. None have examined the pledged delegate system and how it is Obama came to hold a lead under that system. A look at the system leads to the inexorable conclusion that it is utterly undemocratic and flawed.

Both in ways intentional and unintentional, votes are diluted and over represented. And in many cases in contradictory ways. In Nevada and Iowa, rural voters are given extra weight, in Texas, urban voters given extra weight.

And just by awarding delegates by Congressional district, the DNC has chosen to dilute votes - 2-2 districts versus 3-2 districts is the most obvious example. A candidate can win 61% of the vote in a 2-2 district and get a split of the delegates while another candidate could get 50.1% of the vote in a 3-2 district and get a 3-2 split of the vote.

Consider also the absurdity of Texas' dual primary and caucus system which proved just how disenfranchising the pledged delegate selection system is. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by over 100,000 votes. Then a second contest was organized, from a smaller subset of the larger electorate which voted in the primary, to participate in a caucus. Obama won the undemocratic, voter excluding contest. Clinton won the democratic, voter inclusive one. Obama lost Texas according to the will of the People but got the most delegates. Thus, the DNC sanctioned voter dilution. There is not other word for it. If this system were submitted to the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, it would be laughed at and thrown out on its ear. And yet this is not worthy of even a mention from Hendrick Hertzberg, or indeed, anyone at all in the Media.

Leaving all that aside, the question is what should the Super Delegates do if there is not clear expression of the Will of The People? In my view, vote their conscience. Consider whatever legitimate factors they deem relevant. Including, electability in November.

And it goes to this final point. while it is my belief that the Super Delegates will now go for Barack Obama no matter what, in fact Obama has NOT clinched the nomination. By any rules based metric. He has not achieved 2026 delegates nor 2210.

But Hillary Clinton is treated as delusional, evil even, for staying in the race and making her case. To me that is the ultimate grotesqueness of all of this. That someone who is playing by the rules and fighting for her supporters and views is treated as a scourge. All because they want the votes counted.

Yes there was an earlier episode when something like this occurred. In 2000. And the person who suffered this type of abuse was named Al Gore. History repeats itself.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only.

Comments now closed.

< Final Media Walk-Through for Denver Convention | Supreme Court Refuses Former Gov. Ryan Appeal, Rezko Jury Still Out >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • BTD, a Texan in another (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by MarkL on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:10:00 PM EST
    thread opined that Hillary will get the majority of TX delegates in the end. As you know, the final convention hasn't been held yet. This person thinks the old hands who support Hillary will crush the newbie Obama supporters.
    That would be sweet revenge, especially after NV.

    One should also add ... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Robot Porter on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:17:51 PM EST
    again that all delegate counts at this point are just projections.  Hence, all the conflicting numbers.

    Parent
    And, this won't be over until the convention.... (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:48:17 PM EST
    SD's need to sit back and stfu until that day.

    Parent
    I said that (5.00 / 7) (#25)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:26:37 PM EST
    and I had been super active in local and state politics here since the days of Ann Richards 1990.  Tejano Democrats, which is more of a south TX phenomenon (not many Tejano Dems in the DFW/north part of TX), are full of party stalwarts who will be going to the mat for Hillary.

    Figure this:  Robbstown, TX,  a tiny town outside of Corpus Christi had Johnny Canales emcee an event and almost 9000 people showed up.  Fort Worth barely had that when Hillary came (and we are approaching 750K in population here).

    From El Paso to Brownsville is HUGE Clinton country.  And those people are the party elders...figuratively and literally.  Make no mistake that the convention will be held more on their terms.  I've seen it way too many times.

    Last convention the GLBT delegation and the Tejano Dems clashed big time.  Guess who won?  The Black Caucuses were a one big brou-ha-ha.  Guess who had to salvage that?  My drinking buddy and Hillary superdelegate Bob Slagle.

    The Hillary people will be brokering this convention.  Indeed the Obama supporters will try to run the board.  Austin may make a dent but other than that, IT AIN'T GUNNA HAPPEN.

    Parent

    What's the upper threshhold for the (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by MarkL on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:34:01 PM EST
    margin she can get in the end---any idea?

    Parent
    Not sure (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:04:09 PM EST
    I used to get a lot of inside track stuff but a lot of people know that I have rejected my Dem status so I have been taken off of a lot of distribution lists.  

    I need to make a few calls and see what's it looking like out there with respect to her margins.  Again, the people who are going to state to caucus will have one helluva time.  The Obama supporters will be there in droves, but the party elders will make them adhere to rules and procedures that will baffle them and probably make them leave the floor altogether.

    Texas politics are not for the faint of heart.  The Obama supporters may scream and shout, but the old cats will not only not recognize them, they will be removed.  It's just that simple.


    Parent

    If things turn out as you predict, I may (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by MarkL on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:07:51 PM EST
    return to Orange Hell to post a diary.

    Parent
    Chicago politics (none / 0) (#173)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:25:02 PM EST
    vs. Texas politics.

    LBJ and Bush 41 and Bush 43.

    I don't need to say anything more.  And no I am not proud of that.  Just sayin'....

    Parent

    lobby superdelegates (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Josey on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:34:38 PM EST
    www.lobbydelegates.com

    Parent
    How much concern... (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by p lukasiak on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:39:28 PM EST
    How much concern is there among Obama's Texas supporters that if the caucus delegates don't reflect the will of the voters, the massive fraud and intimidation that occurred during the caucuses will be used as grounds to challenge all the caucus delegates in the credentials committee? Are the Texas Obots "damn the topedos, full speed ahead" types... or do they realize how precarious their positions are?

    Parent
    I would welcome that kind of challenge (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by MarkL on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:43:52 PM EST
    from the Obama bots----as long as actual checking of the signature lists, etc. took place.
    A lot of Hillary supporters think that Obama cheated in the caucuses. Texas would be a good place to test that hypothesis, if the O-bots are up for it.
    And if it's not true, all the better for Obama's legitimacy.

    Parent
    There was a lot (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:54:21 PM EST
    of unethical and illegal shenanigans took place.  What drove me to TL back in March was the fact that my mother and I had to enlist the help of Voter Protection from the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Tarrant count Democratic Party Chairman Art Brender.  Obama people were electioneering INSIDE the polling places and within the boundaries they were not SUPPOSED to be in.

    Personally I was passing out pushcards on caucusing for the Hillary campaign and was called a host of racial and gay epithets by Obama supporters.  My precinct was combined with another precinct that had a higher ratio of AA's, and we were overwhelmed and treated like dirt.

    The caucuses were supremely out of control.  The local party and the elections board did not properly train on how to run the caucuses. "Team" captains, rather caucus captains, from the respective campaigns didn't run the caucuses right either.  Everytime I tried to interject on correct procedure I was yelled down by Obama supporters.  I have been caucusing in TX since I was 23 yrs old and I am 40 now.  I was embarrassed on how supposedly Democrats were acting towards one another.

    There is a youtube video of an Obama supporter who was making calls confusing voters as to who they were caucusing for. Unfortunately they called a Hillary supporter and campaign volunteer and she captured their illegal activities on video for the whole world to see.

    To say that Obama's people were breaking rules and election laws on that fateful March 4th day, would be an understatement.

    Parent

    yes, I remember your posts from the time. (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by MarkL on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:56:54 PM EST
    Oddly enough (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by janarchy on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:28:41 PM EST
    someone on my Livejournal list (well, who WAS, I've since deleted her) said she was a O. delegate for South Texas and was going on and on about all the abuse she'd suffered as an Obama supporter at the hands of the evil Hillary supporters. This was followed by yet another Testament of Faith in the Great Inspiring Messiah -- I did not know how to refute her claims but I knew there were a lot of problems for the Clinton supporters in TX at the caucuses just as I know from a friend in the Seattle area how bad things were in WA (and that friend is for Kuscinich -- she said the Obama people were just impossible to everyone)

    Parent
    I recall from news reports at the time (5.00 / 0) (#206)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:37:13 PM EST
    that the rules for the TX caucuses were that you had to be there on time and stay throughout the entire process and that you had to physically sign in on a sheet of paper INSIDE the caucus.  The news reports at the time said there were some Obama caucus leaders (don't know the term to use) that were planning to allow caucus goers to sign the sheets ahead of time so that they didn't have to actually get inside and stay for the whole process.  I don't know if that ended up being one of the problems or not.  But, those sign-in sheets were not supposed to be available to anyone PRIOR to the start of the caucus just to avoid this kind of issue.  And supposedly there were Obama caucus leaders who had the sheets well ahead of time.

    Parent
    In fact (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by nell on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:55:25 PM EST
    I believe Hillary's team filed the thousands of compaints they had about the TX with the state Dem party and asked them to investigate but the campaign was silenced and told not to talk about this. I believe I read from a diary at MyDD that the DNC head honchos were made aware of all of the problems that ensued and the incredible illegality of the whole process, but they didn't care to do anything about it. Obama cheats and all is fine and well, and if she tries to call him on it she is a horrible Dem splitting evil monger.

    Ridiculous.

    Parent

    That would be sweet (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:10:09 PM EST
    If the presumptuous nominee goes around and is treated as such, but then when all the state parties where there were caucuses meet for the final time and vote - and Hillary ends up picking up delegates.

    Is the media going to ignore that??

    Parent

    You know the deal (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by Steve M on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:14:29 PM EST
    When Obama gets extra delegates out of the caucus process, it's a matter of his skill at working within the rules laid out for both sides.  When Hillary gets extra delegates through the same process, she's stealing votes.

    Parent
    And it is looking (none / 0) (#222)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:41:57 PM EST
    And it is looking as though BHO os having a bit of a problem with reality.

    Obama also spoke about his uncle, who was part of the American brigade that helped to liberate Auschwitz.

    Sorry, Auschwitz is in Poland.  No American brigade entered Poland in WWII.

    CBS News Link

    Parent

    Even more powerful argument... (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by gmo on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:12:49 PM EST
    ....after the punch in the gut I got watching Recount this weekend on HBO.

    After noting how arbitrary the entire presidential election turned out to be in 2000, what a nauseating game of politics that the simple, fundamental basis of democracy became (COUNT EVERY VOTE),  is there truly any question in this nominating process that at minimum, the vote of every individual should be counted and heard, and at least considered with equal weight and merit in the decision-making process of the superdelegates?

    Tx alone should be part of a (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by zfran on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:19:12 PM EST
    lawsuit for various reasons, but let's not make too many waves! If BTD, an avid Democrat first supporter, says above that in essence the system is greatly flawed, going back to 2000 and probably farther, then in the end, we again, have missed a great opportunity (imo)to move this nation forward. Once again, we take a very long step back.  

    Parent
    Why not have a lawsuit, if it uncovers (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by MarkL on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:20:38 PM EST
    widespread fraud and double-voting (as alleged).

    Parent
    But then the question becomes, (none / 0) (#23)
    by zfran on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:25:49 PM EST
    is the judge a dem or a repub. Unfortunately and sadly, it's not about the voter...it's about the party and we "who mush always follow and never question".

    Parent
    IMO that is not a good reason to not file a (none / 0) (#92)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:00:34 PM EST
    lawsuit...that point could be argued into oblivion.  You have to trust that the judge will be objective.

    Parent
    super delagates (none / 0) (#228)
    by tedsim on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:50:48 PM EST
    If the democratic party does not do right by hillary, I believe millions will leave the party,I know I will.

    Parent
    I can only pray that the people will prevail (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by athyrio on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:13:53 PM EST
    and the DNC will come to their senses, (I know, I am an eternal optimist.....) If anyone in this universe has the ability to turn this around Hillary does, and I am praying daily for that to happen....So far she has withstood the most amazing assault on her candidacy I have ever witnessed just for daring to run against the candidate that the "powers that be" have chosen....If the democratic party cannot even promote democracy, where are we going as a nation??

    I think there's actually plenty of (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by MarkL on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:18:54 PM EST
    time for Hillary, if she stays in until August.
    Obama's brand name keeps going down, down down.
    I expect him to be decisively losing to McCain by the end of June.

    Parent
    You think Hillary is winning people over? (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by MarkL on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:45:31 PM EST
    That's one explanation. Then there are Obama's own missteps, and McCain's attacks.


    Parent
    I swear to God (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by Steve M on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:46:17 PM EST
    I thought this comment was a pretty decent piece of snark.  That's what I honestly thought.

    Parent
    Poor rational Steve M. (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by madamab on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:48:39 PM EST
    You haven't had enough Kool-Aid today! ;-)

    Parent
    Ridiculous huh? (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by RalphB on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:03:41 PM EST
    The funniest thing I've read in a long time was last night here where someone was arguing that Obama would win because of his height.  Or his American Idol good looks, it was positively bizarre.


    Parent
    There was a study (none / 0) (#163)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:21:10 PM EST
    During the 2004 campaign season, one of the networks interviewed a fellow (don't recall name - sorry) who claimed to have done a study showing in the overwhelming number of cases that the taller candidate wins the presidency.  But, the Bush win over the much taller Kerry presents quite the exception.

    Parent
    brand name (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:49:28 PM EST
    Obama's brand name is going down because of Rev Wrigt and bittergate.  These are two issues he cause himself.

    The media and Obama's most ardent leftie supporters may think that he "fixed" the Rev Wright issue.  But, that's not the case in middle America and the working class.

    He's not doing himself any favors with his position on FL and MI either.

    Parent

    A bit OT - not an attack on you, (5.00 / 6) (#80)
    by madamab on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:56:08 PM EST
    but I wish people would not characterize Obama's supporters as lefties.

    I don't see race-baiting, sexism, and wanting to kick the working class out of the Democratic Party as leftie values.

    Hence, my intense disagreement with (but respect for) most of BTD's posts about Unity.

    Back on topic - I don't agree at all that more people have voted for Barack Obama than Hillary Clinton. Certainly giving Obama all the uncommitted votes in MI will not fly. It's simply ludicrous.

    After June 3 I expect that HRC will be the clear winner of the popular vote.

    Parent

    why that b!tch! (5.00 / 4) (#95)
    by RalphB on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:00:59 PM EST
    Hey wait a darned minute.  She is winning people over.  Then let's nominate her so we can win.  Revolutionary idea  eh.


    Parent
    To put it mildly....you are full of it. You must (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:04:09 PM EST
    have read Bob Herbert this morning, who has turned into nothing more than a talking obamabot.
    Hillary has run a clean campaign and not used harsh tones....obama not so much.  Go back and trace the source of the nastiness...it is talking heads and supposed journalists....and please remove your head from that dark space where the sun never shines.

    Parent
    Yes because (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:05:47 PM EST
    someone fighting for what they believe is right a character flaw in your world's view.

    Sounds pretty defeatist to me.  How sad.

    Parent

    Oh yes (5.00 / 4) (#137)
    by Nadai on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:12:31 PM EST
    How dare Hillary try to win.  Doesn't she realize that will cause Obama to lose?  That unmitigated b!tch.

    Parent
    nothing is EVER (5.00 / 4) (#175)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:26:15 PM EST
    Obama's fault. EVER.

    Parent
    The only thing "remarkable" about (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by zfran on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:46:22 PM EST
    Obama's campaign has been to ignore the people unless they fit into his playbook. That is not change, nor, imo, a candidate of the people.

    Parent
    The campaign that ignores the crucial (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by MarkL on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:59:51 PM EST
    swing states is Obama's.

    Parent
    I hope that your demographic (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by zfran on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:06:02 PM EST
    meets the requirement of the dems. Hillary includes all demographics. To stand in the way of FL/MI because it is an incovenient truth for him, who is not counting the votes? Is Obama "flying" over these two states?

    Parent
    bingo! (none / 0) (#151)
    by kimsaw on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:16:05 PM EST
    Remarkable (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:06:58 PM EST
    is Bush Gore 2000 is your metric, then yes.  Remarkable that they are using Rovian/republican methods and the DNC is happily playing along with the compliant press.

    Care to take another stab at this?

    Parent

    Btw, folks, Darthnole boasts (3.66 / 3) (#100)
    by Cream City on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:01:56 PM EST
    elsewhere on the 'Net that he's proud to be a "MyFox" user -- a Faux Nooz fan from 'way back, before he became part of the OFB.

    I wonder if that tells us more about where Obama is finding his support, huh?  Oh, the books that will be written about this campaign when historians can get access to Rove's files.  If ever.

    Parent

    I wonder what's REALLY in (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by madamab on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:04:24 PM EST
    those 5 million missing RNC emails?

    Parent
    Of course you're right, BTD ... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Robot Porter on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:14:42 PM EST
    but it won't be as simple as that.

    Because if, contrary to your projections, Hillary does lead in the popular vote at the end of this process, Obama and company will claim she really doesn't.

    They just won't accept the count.

    Watch.

    Even if that count... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by gmo on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:28:05 PM EST
    ...goes beyond any shadow of a doubt by several metrics? (e.g. not counting MI/FL, etc).  You mean they'll spin it because "Puerto Rico doesn't matter?"   Seems like a bad idea to me.

    Parent
    Yup ... (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Robot Porter on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:32:18 PM EST
    just watch them.

    And they will continually buttress this with the "but only the delegates really matter" argument.

    It's not gonna be pretty.

    Parent

    I probably should have said ... (none / 0) (#148)
    by Robot Porter on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:15:29 PM EST
    "elected delegates" ....

    Not sure it would have altered your response.

    But here's hoping.

    Parent

    delegates matter (none / 0) (#168)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:22:33 PM EST
    yes, delegates (not PLEDGED delegates) are the only thing that matters.  And Super Delegates have NO RULES as to what criteria they may use to make their decision.  There is no rule that says super delegates can't look to the popular vote to make their decision.

    there was a natinal poll of dems a few weeks back.  And a clear majority at tat time said they thought the super delegates should give the nomination to the candidate that won the popular vote.

    Parent

    I'll bet you my last dollar (none / 0) (#209)
    by Warren Terrer on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:39:12 PM EST
    you've never read the rules, but that you read dailykos regularly.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Steve M on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:14:56 PM EST
    It's going to be interesting watching the COUNT THE VOTES protest juxtaposed with the ENFORCE TEH ROOLZ protest.

    They should start quoting James Baker (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by andgarden on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:17:51 PM EST
    and Katherine Harris.

    Parent
    I thought they were (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Robot Porter on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:22:36 PM EST
    BTW, I watched RECOUNT today.  Brilliant stuff.

    Wish the Gore campaign had as good a visual to explain how hanging and dimpled chads occur.  The one the makers of this film created made it crystal clear.

    The film really choked me up.

    What a different world we'd live in today had Al Gore been President for the last eight years.

    Parent

    The fallacy is (none / 0) (#182)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:29:49 PM EST
    that the "rules" actually provide for the DNC to seat delegates from states who violate the calendar rules if the states tried to bring themselves into compliance, even if unable to do so, as in the cases here where the Republican majorities in the state legislatures forced earlier primary dates. The basic disagreement, I believe, in the "rules" context, is the punitive interpretation of the rules and reconsideration of that decision. BTD has posted several excellent references to the rules.  

    Parent
    Excellent. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by oculus on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:15:52 PM EST


    <broken record> (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by andgarden on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:17:17 PM EST
    Puerto Rico will determine who leads in the popular vote </broken record>

    andgarden I hope Puerto Rico is a total blowout (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by athyrio on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:19:49 PM EST
    for Hillary.....

    Parent
    yeah but I can only conclude from BTD's (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jes on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:28:38 PM EST
    post that he thinks PR will be much closer than expected. What would she need there to seal the PV. About 150k advantage?

    Parent
    Ah... but what count (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:43:22 PM EST
    will you use?  I use vote plus FL/MI (giving Obama the undecided no matter how much I think it is wrong) /NB primary/WA (actual) primary.  I use RCP number for the caucus estimates (as an analyst I have problems using estimates but I'll play the game).  Once the final 3 contests are over, I have Clinton (most likely) with the popular vote lead.

    The problem?  My idea of legitimacy is not anyone else's.

    Parent

    my question (none / 0) (#75)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:54:54 PM EST
    does anyone know the deal with the four caucus states that have not "RELEASED" actual voter totals?  Is it because they don't HAVE they numbers of people who actually attended the caucus?  Or, just because the don't WANT to release the numbers?  This has never been clearly stated anywhere that I have seen.

    I have no problem using the RealClear estimates for those 4 states.

    in WA, you shouldn't use the primary results because that wasn't the official nominating contest, you shuld use the estimate based on the caucus

    Parent

    Use what you want (none / 0) (#93)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:00:46 PM EST
    I use the actual primary, because it was, you know, an actual primary.  I only use estimates if there are no actual numbers available.  I said this is my count and it is what I consider a basis for legitimacy.

    Parent
    Got it, "young andgarden." (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:19:13 PM EST
    I truly (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:18:26 PM EST
    wish that I still believed that the "Will of the People" meant something to the Democratic Party. I do believe that the will of the people is all that should matter. Even when I don't agree with them and whine about it. :)

    However, given the shenanigans that have gone on in this primary season who really knows how the popular vote would have gone if Senator Clinton's momentum had not been derailed with the exclusion of her win in FL and the votes that were cast for her in MI?  

    Rules cmte meeting (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:20:56 PM EST
    I recall last week on CNN, Donna Brazile stated that the dem party holds its meetings in public and invited Anderson Cooper and CNN to come and  cover the DNC Rules Committee meeting on May 31st.  Has anyone heard whether this will really happen?  Does anyone know whether we will be able to watch the arguments being made to the rules committee by all the players?  It would certainly be interesting television if it actually happens.

    It should be boring (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:49:56 PM EST
    The deals will be made behind the scenes.  The public meeting will merely be an artificial display of trying to sell their decision.

    If you've ever been unfortunate to watch local govt behind the scenes, it's entertaining.  When I worked for our county, I was in a room outside of the chamber.  They council members were bickering over who would vote which way.  They noticed me standing there and were stunned.  I shrugged it off and said 'I work here.'  They went right back to bickering.  They knew the end result, it was just a matter of who could get away with voting yea/nay with their constituencies.  Fun stuff.

    Parent

    Did they have the option (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by standingup on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:04:15 PM EST
    of voting "present" too?

    Parent
    I agree 100% (4.50 / 2) (#129)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:11:05 PM EST
    what you see on TV will be a big ol' dog and pony show.

    "See Clinton supporters? Everything was transparent! Now move along we have a general election to lose!"

    If Obama wins I am going to get a bumper sticker that's already out here in TX:  "I can't WAIT to vote McCain"

    Parent

    My co-worker is going (none / 0) (#152)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:16:20 PM EST
    too bad he's for Obama (but he's nice anyway).

    Parent
    Well said. (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by janarchy on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:21:42 PM EST
    I tried to explain the ways primaries work to a friend of mine in Europe and she just got to the point where she asked me to stop because her head was going to explode from confusion. The saddest thing was that I was just as confused as she was.

    Even sadder is the people I used to think were rational and intelligent who keep telling me we're wrong about all of the above and somehow Obama has magically won everything all by his lonesome and that the will of the people by some overwhelming majority has already annointed him our nominee (and most likely our President...by a landslide yet!)

    How many times did you use ... (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Robot Porter on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:26:35 PM EST
    the word "unless"?

    ;)

    I did a similar thing some months back with a friend, and I agree even those of us who understand it ... don't understand it.

    Parent

    Too many times! (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by janarchy on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:40:46 PM EST
    I think I used "OR" a lot too. :)

    I completely confused myself and then wondered what kind of drugs the people who devised the systems were on...I suppose true democracy isn't one uniform system (even if it makes sense) but this is really insane.

    There are days when I sort of wish we'd never gotten rid of that monarchy system or at least had gone with a parlimentry procedure instead. ::sigh::

    Parent

    you misunderstandimate (5.00 / 10) (#21)
    by Turkana on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:25:32 PM EST
    the will of the people is for obama. if the popular vote somehow favors clinton, it is because of the absurd voting system. that the absurd voting system produced obama's pledged delegate lead is irrelevant. because the will of the people is for obama. and any measure that supports this fact is valid. and any measure that doesn't is invalid. or cheating. or an attempted coup.

    Yes, that will hold up until November. (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by MarkL on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:26:51 PM EST
    That's a faith-based argument... (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Exeter on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:42:46 PM EST
    ...for a faith-based candidate. The evidence-based argument is that when people actually have voted in a traditional ballot box-- they have voted overwhealmingly for Clinton.

    Parent
    but this campaign season is all about (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by Turkana on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:45:16 PM EST
    hope and change and being fired up and ready to go. as is any good revival meeting.

    Parent
    ...and fainting ; ) (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by Exeter on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:58:49 PM EST
    didn't Howard Dean recently state (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Josey on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:45:29 PM EST
    the SDs will look closely at the candidate that wins the last 5-6 primaries?
    It seems Obama continues leading Hillary, but losing against McCain.
    Hmm...now tell me again - which stats are more important?


    Parent
    any stat (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by Turkana on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:49:45 PM EST
    that favors obama is important. other stats either don't exist or shouldn't exist, and therefore can be ignored.

    Parent
    The primary stats (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:15:05 PM EST
    because they have to follow the rules.  The Dems are so short-sighted.  They are not looking ahead to the GE.  Jeralyn's posts data showing time and time again that HRC is the stronger candidate.

    I think its amazing that we are not part of any organized political organization, but just a part of the blogosphere and so much intelligent information is distributed here for anyone who is interested to look into.

    It can't be made any easier for the super d's.


    Parent

    Hertzberg's tone has varied wildly (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by rilkefan on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:25:33 PM EST
    I wonder if he realizes he's being hackish, tries to rein himself in, fails, then tries again.

    Funny how Sargeant starts off with, here's a balanced post - well, ok, the last line is over-the-top - well, ok, the whole last paragraph.

    This a nice turn of phrase by Hertzberg: (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by oculus on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:29:10 PM EST
    for whom the 2000 travesty is a station of the cross and vote-counting a kind of sacrament.

    Too bad he so severly veers away from it.

    Parent

    Ironic (5.00 / 11) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:32:05 PM EST
    It is news to me that the Democratic Party has become a sovereign republic. I am indeed behind the times if that is so.

    In addition, I love that you invoke states rights to defend the indefensible. What of the rights of the states of Florida and Michigan?

    You make it too easy.

    Bring me better Obama debators.

    Heh (5.00 / 7) (#51)
    by Steve M on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:43:56 PM EST
    Every time Jerome makes a caucus post there are a hundred comments like this one, positively extoling the virtues of having an undemocratic system.  It's like, they can't keep the two issues separate; the present system has produced Obama as the nominee and therefore it must be the best of all possible systems.  Tell me, were you aware no one ever complained about the primary process in any way before the whiny Clinton supporters came along?

    One of the most popular arguments is that states decide to hold caucuses through a democratic process (unfortunately not true), how dare you question what the people in their wisdom have decided is the best way to hold an election, blah blah blah.  I guess once "progressives" started to argue that superior fundraising is an important metric for identifying the best candidate, I shouldn't have been surprised to see these other amazing arguments follow close behind.

    Parent

    news to me as well. (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by cpinva on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:13:55 PM EST
    It is news to me that the Democratic Party has become a sovereign republic. I am indeed behind the times if that is so.

    low-hanging fruit.

    Parent

    BTD, do I (none / 0) (#226)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:48:00 PM EST
    understand correctly that what you are saying to Darthnole is that "states rights" he/she describes vis-a-vis the right to hold a caucus or a primary refers to the DNC's decision to allow states to select candidates through either system (or both) and can be changed, whereas the "states rights" generally referred to signifies the rights reserved to the states, as opposed to the Federal government, by the Constitution (a somewhat fluid concept)?


    Parent
    Take your argument to its logical (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by MarkL on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:32:16 PM EST
    conclusion: the superdelegates hold all the cards. Their votes will determine the nominee. They are under NO obligation to evaluate the candidates by he pledged delegate count. The popular vote count, polls, issues---anything is valid.
    Viva la antidemocracia!

    I have no idea what you are trying to (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by MarkL on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:04:24 PM EST
    argue. The SD's are completely free to change their mind before August---in fact, many of them have done so. Therefore, if Hillary stays in the race while  giving arguments for the SD's to switch, that is perfectly legitimate.

    Parent
    Or just use lots of exclamation marks!!! (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by Cream City on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:35:15 PM EST
    A friend of mine, a teacher of writing, called that "sorority-style writing."  That always comes to mind when I see it.  I have this picture of you in my head now, Da****hole, and thanks for the laugh.

    Oooopsies, I guess that oughta be . . . the laugh!!!

    Parent

    It Is My Belief (5.00 / 7) (#35)
    by flashman on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:32:20 PM EST
    That at the end of this process, Hillary will have received more actual votes than any other candidate running, indeed, more than any other primary candidate in history.  She already leads in the most inclusive vote total, as discussed on this very blog.  Hillary is clearly the people's choice, and the one who should prevail in the Democratic Primary.

    That said, I think of the SD's as independent voters, who should have the party's best interest at heart when making their decisions.  Theier existance serves many purposes in a system that has many flaws, even the need for SD's is itself a flaw.  In the final analysis, they should exercise thier independent judgement to select a candidate who best represents the will of the people, but who also has the best chance of winning the GE in November.  Thus, it is, IMO, entirelly legitimate to consider who has momentum going into the general election contest.

    From what I can see, the SD's are being whipped by the media into caving in to Obama's position.  They appear to be coward by the perception, hawked by the media, that by backing Clinton, they are stealing the election for her.  Cable news network hosts bring the party leaders on the air and lash them into compliance using the utterly flase spector that they are 'fixing' the primary.  Many in the media started to push this narritive from the moment Barak took the delegate lead, and have given more of their air time to pound away at the SD's to get them 'in line.'  The SD's, for the most part, don't seem to have the cajones to stand up to the media.  It's a damn shame.

    Ypur last paragraph says it all (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by ruffian on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:39:04 PM EST
    Well, almost all - let's not forget that it was the Obama campaign that pushed that narrative.

    Accusing your opponent of cheating - it's the new kind of politics.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 9) (#63)
    by nell on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:48:30 PM EST
    Your last paragraph is the crux of Hillary's problem.

    The media coverage during this election has been unforgivable, but as Anglachel said, it has not hurt Hillary as much as one might expect. While Barack is the media darling, Hillary is the voter's darling. Sure, some are impacted by the media coverage and buy into it and that has certainly cost her some votes, but even with the media smearing her on a daily basis as a crazy, racist, deranged, pimping, cleavage showing, cackling witch, she has gotten more votes than Barack has to the tune of 17 million plus. Would she be doing better with fair media coverage? Yes, I think so, but she has done unbelievably well given the narrative. ANY other candidate, except Bill Clinton, would have been CRUSHED under this media abuse.

    The one place where she has been, I fear, permanently damanged is with the superdelegates. These are the people most affected by the media narrative and every day they hear that they cannot take this election away from the first black man and they buy into the false and dangerous "stealing" narrative. The supers were meant to intervene in EXACTLY this kind of situation where they eliminated the possibility of having an unelectable candidate. Barack peaked before he was vetted, and he has been badly damanged since then, to the point where it will be INCREDIBLY difficult for him to win the general. I mean he is showing difficulty now in the numbers against McCain and he hasn't seen ANYTHING yet. Meanwhile, Hillary is slimed and smeared daily and she is soaring against McCain. But the media narrative has made it difficult for her with supers because they have been made psychologically unable to do their jobs.

    THAT is the problem.

    Parent

    Today's MSM Theme (5.00 / 4) (#145)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:14:35 PM EST
    At least from listening to MSNBC & CNN, today's MSM theme seems to be that Hillary's "assasination" gaffe has lead Obama insider's to conclude, reluctantly, that she cannot be the VP.  Her total exclusion appears to be the goal, and her "gaffe" is the latest reason given for not including her on the ticket.  
    Again a double standard; only Obama is allowed to make mistakes of any kind.  

    Parent
    also (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Josey on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:55:13 PM EST
    the Pelosi-Kennedy Washington establishment supporting Obama has the capacity to offer "incentives" to SDs who are congressional reps - more earmarks, higher standing on committees, etc.
    They may not be wheelin and dealin but they have the capacity to reward Obama endorsers that ignore the polling indicating Hillary is the best candidate and just "go along to get along."

    Parent
    Finally, the righteous underlying principle: (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by felizarte on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:34:07 PM EST
    "The will of the people"! and the parallel principle of fairness. Pledged delegates, as a product of a flawed method of allocation which does not reflect thhe will of the people should not be allowed to control.  It is tantamount to rewarding the mistakes of the party leadership.

    Any worthy candidate for the nomination should consider it his or her moral imperative to make sure that the true voice of the people is heard and the votes that reflect that, counted.

    problems with your argument (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:40:43 PM EST
    the dem party is a private organization.  and the state level dem parties can hold their nominating contests any way they like with approval from the DNC.  They are not restricted by any state laws that I'm aware of.  Years ago the majority of states didn't have a caucus or primary.  the state party just sent who they wanted to send to the convention and did the old smoke filled room procedure.

    The Texas "two step" process was explained this year when it came to light.  It was Texas' way to ensure that party activists had a larger role in the process (similar to super delegates) and they wouldn't be totally beholden to the "will ofthe people".

    As far as caucuses go, it is my understanding that the main reason they are used is because they are cheaper than running a full primary.

    If this year has taught us anything, it is that caucuses disenfranchise many voters who cannot attend, but would vote in a primary.  There were at least two examples this yaer of states that had a caucus as their official nominating contest and then also held a primary.  In both cases Obama won the caucus by a 2 - 1 margin.  And, in both cases he won the later primaries by single digits.  This just adds to the example of the results in TX to prove that a caucus does not tell you anythign anout the will of the people.

    Well, of course not -- not when people (none / 0) (#210)
    by Cream City on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:39:16 PM EST
    are told that primaries don't matter as much or at all.

    Or, of course, that they can't give 12 or more hours, day and night, for the insane Texas system.

    As for the "private organizations" argument, that hasn't worked for a lot of them when hauled before the courts, the EEOC, etc., for discrimination.  The day will come when someone from the military, or with disabilities, or whatever -- when they sue and have a smart lawyer and a fair court.

    The Dems can wait to be disgraced again when that day comes, or they can fix it first.  We'll see.

    Parent

    Well, of course not -- not when people (none / 0) (#215)
    by Cream City on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:40:02 PM EST
    are told that primaries don't matter as much or at all.

    Or, of course, that they can't give 12 or more hours, day and night, for the insane Texas system.

    As for the "private organizations" argument, that hasn't worked for a lot of them when hauled before the courts, the EEOC, etc., for discrimination.  The day will come when someone from the military, or with disabilities, or whatever -- when they sue and have a smart lawyer and a fair court.

    The Dems can wait to be disgraced again when that day comes, or they can fix it first.  We'll see.

    Parent

    What are you counting, BTD? (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by p lukasiak on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:44:51 PM EST
    In short, I believe Barack Obama will win the popular vote and thus his likely nomination will reflect the will of the people. what are you counting, BTD? For instance, Obama's lead in (estimated) caucus participants is significantly lower (by about 50,000) than his lead in the state certified primary that was held in Washington. And "votes" from Nebraska also take a huge hit if we count voters instead of caucus participants. (I think it goes from a lead of about 12K caucus participants to only about 2,000 actual voters in the state certified primary)

    I do not count Nebraska (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:48:09 PM EST
    too distant in time.

    But I count all the cuacus votes and I assign the MI uncommitteds, or at least the percentage indicated by the exit polls see Bowers on that, to Obama.

    He leads now by about 110k by my count and I believe after PR, MT and SD, he will still hold a lead, though smaller.

    Parent

    1844 (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by oldnorthstate on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:45:26 PM EST
    James K Polk was not even on the nominating ballot until the 8th vote!
    Ballots     1     2     3     4     5     6     7     8     9 Before shifts     9 After shifts
    Martin Van Buren     146     127     121     111     103     101     99     104     0     0
    Lewis Cass     83     94     92     105     107     116     123     114     29     0
    Richard M. Johnson     24     33     38     32     29     23     21     0     0     0
    John C. Calhoun     6     1     2     0     0     0     0     0     0     0
    James Buchanan     4     9     11     17     26     25     22     0     0     0
    Levi Woodbury     2     1     2     0     0     0     0     0     0     0
    Charles Stewart     1     1     0     0     0     0     0     0     0     0
    James K. Polk     0     0     0     0     0     0     0     44     231     266
    Abstaining     0     0     0     1     1     1     1     4     6     0

    He eventually won the nomination and the Presidency.  So next time somebody starts blabbing about pledged delegates, consider that the History of our process goes well beyond this notion of pledged and super delegates.  In 1844, the man that become President wasn't even being considered until round number 8.

    FDR (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:16:44 PM EST
    got in on the 4th vote.  From what I hear, he wasn't too shabby of a president.

    But then again he never knew Obama. /s

    Parent

    I have to say that what has been happening (5.00 / 7) (#65)
    by Anne on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:49:13 PM EST
    this election makes it very hard to refute the non-voters' excuse that they don't vote because it doesn't mean anything.  Because really, what does it mean?  After the gobsmacking lunacy of the DNC this year, how confident should any of us be that our votes count?  

    I fully expect the DNC to ignore all common sense and principle and make a decision on the 31st that seals the deal for Obama.  They will do that in spite of what I suspect are rafts of mail and phone calls and e-mail and faxes from outraged and soon-to-be-former members of the party.  In spite of the thousands of pleas for contributions returned with hand-written, multiply exclamation-pointed, obscenity-laced, all caps instructions as to when the DNC can expect to receive any of our money.

    The remaining superdelegates will take their cue from the DNC, so you know what that means.

    I'm just over all of it.  I'm sick of the stupid, sick of the greed, sick of the blindness.  It's so bad that I have started to feel like I want to get as far away from it as possible.  As it is, I don't watch the news, I've cancelled my subscription to The Nation, I'm down to one or two blogs that I read on a regular basis - pretty soon, I will be "the low-information voter."

    I'm down to spectator-status, and I've started to distance myself emotionally, looking at all of it with pity and disdain and disgust.  Sure, I entertain little fantasies about the karma that is going to bite a lot of people hard and often in the coming months - who isn't at this stage of the game?

    Hillary will either prevail or she won't.  If she does, so much the better.  If she doesn't, well, life will go on.  It might not be the best life, but it will go on.


    That's where I'm heading: apathy (4.25 / 4) (#140)
    by Cream City on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:12:48 PM EST
    and that makes it far more difficult for Dems to bring me back into the party than when I was "only" angry about all this.  And I began ringing doorbells for Dems almost five decades ago, a decade before I could vote.

    Distancing is exactly how I feel, too -- and spectator sport is another perfect term.  I'm just watching the train wreck now, from an increasingly safe place, my new worldview.  And yes, I also am amazed after years of not being capable of even beginning to comprehend how people could not vote.

    The sun will rise, anyway -- and so will Hillary, as you say, in her way.  Rise, Hillary, rise . . . and see Al Gore for how you can do so much more than Obama ever will be capable of doing, even (or especially) if he actually makes it to the White House.  

    Parent

    Super Delegates should consider five factors (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by Exeter on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:53:25 PM EST
    And in this order:
    1. What candidate can best win in November (Clinton clearly has the overwhealming advantage here)
    2. What candidate, if elected, can best implement a progressive agenda. (Obama probably has the advantage here)
    3. Will of DEMOCRATS (Hillary has won among registered Democrats by a huge margin)
    4. Which candidate will be for party building (This is a wash: Obama probably has the advantage now, but the dynamic would change in the general and Hillary would bring alot of women into the party and Obama would drive alot Dems out of the party.)
    5. Which candidate will help candidates down the ticket? (A wash: both will arguably help and hurt in some areas)


    The problem with your suggestions (none / 0) (#133)
    by bocajeff on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:11:49 PM EST
    1. What candidate can best win in November (Clinton clearly has the overwhealming advantage here) - This is subject to change. Perot was beating Bush and Clinton as late as July in 1992. Mondale was beating Reagan at some point (believe it or not) and Dukakis was beating Bush I at this point. So, this is subject to change. Also, if both candidates beat the republican do you pick the one who beats him/her the most?

    2. What candidate, if elected, can best implement a progressive agenda. (Obama probably has the advantage here) - So would you ignore conservative democrats?

    3. Will of DEMOCRATS (Hillary has won among registered Democrats by a huge margin) - There is no way to know this for sure as this has been measured by exit polls and not votes. Also, any candidate needs the support of independents to win in November, so they wouldn't mean anything before then?

    4. Which candidate will be for party building (This is a wash: Obama probably has the advantage now, but the dynamic would change in the general and Hillary would bring alot of women into the party and Obama would drive alot Dems out of the party.) - And wouldn't Hillary cause a suppression among AA's and some young voters?


    Parent
    the "unity" candidate divided the party (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Josey on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:33:24 PM EST
    >>>And wouldn't Hillary cause a suppression among AA's and some young voters?

    Honest AAs admit Obama ginned up the race-baiting and falsely accused the Clintons of racism. But he couldn't have done it with the assistance of the media and the elite Washington establishment that supports him.
    Young voters?  most seem to be voting for Obama to "beat the B---h!"  Most don't even know his rightist positions on the issues that conflict with their best interests - nor how closely he emulates Rev. Wright's ideology.

    There's a reason Fox News didn't expose the Wright tapes that were running through the tubes for a year before ABC News outed Obama's pastor and mentor - after most of the Primary was over.


    Parent

    Two points (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by mike in dc on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:53:34 PM EST
    First, whoever has the most votes will not have a majority of votes, they will have a plurality, and by an extremely narrow margin at that(possibly as small as a tenth of a percentage point).
    Second, at this point Obama is on pace to wind up with a majority of pledged delegates, even with FL and MI included in the equation.  

    So, should the superdelegates select based on popular vote, where neither candidate has a majority or a statistically meaningful vote margin, or based on pledged delegates, where one candidate does have a majority AND a statistically meaningful margin AND it's the most important criteria according to both the rules and party tradition?

    Given the number of remaining uncommitted superdelegates, it would take pretty much all of them to back Clinton, and unfortunately the popular vote argument, such as it exists, lacks the overwhelming moral force(margin is too small; nobody has a majority) and clarity (too many different ways to slice and dice the totals; tends to discriminate against caucuses; etc.) required to be a dispositive factor in their decision-making process.

    So, they should(and will) put Obama over the top, because the pledged delegate majority argument does have significant moral force and clarity to it, by contrast.

    Ahem, you don't know what a (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by MarkL on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:55:54 PM EST
    statistically significant difference is.
    Hillary will have it, at present pace.

    Parent
    Look, (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by frankly0 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:59:44 PM EST
    whatever problems the popular vote has, they pale by comparison of the defects in the pledged delegate count.

    Yes, the pledged delegate count has a more decisive number -- but of what moral force might that possibly be given its demonstrable defects, most importantly that it emphatically does NOT represent the will of the people, as has been shown again and again?

    Sorry, you can't manufacture "moral force" for such a count when it is inherently so distorted.

    Parent

    In general, (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by frankly0 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:02:02 PM EST
    your argument that we should go to the pledged delegate count because it's "clearer" is the same kind of argument that the Bush team was making in 2000 -- why count all those ballots with their ambiguous chads? Why not go with clarity?

    Well I'll tell you why: because the will of the people trumps "clarity".

    Parent

    No matter how you slice it (3.00 / 2) (#106)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:04:05 PM EST
    it is the DELEGATE COUNT that decides the race.  Whether it is moral or immoral is completely moot.

    The process may be horrible but it is the process the Democrats have and it isn't going to change this year.

    Obama doesn't need moral force.  He is the REAL force of winning the nomination process.  Hillary needs an argument of moral force because she is losing the nomination process and wishes to change the rules to something else.

    Parent

    It is the DELEGATE count (none / 0) (#119)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:07:45 PM EST
    Not the PLEDGED delegate count that decides the race.

    Please pay attention.

    This is an argument, my argument, about what I believe the moral imperative of the Super Delegates should be.

    Parent

    I understand (none / 0) (#131)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:11:31 PM EST
    your argument.

    I just don't see how it is compelling since there is no agreed upon popular vote count.  RCP has 6 difference PV scenarios.  Which one should be used?  

    When you and Jeralyn can't agree on a PV count how can a legitimate argument be made that one PV count is in fact definitive?

    Parent

    Because (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:22:11 PM EST
    BTD and Jeralyn are two seperate people who don't spoonfeed each other into believin the other's POV.

    Unlike all the new dittoheads at DK and Huff-ho opposing views can be civil and passionate posters can engage in an adult manner.

    Parent

    Of course a legitimate argument can be made (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:26:50 PM EST
    what a silly question.

    Parent
    The popular vote argument... (none / 0) (#127)
    by mike in dc on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:10:09 PM EST
    ...did not even exist at the beginning of this year.  There was no notion that the superdelegates should consider something extraneous to the number of pledged delegates won and electability.  

    The popular vote argument undercounts caucus states(cue the BTD "they disenfranchised themselves" argument here) and includes two contests which were held early in the campaign and where the candidates weren't permitted to campaign(this favors the candidate with highest name recognition/prior rep/establishment support over the insurgent).  

    Those are two glaring distortions in the popular vote argument.  One can argue "well, Obama might have had smaller margins in the caucus states if they were primaries", but of course, Obama might have campaigned differently in those states as well, and "run up the score", popular vote-wise.
    One can also argue "She still would have beaten him in Florida and Michigan if they had both campaigned there," but again, this is speculative, and it's highly likely her margins would have been smaller.

    Superdelegates are well aware that the popular vote argument is flawed in these ways.  They are also aware that the pledged delegate argument has its flaws, but then those flaws are no different than existed in the last several nominating contests since 1980, and both candidates accepted the process and campaigned accordingly.

    Parent

    Excuse me (5.00 / 3) (#174)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:26:03 PM EST
    It existed with me.

    And frankly, it was the implicit basis of everything done. No one was reporting delegates counts, they were reporting POPULAR VOTES. In Iowa and NH, the reporting was Obama wins 38-30, not 16-15. Hell, no one said Edwards finished 3rd in Iowa. Nevada is when Obama changed the "argument."

    your argument is false.  

    Parent

    Oh I do quibble (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:04:02 PM EST
    with the notion that the pledged delegate count has a "tradiiton" as the most important criteria for the decision of super delegates.

    Actually this election is unprecedented. There is no tradition at all for this.

    There is however a long tradition of valuing the popular vote as the first principle of democracy.

    Parent

    The only other (none / 0) (#118)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:07:28 PM EST
    race in which the superdelegates even played a role was the 84 election, IIRC.  

    Pledged delegate counts have been the deciding factor in primaries since the mid 1800s if not earlier.  

    Delegats are what matters, not popular votes.


    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 0) (#169)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:23:19 PM EST
    The mid 1800s? stop making a fool of yourself.

    Parent
    The 1800s ... really? (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Robot Porter on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:30:56 PM EST
    Popular vote didn't even play a role in the nominating process until 1912, and then only marginally.

    And even the primaries, after being instituted, did not really play a major role until 1960.  And then it wasn't decisive.

    Further, there were no "pledged delegates" as such in the 1800s.  In fact well into the 20th the results of many primaries were non-binding.

    History ... history ... history.


    Parent

    A battle of semantics (1.00 / 0) (#198)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:35:35 PM EST
    Obviously popular votes had little bearing on the nominations in the 1800s and much of the 20th century.

    Pledged delegates was a misnomer on my part.  I simply meant delegates.  

    Parent

    You made a false distinction ... (5.00 / 0) (#214)
    by Robot Porter on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:39:49 PM EST
    when there was no popular vote of course it couldn't matter.

    Rarely did the first ballot, or even announcing your candidacy matter.

    It was a silly basis for your argument.  Retire it, and move on.

    Parent

    You made a false distinction ... (5.00 / 0) (#223)
    by Robot Porter on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:42:33 PM EST
    when there was no popular vote of course it couldn't matter.

    Rarely did the first ballot, or even announcing your candidacy matter.

    It was a silly basis for your argument.  Retire it, and move on.

    Parent

    actually (5.00 / 4) (#136)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:12:29 PM EST
    the SDs ar supposed to make their decision based on which candidate has the better chance of WINNING in Nov.  Their decision is not, as you put it, just between the false choice of either the pledged delegate count or the popular vote lead.  What the SDs should be doing is an analysis of what the electoral math will look like in Nov.  Last I knew Obama is pinning his hopes in the fall on being able to win VA.  And I haven't seen one poll to date that shows him beating McCain in VA.

    The most recent electoral college polls show Clinton beating McCain easily.  They also show Obama either losing or close to a tie with McCain.

    The most recent national poll results show Clinton with a 2 - 5 point lead over McCain and Obama losing to McCain.

    Parent

    Survey USA 5/16-5/18... (none / 0) (#156)
    by mike in dc on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:17:24 PM EST
    ...Obama 49, McCain 42.

    When Clinton concedes/suspends, his national and state by state numbers will climb across the board.

    Parent

    This argument is old and wrong (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Marvin42 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:36:01 PM EST
    Nothing of the kind will happen. I think if you look at head to heads (like Gallup) Clinton has maintained her lead against McCain and Obama has sunk and or held at losing.

    People have decided and they are not going to rush to Obama.

    Parent

    Bless your heart. (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by madamab on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:36:17 PM EST
    National polls mean nothing.

    Try state-to-state polling. Hominid Views is quite fasciniating in this regard.

    Yesterday's results:

    Obama v. McCain - McCain victorious 66.7% of the time

    Hillary v. McCain - Hillary victorious 100% of the time

    Results like that should give any rational human being pause.

    Parent

    What about head to head... (1.00 / 0) (#216)
    by mike in dc on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:40:05 PM EST
    ...polling where Clinton is not included?

    It's been suggested that Obama actually performs better against McCain in polls where Clinton is not included as an option.  In other words, some Clinton supporters may be skewing polling results by suggesting they'll vote for McCain over Obama.  I have no doubt that some intend to do so, but not in the numbers currently bandied about.

    Parent

    Any reputable pollster (5.00 / 0) (#231)
    by Steve M on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:57:24 PM EST
    would alternate the presentation of the Obama vs. McCain and Clinton vs. McCain questions to eliminate the possibility of such a bias.

    Parent
    A plurality (none / 0) (#99)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:01:55 PM EST
    true enough.

    Do you object to that as a reflection of the will of the people or should we have a runoff now and do it all over?

    Parent

    Given all the flaws with the "count"... (none / 0) (#149)
    by mike in dc on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:15:46 PM EST
    ...such as undervaluing caucus states and assigning dispositive significance to Florida and Michigan's non-contested, unofficial primaries, I'd say it would be reasonable to have qualms about accepting a narrow popular vote plurality as reflecting the "will of the people" in any sort of dispositive/conclusive fashion.

    You can't just wave your hands and say, "yes, it's flawed, but this should still be the main criteria for the superdelegates' decision."  

    Parent

    There's no pro-Hillary bias in the (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by MarkL on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:18:05 PM EST
    distribution of primary vs. caucus states---nothing obvious at any rate. Obama' failure to win the popular vote in the primary states is dispositive t in showing that Hillary is the clear favorite.

    Parent
    Heh. (1.00 / 0) (#203)
    by mike in dc on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:36:17 PM EST
    nice try.

    that only disenfranchises about 13 states, instead of two.

    Parent

    No, you don't understand my argument. (5.00 / 0) (#213)
    by MarkL on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:39:24 PM EST
    When you do, come back. It's about sampling.

    Parent
    The Most Popular Votes was an Obama campaign (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by carmel on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:59:24 PM EST
    argument until recently. The Obama campaign argument seems to have changed to the Most Pledged Delegates should win, which is not the same as getting the Required 2025 Pledged Delegates, but who's paying attention? It's interesting that BTD thinks that Obama will win the popular vote. Is the fix in for Puerto Rico? Should the voters in Puerto Rico just stay home and not bother to vote because Hillary can't win the nomination? Voter suppression is a trademark Obama campaign strategy since OH and TX. Maybe Obama can declare himself the winner again after the DNC rules committee meeting on May 31st, and then Hillary's Puerto Rican supporters will really feel like giving up instead of voting in record numbers for her and giving her the popular vote lead. We'll see what happens BTD. I will bet on Hillary supporters turning out in record numbers to send a message to the DNC, Obama and the media. The "Hell hath no fury" message.

    That and superdelegates should go to the (none / 0) (#165)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:21:45 PM EST
    candidate that won the state, unless it isn't obama, and then the SD's can still go for him...

    Parent
    If I Remeber Correctly.... (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by delacarpa on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:00:12 PM EST
    and talking about how wonderful Obama has ran his wonderful campaign, History will talk about the race card and who played it.

    Actually (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:00:29 PM EST
    My argument is about how the Super Delegates should act given the rules as they exist.

    Oh BTW, AL Gore certainly did complain about the rules after the election. Or perhaps you missed the butterfly ballot controversy.

    I remember that (5.00 / 6) (#102)
    by Steve M on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:02:57 PM EST
    I remember the Republicans gloating about how the local supervisor of elections was a Democrat, and therefore, no one had the right to complain!  Their tone was exactly the same as these self-righteous comments that lecture us on when and where it is acceptable to complain about unfairness in the process.

    Parent
    Even better (5.00 / 4) (#113)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:05:19 PM EST
    Al Gore's people saw and approved the butterfly ballot.

    What an evil evil evil person Al Gore was for complaining about the butterfly ballot, or so Republicans told me at the time.

    Parent

    I really want you to go nuclear (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by andgarden on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:34:27 PM EST
    with a post like this. Were the shoe on the other foot, you know who would.

    Parent
    Um what? (none / 0) (#166)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:21:58 PM EST
    First, I appreciate your admission that I am not arguing outside the existing rules.

    Second, challenging the preexisting ballots is NOT challenging the preexisting rules?

    Ok, so UP really IS DOWN. gotcha.

    Parent

    No, sorry, the issues are (5.00 / 1) (#221)
    by frankly0 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:41:48 PM EST
    NOT distinct.

    Yes, there are ambiguities in how one counts the popular vote. But the fact that there are ambiguities does NOT absolve us from the hard obligation to do the best we absolutely can to come up with the fairest way of doing the count.

    Really, so many Obama supporters sound just like the Bush team when they start dissing the popular vote. Oh the ambiguities! However on earth can any count be fair! Oh, we have to ignore all that unclear stuff, lest our heads get entirely confused!

    Next time we can get it right! This time let's go with the clear result! We can't help it if the clear result favors our guy!

    Parent

    So whats wrong if it goes to the convention (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Saul on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:00:58 PM EST
    What are the possibilities that things could be different at the convention.  Maybe people will change their minds.  Delegates and Super can change their minds at the convention.  You never know what will happen from here to August.  Another scandal could turn this around.  You come this far and waited this long so whats a little bit longer.

    Superdelegates committed to Obama do not have (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by carmel on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:07:17 PM EST
    to stay committed to Obama. As a matter of fact, they can treat Obama like their "first wife" and leave him for a better, brighter, older and more experienced candidate in Hillary. The problem is what would turn the tide in Hillary's favor besides the polls and the evidence of a mounting anti-Obama feeling in the country? It will be fascinating to see what happens in the DNC rules committee meeting, and it won't be favorable to Hillary for sure. Unfortunately for Obama, he has alienated so many groups of voters, the "new" voters will not outnumber the voters "fleeing" the democratic party for saner ground.

    Nah, it's Obama who fits (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Cream City on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:16:57 PM EST
    the "trophy wife" trope to a T.  

    If the super-delegates do come to their senses and return to Clinton, I hope they grovel like the guy who runs off with the "trophy wife," gets taken for all he has, and then really sees the light and realizes how good he had it with the "ol' girl."

    Of course, I'm not as nice as Clinton, so I don't take such a guy back. :-)

    Parent

    Oh stop it. (5.00 / 0) (#122)
    by masslib on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:09:00 PM EST
    I think you want to cling on to legitimacy for Obama's sake.  How can the "will of the people" even be determined in an election where votes have been ignored and discounted to give one person an unfair advantage?

    Of course. (none / 0) (#158)
    by madamab on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:19:03 PM EST
    I believe that BTD desires Unity above all and is focused on beating McCain. A laudable desire.

    Parent
    I am hearing Obama's people (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by masslib on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:36:04 PM EST
    are saying Hillary's "gaffe" clearly finally excludes her from VP.  Not that I wanted her to be VP, but what a cynical move.  It's like the man has no conscious.  He doesn't even consider the millions of women who supported Hillary and were living out a dream with her that he simply isn't a part of. He needs to destroy her, and he very nearly has, but we'll always have the swing states, the swing voters, the big electorals, and the pop vote.  She'll have always been a better candidate.  He can't take that from her.

    Parent
    You don't seem to get (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by frankly0 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:09:13 PM EST
    that getting things right in the next election is no excuse whatever not to get things right in this one.

    This is the same sort of argument that Bush was making: we can correct all these problems with the ballots in the next election -- why should we worry about all those ambiguous ballots with their hanging chads in this election? Let's go with the "clear" result -- too bad of course for the thousands of voters whose vote has been thrown out because scanners couldn't read them, or for whatever other reason. Next time!

    And there exists nothing whatever in the current rules to prevent superdelegates from selecting the popular vote winner as their choice (or, for that matter, from simply using an argument from electability).

    No, it's (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by frankly0 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:32:17 PM EST
    code for "Count the votes as best as you possibly can, even given the ambiguities."

    Parent
    Moral & Politic? (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by wurman on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:12:24 PM EST
    Is than not an oxymoron?

    Count the votes? (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by Emma on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:12:36 PM EST
    I fully believe that one reason Hillary is so adamant about counting the votes is that she wants the nominee -- whoever it is -- to be widely percieved as legitimate.  Counting the votes is the ONLY way to have a legitimate candidate regardless of who wins or who the supers vote for.  An illegitimate candidate means a Dem loss in Nov.  

    In this, Clinton is firmly on the side of Dems and the party and is putting her words into action about needing a Dem victory in Nov.  We might never have come to this point if the misogyny hadn't been so systematically and obviously marshalled against Hillary to push her out of the race.  But here we are.  If you want a legitimate Dem candidate for Nov., the votes need to be counted and the arguments for and against the candidates need to be aired and fully vetted.  

    Transparency is the ONLY thing that will save a Dem candidate in Nov.  Not the VP slot, not back room deals, not merging the fund raising, not Bill Clinton putting his arms around the Dem party and givin' us a big ol' hug.  Transparency.  Which requires counting the votes and NOT pushing Clinton out.

    It's The Map Not The Math needs to be supplemented by It's The Legitmacy Not The Unity (as Anglachel says).

    Exactly which rule (5.00 / 3) (#190)
    by Nadai on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:32:42 PM EST
    has Clinton broken?  The rules allow for taking up the question of Florida/Michigan again.  The rules allow for the candidates to make any argument to the superdelegates that they believe will sway votes their way.  The rules allow any candidate, even one behind by a thousand delegates, to continue on to the convention and fight it out on the floor.

    As far as I can see, the only "rule" Clinton has broken is the "rule" that states Obama shall win and anyone who tries to stop him is cheating.

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:36:10 PM EST
    You apparently missed the fact that Sen. Levin and other Michigan Dems have been asking the DNC for seven years to revamp the system - including getting rid of Iowa and NH going first. But they were blown off.

    You also miss the point that had MI/FL been given the correct punishment of 50%, their results would have been tabulated and very likely would have changed the momentum and the media narrative, so that HRC would already be the nominee.

    Treating one of our most fundamental rights, (5.00 / 3) (#205)
    by andgarden on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:36:23 PM EST
    the vote, as a "game" tells me everything I need to know about your values.  

    Pot, kettle (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by janarchy on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:38:16 PM EST
    If one can't accept defeat gracefully and graciously, one also does not deserve to win. It's a character thing, and Hillary and her most fanatical supporters are failing the test.

    You really don't want to go there. The behaviour and the proof of character (or lack thereof) from the Obama camp has been the biggest problem in this primary season since the beginning. And it's the main reason why many of us do not want to support him.

    Personally, many of us don't see it's a character flaw to fight till the end for principles and issues. Of course, if you do, perhaps you ought to discount Ted Kennedy from Obama's endorsement list. You know, the guy who fought Jimmy Carter up through the convention even though he was trailing by a much wider margin and would not "accept defeat gracefully and graciously". (Same with Jesse Jackson Sr.)

    It seems to me the whining is coming from you (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:39:24 PM EST
    because Clinton is making an argument to the Super Delegates. Or are you saying making arguments to the Super Delegates is against the rules?

    if (5.00 / 0) (#225)
    by Edgar08 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:44:12 PM EST
    you believe that FL and MI won't make up the margin of victory then there is simply no urgency here.  One could just a easily write an essay about a few thousand uncounted votes in california.

    You want Fl and MI to count.  If you believe its over its too late.  They never counted

    a few observations (5.00 / 1) (#229)
    by landshark on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:50:50 PM EST
    I'm fairly new to this site and judging from the comment threads I've read I'm more despised than Bush or McCain, I'm your victimhood complexes' current enemy, an Obama supporter.  I have a few simple observations:
    1.  If the metric (rules) for winning the primary was the popular vote, both campaigns would have used different tactics with different results.  It would be like the baseball standings being ranked by total runs scored or hits over the season versus wins.
    2.  No amount of polling or pontification at this stage can tell you with any certainty which candidate will be better against McCain in November.
    3.  The biggest lesson I have learned this primary season is that when people get personally invested in one candidate to the exclusion of any other that shares their ideals, they internalize every slight or barb their candidate endures, becoming bitter, resentful, vindictive and petty.  In my wildest dreams I could not imagine a true progressive or democrat voting for McCain if their preferred candidate lost the primary, yet that is what I have heard from both Obama and Clinton supporters.  I have a small child, no wounded pride or jilted aspiration would allow me to trade in her future to exact some symbolic revenge on those who I feel may have slighted me or the candidate I preferred.


    how does Obama end up with the popular vote (5.00 / 1) (#237)
    by nycvoter on Tue May 27, 2008 at 03:22:08 PM EST
    are you not counting Michigan and Florida, because regardless if delegates are awarded, people voted and that should count.  Do you think he'll win or close in on PR and do well enough in SD and Mt to have the popular vote with MI and FL?

    I bet a lot of this talk continues (5.00 / 2) (#239)
    by Seth90212 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 03:34:23 PM EST
    even after an Obama inaugeration. Some of this stuff is positively unhinged to put it mildly. Who are these superdelegates who are going to save Hillary? Why haven't they announced? Which side is pleading with superdelegates to not declare? If they are in her corner why does she not want them to declare? She's even asked them to declare in silence. Hmmm....surely that means she expects them to declare for Obama. What exactly is keeping Hillary in this race when even she knows that the remaining SD's are mostly for Obama?

    You say: (5.00 / 2) (#240)
    by miriam on Tue May 27, 2008 at 03:54:11 PM EST
    "...no wounded pride or jilted aspiration would allow me to trade in her future to exact some symbolic revenge on those who I feel may have slighted me or the candidate I preferred."

    It is quite remarkable that at this point in time you still do not understand that Hillary Clinton's supporters truly believe she is not only the candidate who can beat McCain, but also that she is by far the most capable of being the president that America needs.  Symbolic revenge?  That's absurd.  I have 6 grandchildren and I am supporting Clinton precisely because she is the one best suited to ensure their future.  Do not make the mistake of ascribing petty motivations to those who do not support your choice of Obama as candidate.

    So the SDs should consider (5.00 / 1) (#241)
    by Elporton on Tue May 27, 2008 at 04:14:56 PM EST
    which candidate drew the "biggest crowds" and has the "best campaign management" before considering the popular vote?

    The Democrats in each of the states have only one chance to have their voice heard regarding the candidates but, according to your logic, it's more important how many people (voters of all stripes and those not even registered) show up at a rally for a particular candidate.

    That's just nuts!

    Supporting the Dem Candidate (5.00 / 2) (#242)
    by MSS on Tue May 27, 2008 at 04:15:32 PM EST
    To be clear:

    1. I will support the winning Democratic nominee -- because I think that both are good people, good candidates -- and because I think that McCain is horrific, venal, and must be defeated.

    2. I believe that Obama has won the popular vote, the caucus vote, and the delegate votes. You may not like the rules, but they are the rules under which this campaign has been bravely fought.

    3. Michigan and Florida knew their votes would not count if they held early primaries, but they held early primaries anyhow. Unless we want states to hold primaries any old time they want, then MI and FL should be penalized, their delegates should be admitted with partial votes, and Hillary should get more than Obama (but not all the votes would have gone to her, had the primaries been held when they were supposed to be held).

    4. I prefer Obama for lots of reasons, and I think that he's run a better campaign. I think that Hillary would make a good President; and I think that Obama will make a great President. But I will support the winner of the primary process.

    5. I think Nader screwed things up when he ran and helped the GOP defeat Al Gore. I hope that Clinton's disgruntled supporters will not do the same thing in this election, and help to defeat the Democratic candidate if Clinton is not chosen.

    I hope that you all will support the winner of the Democratic primary process -- in order to defeat John McCain -- just as you would want all of Obama's supporters to vote for Hillary, should she come away with the most delegates and with the nomination.

    RE: RESPONSE A Few Observations (3.66 / 3) (#238)
    by fctchekr on Tue May 27, 2008 at 03:30:30 PM EST
    I am a Hillary supporter, a woman, a mother and a grandmother; I've voted in every Presidential election since Robert Kennedy. I am not a victim, but I've been victimized, despised and ill-treated by Obama bloggers for having my own opinion.

    1. Obama has gamed the system in a way that has disenfranchised Democrats. So it's not about democracy or Republics, or rules, it's about morality and ethics.

    2. Obama ignores what he doesn't agree with, just like Bush. When the polls work in his favor, the Obama camp touts them. For along time they have totally disregarded them and we know why.

    3. Make no mistake these are two very different candidates who would govern distinctly different. I just read where the Obama camp wants Bill to heal the rift and Hillary to get out there and fight, things they said Obama can't do.

    Really though, Obama has been propped up the entire primary by endorsers, the party, the media, now he can't win the general without Bill and Hillary!

    Give this senior citizen, a life long Dem, not needed anymore by the party to win in NOV....a BREAK.

    A lot of hand-wringing (2.33 / 3) (#71)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:53:04 PM EST
    I have stated that I believe that Hillary will and should remain in the race until all of the elections are over, which is next week.  

    The popular vote argument has no grounding and little impact, as can be seen by the superdelegate endorsements which continue to flow towards Obama.

    No matter what the popular vote count will be both debateable and very close.  Essentially the popular vote count will be a statistical tie( the difference  between their 2 vote counts will be smaller than the margin of error of the vote getting methodologies).  

    Because of this the supers are not going to feel compelled to vote for either person based on popular vote count.  Perhaps if one of them had a million vote lead that would be one thing.  But neither will.

    So the supers will need to find some other metric to determine who to endorse.  And the most obvious is delegate count.  

    Hillary is most likely going to concede in the next 2 weeks.  My guess is June 10th.  

    We are now in the stage that Huckabee was in the weeks prior to conceding.  

    You start out so rationally.. and (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by MarkL on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:55:12 PM EST
    then you compare Hillary's campaign to Huckabee's.
    Tsk, tsk. You can do better.
    If Obama loses, can I compare HIS campaign to Giuliani? Please?

    Parent
    I make the comparison (none / 0) (#90)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:00:20 PM EST
    only in the sense that Huckabee continued on eventhough there was no real chance for him to win.  

    Granted the GOP doesn't have Supers to try and woo but the situation is still essentially the same.

    Parent

    So then there is no comparison, because (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by MarkL on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:01:23 PM EST
    Hillary actually has a chance to win.
    Gosh, that was easy.


    Parent
    She has the same chance (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:09:26 PM EST
    that Huckabee did at the time.  She needs for Obama to have some shocking scandal come out.  

    That is the ONLY way she will win.  The superdelegates are making it abundantly clear that they are backing Obama.

    Parent

    Are you really arguing (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:13:12 PM EST
    that Clinton has the same chance that Huckabee did prior to Huckabee's leaving the race? You are really making that argument?

    Wow! You are quite reckless with your credibility.

    Parent

    At this point (1.00 / 0) (#181)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:29:14 PM EST
    the race is over.  Yes I am making that argument.  There is no reason to believe that anything is going to change this week, unless a major scandal were to crop up.

    Parent
    It 'aint over until they vote at (5.00 / 0) (#217)
    by zfran on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:40:50 PM EST
    the convention....anything can happen. SD's can switch and pledged can switch. Some, like Tx delegates have not even been elected and counted yet. The numbers are not all in...the votes, not all counted.

    Parent
    Abundantly? At the rate of one or two (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Cream City on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:30:11 PM EST
    a day lately?  Yeh, he'll get there, it seems.  But we kept hearing about this abundant super-del support, about 50 at a time who would declare, blah blah blah.

    He now is, by RCP's tally (not the same as others but the most commonly cited one), 50 delegates away from the number that Obama claims is needed to cinch it.  So where is that "abundant" support?  

    It is clear to those of us not in the OFB that the guy is going to crawl to the number needed in a week or so.  He doesn't have the Dem base, and the super-dels who also need that base know it.  And when he comes crawling to some of us for our votes, if he ever wises up and does so, I for one will have an abundance of ways to . . . laugh.

    Parent

    Abundantly? At the rate of one or two (none / 0) (#179)
    by Cream City on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:26:55 PM EST
    a day lately?  Yeh, he'll get there, it seems.  But we kept hearing about this abundant super-del support, about 50 at a time who would declare, blah blah blah.

    He now is, by RCP's tally (not the same as others but the most commonly cited one), 50 delegates away from the number that Obama claims is needed to cinch it.  So where is that "abundant" support?  

    It is clear to those of us not in the OFB that the guy is going to crawl to the number needed in a week or so.  He doesn't have the Dem base, and the super-dels who also need that base know it.  And when he comes crawling to some of us for our votes, if he ever wises up and does so, I for one will have an abundance of ways to . . . laugh.

    Parent

    I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:33:35 PM EST
    what your point is.  The SDs continue to go towards Obama.  This is fact.  The pace may be slower than some, myself included, expected but there may be a reason for that as well.  

    If he hits the requisite number right when the final primaries end, then it would appear that there was a plan to do that.

    Parent

    Since the SD's are able to change their (5.00 / 0) (#207)
    by MarkL on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:37:58 PM EST
    vote, there's no particular reason Clinton should drop out before the Convention.
    In fact, Obama's campaign has okayed poaching pledged delegates, which could make the race even more interesting!

    Parent
    And yet (5.00 / 0) (#220)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:41:29 PM EST
    She still has SD's coming out for her.  Not as many as the Precious, but why would they do that, do you think?

    Parent
    And yet (none / 0) (#224)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:44:10 PM EST
    She still has SD's coming out for her.  Not as many as the Precious, but why would they do that, do you think?

    Parent
    You are too much (5.00 / 4) (#130)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:11:26 PM EST
    The popular vote argument has no grounding and little impact, as can be seen by the superdelegate endorsements which continue to flow towards Obama.

    The grounding for the popular vote argument has its grounding in ancient Athens.

    Whether it has impact or not is not an argument for or against it. I agree with you that the SDs will not vote against Obama. But if Clinton is the popular vote winner, my argument is they should. Saying they won't is not an answer to my argument.

    And I must say whenever I see an person drag Huckabee into this conversation I think less of that person.

    Parent

    some of us (none / 0) (#160)
    by Josey on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:19:51 PM EST
    have been down Obama's Road before - McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry...
    and the GOP hasn't even begun swiftboating Obama.

    btw - I keep wondering why the media and press include Hillary's middle name - Hillary Rodham Clinton - but consistently omit Obama's.
    And of course anyone including "Hussein" is deemed anti-Obama.
    Will the history books also omit Obama's middle name?

    Parent

    Maybe because (1.00 / 0) (#184)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:30:27 PM EST
    Rodham isn't her middle name?

    Parent
    they why do they keep publishing Rodham? (none / 0) (#211)
    by Josey on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:39:19 PM EST
    and OMITTING Hussein.
    Heck! Daddy Bush has 2 middle names, but it's not PC to mention Obama's one middle name.

    Parent
    Because (none / 0) (#230)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:51:13 PM EST
    Hillary likes to use her maiden name as a way to differentiate herself from her husband?  

    Bush I was always referred to as George Bush when he was President.  He didn't get the HW tacked on until his son took office.  

    This is a really absurd argument, BTW.  No one refers to me by my middle name because I don't publicize it.  A friend of mine is referred solely by his middle name because he prefers it.  No secret conspiracy.  

    Parent

    Why ruin a coherent argument (1.00 / 5) (#57)
    by Tano on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:46:15 PM EST
    with ridculous stuff like this:

    [Hillary]"... is treated as a scourge. All because they want the votes counted."

    You know perfectly well that she is not being treated as a scourge because she wants the votes counted, it is because EVERYONE KNOWS, and has known for 2 months now, that no matter how you creativly count the votes, SHE WILL NOT WIN.

    She is denounced because she is constantly undermining Obama when it is obvious that Obama will be our nominee.

    Now, if you TRULY BELIEVE that Hillary has a chance, fine. Angrily assert that it is not over yet. Denounce people for treating her as a scourge on what you think is their mistaken assumption that she has already lost.

    But there is no reason to mischaracterize the intentions of her critics. We do believe in democracy and counting all the votes. Including the "uncommitted" Obama supporters in Michigan who Hillary pretends do not exist.

    Heh (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by Steve M on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:48:29 PM EST
    "Supporters" are now the same as votes, I see.

    I want to count all the Clinton supporters in caucus states who weren't able to attend due to the structure of the caucus process.  Can I do that?  If you say no, apparently it means you don't want to count all the votes.

    Parent

    Now this is an amazing argument (5.00 / 6) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:51:15 PM EST
    [Clinton]e is not being treated as a scourge because she wants the votes counted, it is because EVERYONE KNOWS, and has known for 2 months now, that no matter how you creatively count the votes, SHE WILL NOT WIN.

    So you confirm that in essence you hate her in the WWTBQ tradition? Remarkable admission.

    Let me put it to you bluntly, just because you or I think she is going to lose does not mean we get to determine this. Let the voters vote.

    You actually confirm that you are unfair to her because she is unwilling to accept our views as facts.

    You could not condemn yourself more convincingly.

    Parent

    I think this ... (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by Robot Porter on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:11:44 PM EST
    "he's already won" argument has been one of the biggest mistakes of the Obama campaign.

    First, it's just politics 101 to never claim you've won something till you actually have.

    Second, it plays into his parlor liberal elitist image.  "Votes ... what are those?"

    But, third, and I think most important, it's made his supporters lazy and feel everything is inevitable.

    Most of my Obama supporting friends don't think there's any way he will lose to McCain.  And usually their argument is just a repetition of the phrase:  "John McCain will beat him?" as if it's the most absurd notion in the world.

    It looks like Obama's modeling his campaign after Dewey's 1948 run.  Not a model I'd choose.

    Parent

    by what logic (1.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Tano on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:23:28 PM EST
    can you say that Obama supporters have some "elitist" view of "votes, what are those"?

    It is BECAUSE OF THE VOTES that we see Obama as the nominee. BEcause of the fact that he has accumuloated an insurmountable lead, given to him by VOTERS.

    duh...

    Parent

    huh? (none / 0) (#161)
    by Tano on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:20:12 PM EST
    Did you, like, read the rest of the comment?

    I rather specifically said that if you think she still has a chance, then FINE. Argue that.

    And I specifically said that I support counting ALL the votes.

    In what possible way can you interpret my remarks as standing against letting anyone vote, or counting their vote? Was Edwards right to get out of the race? He had a right to stay in till now - and undermine the other candidates. But he chose not to. I am glad he did the right thing. I think Clinton should have to. And I dont like her for doing what she id doing. But I have not called for cancelling any primaries or refusing to count any votes.

    Count 'em all. Not just the votes that Hillary wants counted, but ALL of them, including MINE (michigan uncommitted for Obama).

    And I dont know wnat wwtbq means.

    Parent

    You did not vote for Obama because he (5.00 / 3) (#171)
    by MarkL on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:24:11 PM EST
    did not let you. Talk about "changing the rules"!!!
    Direct your ire at Obama, where it belongs.
    The candidates all knew that the delegations from Mi and FL could be seated at the convention. Obama, by removing his name from the MI ballot, and convincing others to do the same, tried to forestall that possibility because he knew he would lose MI decisively. Regardless of the reasons, there is NO precedent I know for giving a candidate votes in an election when he took his name off the ballot. That is the most outrageous suggestion of all.
    Also, Obama should be stripped of his FL delegates for campaigning and advertising in FL. Funny how his extensive TV advertising in FL is glossed over.

    Parent
    you do not get it (5.00 / 3) (#185)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:30:47 PM EST
    elections are not short circuited because you or I or anyone thinks it is over.

    That is precisely the attitude I am objecting to.

    Parent

    once agian (none / 0) (#219)
    by Tano on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:41:29 PM EST
    who is short circuiting any election?

    Edwards, Dodd, Biden, Kucinich etc all left the race when it became clear they would not win. There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothgin wrong with me doing the math, seeing that Clinton will not win, and expecting and hoping for her to do the right thing so that we can get on with the real fight.

    As I said, if someones math tells them something different, fine. Argue for her to stay, Get mad at me for jumping to conclusions. Argue the math. But dont tell me that I dont respect democracy or voting.

    The whole point is that Obama has a sufficient lead, given to him BY VOTERS, such that he will win, barring some complete disaster.

    And of course, if some complete disaster did happen such that Obama was not available to run, the party would turn to Hillary whether she had withdrawn or not.

    Parent

    What do you think she is trying to do, then? (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by MarkL on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:51:43 PM EST
    Why do you think she is campaigning so hard if she thinks she has no chance? Certainly by the numbers, she has a chance---it is just your article of faith that she does not.


    Parent
    Everyone knows? (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by HenryFTP on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:01:25 PM EST
    I still find it breathtaking that supporters of a candidate who still does not have a majority of the voting delegates to the Democratic National Convention can make this sort of claim. To claim that this was the case before Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia and Oregon had even voted is yet more remarkable.

    Think how much simpler it would have been for everyone if we had just followed the corporate media's conventional wisdom last autumn that Hillary had it in the bag and just conceded the whole thing to Hillary then and there (sadly, it would seem that this was Mark Penn's basic playbook).

    I find it extremely troubling that supporters of our Nominee Presumptive seem to think that the Nominee should be able to dispense with connecting with the voters he'll need in November in order to get on to the important business of his coronation. Given how brutal the general election campaign will surely be, Senator Obama and his campaign team have greatly benefited from the experience of having to run hard, in all 50 states, against an experienced and resilient opponent.

    Parent

    Take it up with Media Matters.... (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by Exeter on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:09:48 PM EST
    Because they have gone back and researched the issue of whether Hillary is being treated fairly and found that many candidates have stayed in with far slimmer odds and not gotten a 1/10 vitriole that has been dumped on Hillary.

    Parent
    How many of them (1.00 / 1) (#142)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:13:42 PM EST
    had the notoriety of Hillary Clinton?

    Like it or not but lots of people really don't like Hillary and haven't for a very long time.  

    Parent

    They like her better now. (5.00 / 4) (#147)
    by MarkL on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:15:29 PM EST
    Isn't that something!
    Maybe there wasn't any reason to dislike her in the first place.

    Parent
    this is so juvenile (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by bjorn on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:17:10 PM EST
    people don't like hillary so she should quit

    what next?  People are acting like Obama is some fragile piece of crystal who will break if she doesn't stop campaigning

    Parent

    And lots of people (5.00 / 4) (#164)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:21:37 PM EST
    don't like Obama.  So what's your point?

    Parent
    I do believe that she has a chance (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Cream City on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:20:46 PM EST
    because it's what the arithmetic (it's not math, really) and history tells me.

    However, that is a chance at the nomination.  I do believe the polls that tell me today that she has a better chance of winning.

    But I also believe that your candidate has done so much damage to the far better nominee -- and to the Dems -- that she might not win, either.  

    That's what I expected from the Daley machine, of course.  It has been destroying the Dems for decades, nationally, all for the sake of its own little fiefdom and the patronage that comes from its now-inescapable corruption.  

    Parent

    you mean that Daley machine (3.00 / 2) (#192)
    by Tano on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:33:32 PM EST
    that was fully integrated into the Clinton administration, with the MAyor's brother as Clinton's Commerce Sec. and Gores campaign chief?

    Parent
    Popular Vote is irrelevant (1.00 / 0) (#236)
    by Invictus on Tue May 27, 2008 at 03:16:52 PM EST
    First of all, I have to acknowledge that BTD is accepting the most accurate of the various counts.  

    However, the PV is irrelevant for three reasons:

    1. It's not part of the nominating process.

    2. There are too many variables to arrive at a consensus as to what constitutes the PV and "the will of the people."  Hillary and Obama supporters both want to count with the most advantageous scenario, and the arguments can never be resolved.

    3.  Even if it counted - the winning margin is going to be infinitesimal - under 1%.  If one or the other drew 5 to 10% or so more of the PV, there would be some reason to consider it, but that's not the case.

    Super Delegates should consider the most delegates, most states, most money, best campaign management, biggest crowds, and the popular vote. However, the latter is the least consequential under the current circumstances.

    Rule changing (none / 0) (#15)
    by contrarian1964 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:20:16 PM EST
    We need to change the rules.

    When the rules are set, it's up to both sides to set and implement their strategy. There really can be no complaining from either side because both sides knew what the rules of the game are.   And the fulfillment of campaign strategy is one of many valid ways to judge a candidate.

    But let's definitely do change those rules.   And even more important, let's end the electoral college.  This is much, much more important than intra-party candidate love-crushes and breakup bickering.  

    Because in the end, candidates are merely vehicles; voters should not fall in love with them.

    Deflection (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:25:00 PM EST
    Indeed, the rules need to be changed. But Hillary Clinton is playing by the rules that exist today and is being unfairly excoriated for doing that.

    That is the more immediate problem.

    Parent

    The Rules (5.00 / 7) (#28)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:27:52 PM EST
    THis argument that seating the delegates from FL and MI is somehow changing the rules is total fallacy.  When all parties agreed to strip FL and MI of their delegates, all parties were also aware of and agreed to the two methods that these states could use to get their delegates seated.  Those two methods were:

    1. Hold a revote
    2. Appeal to the DNC Rules Commitee and/or the Covnention Credentials Committee.

    Why doesn't the media ever report that these two methods are completely within the rules that everyone knew about?  Why is it that supporting revotes or supporting the states in their appeals to the rules committee is considered changing the rules?  It is in no way changing any rules.

    Why is this so difficult for people to comprehend?

    Parent

    It isn't difficult at all (5.00 / 5) (#86)
    by Nadai on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:59:34 PM EST
    They simply don't want to comprehend it, so they don't.

    Parent
    The popular vote is important (none / 0) (#39)
    by trublueCO on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:35:27 PM EST
    Unfortunately, the system isn't set up to exactly mirror that fact.

    If each state had held their contests with the same rules, I definitely agree that this would be a viable metric. The important factor, however, is who leads in the delegate count. Obama or Clinton will need the support of superdelegates to get to the magical number (whatever it ends up being)....the SD's can consider whatever number they want to make their decision. If the popular vote is what is important to them, then they will go with the winner of that metric.

    People will cry foul if the person that leads in delegates is not the person that leads in the popular vote. Fair enough, but the bottom line is that this year's nomination process was set up based on the delegate count. If we want to change it for 2012 that is our right as a party, but we better make sure that we somehow balance the large vs. small states.

    Nonsequitor (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:36:56 PM EST
    This is an argument for whom the super delegates should put over the top.

    Please reread the title of the post.

    Parent

    and let us not forget that our (none / 0) (#40)
    by zfran on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:35:50 PM EST
    government is supposed to be of the people, by the people and for the people..it is now the other way around. One person, one vote, count it!!Our votes are not being counted, they are being hijacked. Nothing to do with either candidate by the way.

    BTD Obama Disclaimer (none / 0) (#123)
    by Chimster on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:09:05 PM EST
    I've noticed TBD's musings over the past few months have picked up a somewhat-passive aggressive underlying message in most of his posts-- "I still believe Obama will win, but..."

    Fine. But for someone who was only tepidly pulling for Obama, it seems TBD has been recently tending to overcompensate in letting readers know that he is an Obama supporter. The posts however are quite pro-Hillary.

    I guess this is so TL can lure Obama supporters to the site and show them that it's is open-minded. But, if I were to read between the lines (with a little reverse psychology) I'd say BTD has accidentally began pulling for Hillary (tepidly, of course).

    Speaking for me only. :^)

    You seem not know me very well (none / 0) (#159)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:19:10 PM EST
    If I was as politic as you say, I would still be writing on the FP of daily kos.

    Parent
    From my perspective (5.00 / 2) (#234)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue May 27, 2008 at 03:09:59 PM EST
    BTD appears to be arguing from the reality-based community.  You may think he is pro-Hillary, but that is because, it seems to me, you think that any argument that is based on what the rules say, what the known facts are, etc., is, to the extent those rules or facts "favor" Hillary or give credence to anything her supporters say, is "pro" Hillary.  In the end, we cannot assist our favored candidates get to the finish line by ignoring reality.  

    Parent
    BTD - That was very clever ! (none / 0) (#134)
    by andrys on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:12:03 PM EST
    And the ultimate results very meaningful, paying attention to it.  I hope people (SDs) pay attention...

    Popular Vote (none / 0) (#139)
    by CST on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:12:40 PM EST
    First of all, I genereally agree with BTD that the superdelegates have a moral responsibility to uphold the popular vote winner as the winner of the election...  if only it were that easy.

    Question - which popular vote?  This is a topic that has been debated here, at LENGTH, on which not even Jeralyn and BTD can agree.

    I seriously doubt the superdelegates are of one mind about this issue either. In this case, I see Obama coming out on top because of the pledged delegate lead will be hard to overcome with superdelegates if they are of different minds about how to count the popular vote.

    So, I see a situation in the fall, where both camps think that their candidate "won" the popular vote, and both will have arguments to make on their behalf.  

    Which is why I think a Untiy ticket is the only way to win the White House.  I have a hard time seeing people pull the lever against their candidate as V.P.  Especially after Dick Cheney re-branded the V.P. position.

    But (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:32:30 PM EST
    Question - which popular vote?  This is a topic that has been debated here, at LENGTH, on which not even Jeralyn and BTD can agree.

    The same argument goes for delegates.  None of the MSM outlets can agree on how many delegates are out there, so why should we use them?  

    Since, at this moment, neither count is accurate, SD's should give equal consideration to popular vote, which is a closer representation to "the will of the people"

    Parent

    Delegates (none / 0) (#227)
    by CST on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:48:29 PM EST
    Pledged Delegates will be clear once the convention happens, as I understand it, there are some still to be determined, but eventually this number will be fixed.

    I am not making an argument for super delegates to consider the pledged delegate count.  I am saying that due to the discrepency in how you count the popular vote, I doubt that Hillary will be able to convince enough superdelegates that she has actually won the popular vote - that they will be able to overturn his projected pledged delegate lead.

    Parent

    This says it all (none / 0) (#245)
    by LadyDiofCT on Tue May 27, 2008 at 08:22:44 PM EST
    Interestingly enough (none / 0) (#246)
    by americanincanada on Tue May 27, 2008 at 08:28:58 PM EST
    Hillary took a super back from Obama today. I think it is the first to switch from Obama to Clinton, especially after having switched from her to him in the first place.

    He's Virgin Islands DNC member Kevin Rodriguez.