MyDD :: On Prioritizing the Popular Vote

On Prioritizing the Popular Vote

by Falsehood, Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:33:33 AM EST

Hello All,

Thanks for the recs yesterday.

There are a few outside factors involved in this controversy over the popular vote.

A. Caucus Craziness - Obama did better in caucuses, the best example (because of direct comparison) being Texas. There have been reports of funny business by both camps, but neither campaign has pursued them or seriously challenged the result. My guess is that some supporters got overzealous on both sides, just like what we have seen in the blogosphere.

B. Al Gore in 2000 - Everyone who supported Gore was annoyed at the result of 2000's election, when more people voted for Gore than Bush, but Gore didn't get the presidency. Additionally, we're still experiencing the effects of that decision, so the idea of choosing a nominee who lost the popular vote can strike a raw nerve.

C. MI and FL - These two states continue to be a difficult issue. There is no completely successful resolution, because revotes were tabled/canceled. I would LOVE a sourced,investigative diary into how all that happened, because I'm frankly not sure why a MI revote didn't occur. In any case, using the popular vote metric is an easy way of counting MI and FL, which is much more palatable for some.

D. Bias for Clinton - Sorry folks, but you and I know its there. The popular vote wasn't used as a metric by the Clinton campaign until the delegate count didn't look too good. I can't (and won't) speak you, the reader, as an individual, but ask yourself: when did the popular vote become so important for you? Why did that occur?

E. Pledged delegate weirdness - For some, this metric is messed up, since it doesn't look like what happens in November, and because a candidate can "win" a state but lose in the delegates (See Nevada). This one I have to reject outright - these are the rules of the game, and we can't change them now. This is a more Democratic process, and I think it's better than that of the Republicans.

So with all those said, I still assert that I don't buy the popular vote argument without a grain of salt for the spin that I feel is involved. It takes some guts to deny Obama any votes from Michigan when he honored his pledge not to "participate" by taking his hame off.

I also don't buy the argument that these states were disenfranchised. Both of those states and the Democrats involved knew full well the possible consequences of their vote, and the DNC was very clear on what would happen. MI and FL made a choice to have a voice in the process through a delegateless vote, because the conventional wisdom was that this race would be over by Super Tuesday.

That choice backfired just about as well as it could have. The governance of these states took a risk - and lost. I have no sympathy with either state's Democratic leadership - they were complicit in the change as well.

The question, then, is about honoring the voters who did show up. In FL, there were several important things on the ballot, so people had other motives to show up and vote. In MI, I'm not sure, but turnout there was tiny compared to 2004.

Here's a neat calculator for such things, but remember that Clinton's WV margin was about 30000 greater than predicted.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horsera ceblog/chooseyourown.html

I don't accept those votes at face value, because of the depressed turnout and the lack of campaigning. Before Super Tuesday, Obama was behind in MANY of the states - he had to work to close some margins and widen others. The lack of campaigning in FL and MI did hurt him, and many, many voters who would have shown up didn't - because they were told this vote didn't matter.

I don't think the votes were meaningless, but they certainly have to be taken with a grain of salt. I do think FL and MI messed with the DNC's early calendar (and didn't apply for waivers), and I do think that needed to be stopped - we use 4 smaller states from all around the country for a reason.

For these reasons, I don't buy into the popular vote argument. This is and was a race for delegates, and you can (and I expect some of you will) say that it produced the wrong nominee. However, you would be saying that REGARDLESS of the popular vote.

This is the process we have. I think the Supers are smart enough that they can judge the popular vote figures while figuring out their endorsements, and I think it makes sense to consider them. I hope that both sides respect the process and what it produces,.

A race for the popular vote would have produced a different campaign, with more efforts to run up turnout in certain primary states. That didn't happen, because the Democratic party made this a delegate race.

All of us are free to criticize the process, and I expect to myself once it is resolved for one candidate or the other. However, the process is what we have - pledged and supers.

The compromise I expect is that FL and MI will be seated at 50% strength, just like the GOP decision. However, I'm glad that their counts have stayed out of the totals thus far - I think these states surrendered their voice in the process, and that they are privileged to get that voice back. Remember, politicians made this decision. If they thought it would have been hugely unpopular, they wouldn't have done it. They chose to have a voice in a different way, and their primaries were reported by the media. I haven't heard much from MI or FL residents who feel hugely disenfranchised.

No matter who is chosen, we won't get anywhere by screaming about the resulting nominee. The process will choose who it chooses, and we all need to get behind the policies that both candidates ran on.

Thanks.

Tags: Metrics, Goalposts, Obama, Clinton (all tags)

Permalink :: 45 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: On Prioritizing the Popular Vote (2.00 / 1)

This diary went in a different direction than I expected - hopefully we'll have a good conversation without claims I broke the rules. :D

I'll be back later to respond - have fun!

by Falsehood on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:34:52 AM EST

Re: On Prioritizing the Popular Vote (2.00 / 1)

The biggest drawback to me about the popular vote argument is That the candidates and the DNC didn't state BEFORE the primaries started that that would be the metric of winning the nomination. If they had, Obama would have spent more time in Cal., NY., and all the populous states.

by Destiny on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:03:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Prioritizing the Popular Vote (2.00 / 1)

I think that's an accurate statement. Supers really don't have anything to base their vote on. If the DNC had a list of areas (popular vote, demographic strength, etc) then the conversation would be mor structured. As it is, supers are using all sorts of frameworks, like the guy who committed to vote for Clinton even though his personal primary vote was for Obama.

by Falsehood on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:06:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Prioritizing the Popular Vote (2.00 / 1)

This diary may not have broken the rules but it give misinformation on the "rules." I have spoken with seinor DNC people on this. The pledge (actually pledges as there were several versions) were written by the party chairs of Iowa and New Hampshire. The pledges are neither binding nor have the approval of the DNC.

Neither the DNC nor the "pledges" command or even suggested that candidates remove themselves from the ballot. Debbie Dingall a MI member of the DNC begged Obama not to remove his name as this contest was going to go forward.

What most of the MSM and even the blogs miss, Obama removed his name from the Michigan ballot WHEN THAT RACE STILL COUNTED. Obama removed his name from the Michigan ballot in October of 2007. The DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee did not discuss whether or not the MI plan was in compliance until December 2007. In other words Obama pulled his name when MI was still going to be electing delegates.

Even if one was to argue that the DNC Delegate Selection Rules have an automatic penalty, that penalty is a 50% reduction in pledged delegates. the penalty of reducing all delegates by 100% is an arbitrary penalty imposed by the RBC (Rules and Bylaws Committee). Even with a 50% reduction the race still counted. Most saw Obama's move as both an attempt to court favor with the Iowa Democratic Party that is very territorial about the early window and an attempt to blunt early momentum for Hillary in a a state where they knew she would blow away all of her competitors.

When the Dec DNC RBC meeting was called into session, both Iowa and New Hampshire had not been granted the privilege of being first and second in 2008. They were to go after NV and SC. However IA and NH violated the DNC timing calendar and moved their primaries to Jan 3rd and 8th. Both of these states were in violation as well yet Obama did not remove his name from their ballots. What's more interesting is Donna "nuke florida" Brazile fawned over both states which have been viewed as responsible for so much timing envy and the primary nonsense of this year. Donna moved that both states (Iowa was the only state in Dec that was polling Obama with a huge lead) waivers for their violations but MI and FL were both denied.

According to the DNC rules and the MI rules candidates are responsible for putting their names on the ballot and keeping it there. That Obama pulled his name for his own cynical reasons when the contest still counted does not impact on the MI primary being a legitimate contest. If Obama supporters in that state feel disenfranchised they need to take their grievances to their candidate not the DNC or the MI state party. MI was a fair contest.

Jon Winkleman

by Jon Winkleman on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:18:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Prioritizing the Popular Vote (none / 0)

Very interesting - you raise several valid points I wasn't aware of.

I'm aware the pledges weren't DNC approved, but they were signed.

Where can I find that the plan was to have SC and NV go first? This is the first I've heard of that.

by Falsehood on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:09:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Michigan Re-Vote (2.00 / 1)

The final nail in the coffin for the Michigan re-vote came around due to a convergence of DNC primary rules and Michigan Law.

According to the DNC rules, no one may vote in a primary contest if they voted in another party's primary contest that year.

The only data of who voted in the January contest for the GOP is held by the state of Michigan.

The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that it was not legal for the state to provide that data to any private entity, including the Democratic Party.

Thus, it was impossible to determine who was eligble to participate in a certified re-vote.

by Rorgg on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:00:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The caucus question (none / 0)

I know Clinton refused caucuses in the disenfranchised states as a possible alternative method.

Does the DNC law apply to caucuses? Could one participate in a Democratic caucus if they voted in another party's primary?

Nobody's been able to answer this question for me, but it could mean that all this could've been resolved just by having caucuses. Which Clinton refused to consider.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

by Dracomicron on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:18:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The caucus question (none / 0)

No, the same rule applies to caucuses.

I think caucuses were rejected out of hand by the Clinton campaign before the voting eligibility issue came to the forefront, and certainly before the court ruling in Michigan.

by Rorgg on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:42:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks (none / 0)

That was bothering me.

If there'd been an easy way out all along, it would have been very bad if we didn't take it because someone didn't like caucuses.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

by Dracomicron on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:51:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Michigan Re-Vote (none / 0)

Ah - thanks for this.

by Falsehood on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:12:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Caucuses and the Popular Vote (2.00 / 2)

How do you measure popular vote in Caucuses? This is an honest question. It seems that some of the caucus states are left out of any popular vote count.

by Bargeron on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:41:01 AM EST

Re: Caucuses and the Popular Vote (2.00 / 2)

They don't care...

I've asked. No answer.

Every time Jerome or any of them mention "popular vote" they never mention why FL and MI must be included (even though HIllary said they won't count), but yet they leave out 4 states who didn't report popular vote counts.

They have no response. Don't hold your breath.

by FlashStash on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:07:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Caucuses and the Popular Vote (none / 0)

Simple. If you are a Clinton supporter, you don't talk about the things that don't help your candidate.

I criticize Obama, but I'm still a supporter, and I don't criticize in a way that I think will hurt him. Instead, I want to strengthen his candidacy.

by Falsehood on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:14:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Caucuses and the Popular Vote (2.00 / 1)

Excellent question. The reason why the popular vote metric makes it seem like a closer race is that the numbers that the Clinton supporters give ignore certain states that Obama won. You can't cherry-pick the votes you want to count.

by chicagovigilante on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:37:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I heard a hilarious suggestion here the other day (2.00 / 2)

Someone said that they wanted the entire primary season to be condensed into a national one-day primary vote, just like a general election.

No fifty state strategies, no building of local ground games, no rolling economic stimulus road show, no sequential get-out-the-vote efforts, none of that. No getting to know the candidates over time and building up their strengths while testing their weaknesses. Just go to the polls and vote on the nominee, boom you have a nominee. The one with the biggest name recognition and national press wins.

Of all the things to ask for after this primary season, how could anyone think that it would be better if we got the primary over in one day?

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

by Dracomicron on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:45:14 AM EST

See, that's an election (2.00 / 2)

and it's the inevitable endpoint of the Clintons' anti-caucus argument.

The Democratic primary process ISN'T an election. It's a series of contests to select a candidate. As a part of that, contests are held that gauge broad support on the level of just voting (primaries) as well as broad support of more commitment and effort (caucuses). It measures both base (closed contests) and wider appeal (open and semi-open contests).

It measures both the ability to campaign widely at the same time (SuperTuesday) and the ability to focus on states (the 6-month season).

And then we use delegates to allocate, because if we did it by popular vote, every state would want an open primary, so as to not reduce their importance.

The Clinton Camp has been pushing the idea that this is an election, and it's all about the popular vote total. Of course, if it were so -- we'd have a consistent method, a consistent voter screen, and a single date.

by Rorgg on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:05:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks! (none / 0)

What a great explanation. May I use your points in discussions I may get into to about the popular vote?

by Destiny on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:14:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks! (2.00 / 1)

Absolutely. I wrote a diary on Kos a bit back with the same premise... let's see...

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4 /1/102415/8987/1000/488187

There it is. It's a little more detailed, but covers the same ground.

by Rorgg on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:40:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Prioritizing the Popular Vote (none / 0)

One of the reasons a re-vote did not take place in MI, where I reside, is that it was an open primary and given that we were told it would not count many dems who would have wanted to vote for Obama participated in the Republican primary instead. Those voters would have been disqualified from participating in the re-vote, as one cannot vote in both and the Rep. primary counted. Obama would have started the process at a significant disadvantage.

That being said, as an Obama supporter, I think he missed an opportunity here. Coming off his dominant Feb., I think he should have taken the lead on re-votes in FL and MI. He might have ended up losing both, but the display of political courage and principle would have both minimized the margin (at worst...I think he would have won MI) and set him up pretty for the general election. It would have made sense on both principle and politics. He missed an opportunity to display unconventionally principled leadership. Instead he played it safe. He is best when bold. He wasn't either on this issue.

The future is unwritten

by Strummerson on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:46:00 AM EST

Re: On Prioritizing the Popular Vote (none / 0)

From as early as last fall there has been many statements and declarations in the media and elsewhere that the MI situation would eventually be resolved and there might even be a later primary or caucus in compliance with the calendar. Although MI has an open primary, voters must choose to participate in either the Dem or the Rep contest but not both in any given election cycle.

Democrats knew this and by voting in the Republican contest they knew they would not have the opportunity to participate in a later Democratic revote. Also the brains at DailyKos decided to push their MI readers to vote for the unelectable Romney to put the Republican Primary into chaos. By playing these games they knew that they were opting out of participation in the Jan Democratic Primary or any later revotes.

It should also be noted that the Democratic Primary in MI had record turnout. Any suggestion that Democrats stayed home so the results were skewed are specious. Also Obama campaigned in MI by having surrogates tell his supporters to vote uncommitted. Hillary followed the DNC rules to both the spirit and letter. If anything there is an argument that gave Obama an advantage in turning out his supporters that Hillary hadn't.

Jon Winkleman

by Jon Winkleman on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:29:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Prioritizing the Popular Vote (2.00 / 1)

First off, I live in Ann Arbor, a bastion of progressive politics in this state. I also teach adults who live in Metro Detroit who are overwhelmingly Democratic voters. I assure you that no one I knew thought there would be a re-vote at any point. Many stayed home. Most people I discuss this with oppose counting that contest as such, even some who are Clinton supporters. The group I refer to includes retirees, school teachers, clergy, academics, undergraduate and graduate students, business people, lawyers, and health care professionals. None of us "knew" what you claim we did. A few voted Clinton and a few voted uncommitted. Most did not participate at all. You may argue this is not a representative sample, as it is anecdotal, but you will need provide data to counter this perception. But again, please do not presume to tell us what we knew.

The future is unwritten

by Strummerson on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:40:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Prioritizing the Popular Vote (none / 0)

It should also be noted that the Democratic Primary in MI had record turnout. Any suggestion that Democrats stayed home so the results were skewed are specious.

False. Turnout has been up all over the country this year. That doesn't mean that many people in Michigan didn't stay home because they knew that the election was illegitimate.

If you don't think that knowing that the election wouldn't count for anything would keep lots of people from wanting to vote, I have some oceanside property in Kansas I would like to sell you.

by chicagovigilante on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:42:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

oops forgot a fact here. (none / 0)

Michigan was one of the few states were the Republican vote was more than the Democratic vote. As I remember the states were.

Utah-as conservative a state you can get

Arizona-Favorite son factor

and the only other two states were Florida and Michigan. Seems to be pretty clear that there was an effect on the voter turnout.

Remember, you must judge something in context of the environment, not just as a stand alone

"You might well think that. I couldn't possibly comment"

by xenontab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:22:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Prioritizing the Popular Vote (2.00 / 1)

The 'popular vote' argument is only an excuse for some people (a minority) to try to overturn the result of the delegate winner, which is how the Democratic Party has always selected its nominee.

Its absurd. If the intent was to win by popular vote, all one would have to do is rack up large margins in a few big states and ignore so many others.

I think I speak for many in the mid and smaller sized states that would not be fair to those of us in those states.

But yes, its an excuse for some who don't like the results of the primary.

And when the popular vote ceases to be an argument, (when Obama wins that too), then some will use yet another argument to try to force the losing candidate on us.

AnnMarie

by wiscogirl101 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:48:30 AM EST

delegates only matter` (none / 0)

as they represent the popular vote. They system the DNC is using has been tested by this primary and is found to be very undemocratic, from the caucuses that disenfranchise people to the screwy way delegates are assigned.

The super delegates will have to decide what is more important, the will of the people or the mess that the DNC has created with the delegate selection.
No one can make a credible argument that Obama should get more delegates from TX, or several other states for that matter.

For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!

by TeresaInPa on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:56:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: delegates only matter` (none / 0)

If you're wondering whether I think the DNC rules on assigning delegates is a good system, I don't think it is. Personally I think they should get rid of the superdelegates entirely. Next, I think if you're going to punish a state for moving its primary too early (which is reasonable..who wants to see primaries moved back to the prior October??), a case can be made to strip half its delegates. I don't think I agree with the winner take all, but whatever.

In any case, as bad as the rules are this cycle, thats what they are. A person has to get the majority of the delegates ..which obviously includes superdelegates.

And the superdelegates, whether you agree with them or not, seem to be falling in line with the winner of the pledged delegates. Honestly, I agree with that.

AnnMarie

by wiscogirl101 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:03:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: delegates only matter` (none / 0)

You can argue all you want about caucuses, but as for the superdelegates - they seem to be deciding, like the rest of America, that Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee.

by chicagovigilante on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:44:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually, I can (none / 0)

and have several times. The caucuses measure something besides how broad your voter support is. They measure how broad your support is among active supporters -- those willing to spend additional time, effort, and likely money, to help you win in the general election.

It's another metric by which the party can select its nominee, and a perfectly valid one.

by Rorgg on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:07:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That's funny that you call it a minority (none / 0)

-- if she has the popular vote lead it is by definition a majority.

by Molee on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:15:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's funny that you call it a minority (2.00 / 1)

Yes. It is a minority that wants to overturn the pledged delegates winner. You'll note that many Hillary supporters while unhappy with the results, do want her to keep on, but will respect the delegate winner and support Obama in November.

However, there is a minority that wants to take this to the convention and have a huge fight arguing about 'popular vote' this, whether to include Michigan, etc

Most Democrats want to avoid that mess and respect the delegate winner.

And re: popular vote...Hillary is only ahead if you grant her 328,000 votes in MI and Barack 0 votes...and again, you only have a minority who wants to make that argument.

AnnMarie

by wiscogirl101 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:25:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's funny that you call it a minority (none / 0)

It's funny that you pick the one scenario under which she has more popular votes.

by The Distillery on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:48:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Prioritizing the Popular Vote (1.00 / 1)

Obama has moved the goal post plenty of times. This is not a contest in following arbitrary rules, it is a contest for the nomination and whether you like it or not the superdelegates have the right to do the right thing and honor the will of the people. They will or they won't.

For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!

by TeresaInPa on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:59:23 AM EST

Re: On Prioritizing the Popular Vote (2.00 / 4)

Prove that he's moved the goal post. You can't.

AnnMarie

by wiscogirl101 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:04:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Prioritizing the Popular Vote (2.00 / 2)

Theresa...

The superdelegates are deciding...and they're going with Obama.

by FlashStash on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:13:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Prioritizing the Popular Vote (2.00 / 3)

Obama has moved the goal post plenty of times.

Could you please cite examples (or even one) of this statement?

In the spirit of fairness I will cite some of Sen. Clinton's.

Early - Elected Delegates (this will be decided Super Tuesday)

Then - Total Delegates (2025)

Then Non caucus states (After Super Tuesday)

Then- Total Delegates with pledged changing votes (2025)

Then- Big States Democrats must win

Then- Popular Vote

Then- Swing states democrats must win

Then- Popular Vote including FL & MI giving Obama undecided

Then- Electoral College Projections

Then- Popular Vote including FL & Mi Not giving Obama undecided in MI

Then- Popular Vote including FL & MI, not giving Obama undecided in MI and excluding caucus results.

Then- Popular Vote Including FL & MI, not giving Obama undecided in MI, excluding caucus results, including PR and drum roll WV!

I await your examples...

"The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not by arguing about it or spending time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it" -DL Moody

by nextgen on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:15:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Prioritizing the Popular Vote (2.00 / 3)

Oops forgot, now 2210 with FL & MI and Sen. Clinton getting full delegation from MI and Obama getting zero.

"The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not by arguing about it or spending time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it" -DL Moody

by nextgen on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:17:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Prioritizing the Popular Vote (2.00 / 1)

That is simply not true. Senator Obama has always understood that this campaign is about delegates. That's why he has campaigned the way he has. Perhaps if popular vote determined the nominee he would have ignored smaller states to focus on heavily populated areas. But that's not how the process works.

If Hillary Clinton wanted popular vote to determine the nominee, she should have made her case to the DNC before the primary season began. She didn't have a problem with the delegate system before she started losing.

Clinton's motto seems to be, "If at first you don't succeed, whine about the rules."

by chicagovigilante on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:50:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Prioritizing the Popular Vote (2.00 / 1)

The will of the people is quite clear. He has NEVER been behind in pledged delegates, and they represent actual votes. Obama has lead from day one.

by Reeves on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:12:58 AM EST

Re: On Prioritizing the Popular Vote (none / 0)

I find it odd more people don't talk about this, but you're correct. In fact, the first day he lost the delegate count was March 5th, I think.

by Falsehood on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:19:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I disagree with your point "D" (none / 0)

-- the reason there was no discussion of this before was simply that no one thought one person might have more pledged delegates and another person have the popular vote lead. Simple as that.

Now that that has happened - we have big problem - and it is not resolved by simply giving BO the supers he needs to close the deal. The supers need to look at this disparity and think about winning.

Personally, I think that will lead them to HRC.

by Molee on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:14:58 AM EST

Re: I disagree with your point "D" (2.00 / 1)

Do you think Super's are stupid and have not looked at the possibility of Clinton winning some rigged from of the popular vote? If that would ever lead them to Clinton they would not be going to Obama right now.

by Bobby Obama on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:23:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree with your point "D" (none / 0)

True - we'll see what they do. I think the Supers will goes elsewhere. If you look at the totals after Super Tuesday, it seems that she got all of her declarations beforehand (like if loyalty endorsement s wouldn't matter after it was decided.)

by Falsehood on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:20:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Some thoughts on caucuses... (none / 0)

One thing I really do hope doesn't become a casualty of this nominating contest is the caucus system.

I've actually never lived in a state with a caucus, but I wish I did.

Frankly, I'd like to see the Texas system go nationwide. Perhaps reconfigure the delegate split - maybe 1/4 caucus to 3/4 primary - but I wholeheartedly believe that caucuses are valuable to the party.

I certainly accept that there are limitations to a caucus process - and I'm not interested in disenfranchising anyone - but at the same time, I DO think that, in a partisan nominating contest, the 'activists', the 'grassroots', the folks that are going to be doing the volunteer work, canvassing, knocking on doors, fighting in the trenches - I DO think our voices deserve a bit more volume.

by zonk on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:21:25 AM EST

Re: Some thoughts on caucuses... (none / 0)

There's also something very democratic/populist about talking to each other and people moving around.

by Falsehood on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:21:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Value of Caucuses... (none / 0)

...is that they test a candidate's campaign's ability to organize on the ground, thus preventing an exclusively paid-media campign. That organizational bility helps the candidate, and the party when she/he later becomes the nominee. Does it exclude some folks who can't leave jobs and families to participate? Sure. So the campaign finds those who can attend. That requires even more organizational ability and helps the GOTV process in other, primary-holding states later in the season. I like Zonk's suggestion (above) that Texas' "split" system be employed rather than a wholesale abandonment of the caucuses. That gives equal weight to the popular vote.

I also like Sen. McGovern's suggestion of rearranging the dates into regional blocs that rotate positional order every 4 years. Let's say in 2012, the Midwest holds their primary/caucus all on the last Saturday in January. Then the South hold's theirs the following month, The Northeast is next, followed by the West. (The order would rotate every cycle, so each region would have an opportunity to go first, and last)

This way, by the end of April we'd have a nominee - then we could move up the convention to June and spend the next 4 months whippin' on the elephant instead of ourselves.

What say you, DD'ers?

Often wrong; seldom in doubt.

by Goober Pea on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:34:52 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.