The Delegate Battle

by Jerome Armstrong, Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 08:14:54 PM EST

Everyone knows, I'm all for the delegate battle, and now that Obama's campaign is too, I'm all giddy. but saying "Barack Obama Wins Delegate Battle in Nevada" really shows a lack of understanding in how the delegate process works.

I'd encourage anyone that wants to see how it will unfold to read through the NV draft (pdf) of the process.

All of these delegates in Nevada, today, in "the first determining step" are "soft" pledges. There's nothing concrete happening yet in the delegate selection of Nevada, it just started today. We'll check back April 19th, to see how it really goes down in Nevada on the state convention, and even before that, in the county conventions on Feb 24th; but to claim a "delegate win" today is just meaningless.

In Iowa, for example, it's entirely possible that Edwards, as he fades out of the contest, will lose some of those delegates to either Clinton or Obama, as it moves through the county and state selection process. Check out Hugh Winebrenner's "The Iowa Precinct Caucuses: The Making of a Media Event" to see how this has happened in the past.

And I gotta hope that Nevada continues it's raucous caucus tradition, it was quite a thrown-down.

Update [2008-1-19 21:3:39 by Jerome Armstrong]: Also, to be clear, I'm not saying that the delegates won't be counted till then, they are and will be, even on our counter. I'm referring to the Green Papers as the authority for updating the MyDD "full delegation" counter, and they've not yet posted a determination. Also, we'll begin adding in super-delegates, going by DemConWatch numbers next week too.

I no longer believe its plausible that John Edwards is strong enough to be "the kingmaker", given Nevada's results-- this is heading toward a two-person race. As such, it's going to be the super-delegates that are going to play the role of kingmaker, if there is one needed.

It also seems likely that Obama's "close second" is going to be close enough that the super-delegates could decide that he's the VP too.

Update [2008-1-19 21:35:28 by Jerome Armstrong]: More:

Statement by Nevada Democratic Party Chair Jill Derby Regarding the Nevada Caucus

(Las Vegas, NV) Today, two out of three Nevadans who caucused chose a Democrat instead of a Republican for president. That is an overwhelming majority vote for a new direction. Just like in Iowa what was awarded today were delegates to the County Convention. No national convention delegates were awarded. The calculations of national convention delegates being circulated are based upon an assumption that delegate preferences will remain the same between now and April 2008. We look forward to our county and state conventions where we will choose the delegates for the nominee that Nevadans support.




Tags: 2008 election (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 52 Comments :: Post a Comment


I hope it wasn't too raucous (none / 0)

The precinct caucus should be a friendly environment, so no one feels intimidated and people are inclined to turn out against next cycle.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 08:17:05 PM EST

Re: I hope it wasn't too raucous (none / 0)

From everything I've read, they need to have some Iowans come out to Nevada to teach them some manners about how to caucus friendly.


by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 08:19:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope it wasn't too raucous (none / 0)

I'm surprised. Iowa folks help set up the caucuses out there but didn't teach the civility lessons. But caucuses are some passioned politics no doubt.

To the caucus detractors, of which I am not one, I give you the quote of the famous Mo Udall: "I have finally learned the difference between a cactus and caucus. On the cactus, the pricks are on the outside."

One of the best things about both IA and NV is all the new contacts that the parties are going to have for the fall campaign.


by danIA on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:24:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

my brother caucused for Mo Udall (none / 0)

in my precinct in 1976. They didn't get a delegate, so he went with the uncomitted group.

Great quote!


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:32:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Delegate battle (none / 0)

I want one!

To ALL John Edwards supporters! - We Have Power!
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/1/19/2018 21/508


Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 08:20:21 PM EST

Obamaphile not interested in facts just spin (none / 0)

This effort to devalue Clintons decisive victory with a mass of innaccurate spin is only getting any play on the net. In the real world everyone knows what happened. Their tactics are fairly pathetic let's face it. She's won three so far, they've won one. And they just can't handle it. Remind you of Bush in 2000. If you can't win fairly then just cheat.    


by ottovbvs on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 08:21:29 PM EST

Otto (none / 0)

calm down.  What should be clear to everyone is that there was no clear winner in NV.  Okay Hillary won that part of the vote - whatever part that was - the whole thing is confusing.  And there is no clear winner in this race - yet.  So chill, pour a drink, sit back, and think of how much you love humanity and have a pleasant Saturday night


Listening comes first
by Moonwood on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 08:31:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Otto (none / 0)

None of it matters anyway. It just matters who gets to be called 'the winner' and 'the front-runner' in the morning by the MSM.

That will be Clinton until SC, then will be even again, then Clinton will get a bit of Mo from FL and she'll be ahead again, then we'll see what happens 2/5.

Obviously, the blogosphere will be rabid through the whole thing but for most people the above will be what they see.


by kristoph on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 09:09:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Delegate Battle (none / 0)

KOS is unbelieveable. Check this out. Unprofessional in my book.

This thing isn't over Hotlist

by kos
Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 02:34:43 PM PST
Dear Clinton partisans celebrating the nomination after today,

Didn't you learn a lesson from New Hampshire?

Hugs and kisses,

kos

KOS is f----- joke.


by lonnette33 on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 08:28:51 PM EST

Re: The Delegate Battle (none / 0)

He is just saying not to get cocky.

Don't get cocky!


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 08:31:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Delegate Battle (none / 0)

OK.  Read this...

Obama wins Nevada
by kos
Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:07:32 PM PST
So check it out, Obama literally won more delegates in Nevada than Clinton:

A source with knowledge of the Nevada Democratic Party's projections told The Nation that under the arcane weighting system, Obama would win 13 national convention delegates and Clinton would win 12 delegates. The state party has not released an official count yet.

Barack Obama released an official statement celebrating a delegate victory. "We came from over twenty-five points behind to win more national convention delegates than Hillary Clinton because we performed well all across the state, including rural areas where Democrats have traditionally struggled," he said.

And the Obama campaign is milking it, throwing the Hillary campaign's own words against it:....

Who's cocky now Clinton supporters or KOS and all the KOS worshipers?


by lonnette33 on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 08:33:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Delegate Battle (2.00 / 1)

Don't pay attention to Kos. How many people really benefit from their support.

Lieberman is proof positive that Kos is an ineffectual political fringe group.


by kristoph on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 09:12:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Delegate Battle (none / 0)

How does being "all for the delegate battle", especially when we're seeing what we're seeing today, fit in with Direct Democracy?


by Piuma on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 08:33:06 PM EST

Re: The Delegate Battle (none / 0)

heh, it's meant as a reference to participation in a blog community, get it?


by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 08:50:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Delegate Battle (none / 0)

No, I didn't get it.  I always assumed it was a democratic ideal: more direct participation in our democracy, a progressive vision of greater grassroots participation, crash the gates, tear down the old Party structure and open it up to the people, more representative and all that.  But I've never read your book, so I was just flying blindly, perhaps based on what I'd like to see, not your vision.  This explains a lot.  


by Piuma on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 09:27:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Delegate Battle (none / 0)

Well, that's fine. But that's not how it works in Iowa, either.

Among delegates that have actually been apportioned, this is the tally:

Clinton: 9
Obama: 9
Edwards: 4


Further Reading
by Dave Sund on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 08:37:06 PM EST

Re: The Delegate Battle (none / 0)

They haven't even went through the county and state delegate selection process yet in Iowa.


by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 08:43:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Delegate Battle (none / 0)

Right. Those totals are New Hampshire. I think it's irrelevant, as delegates chosen at the caucus are going to be dedicated supporters, and will go for their chosen candidate unless that candidate has dropped out.


Further Reading
by Dave Sund on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 08:57:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Delegate Battle (none / 0)

I'm curious, Jerome. Are you going to count the current Iowa delegate counts AND the current Nevada delegate counts, or neither of them?

Oh, and your delegate counter is wrong. There is a typo in the Clinton number.


by Kal on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 08:43:44 PM EST

Re: The Delegate Battle (none / 0)

I'm gonna count all the delegates where they stand presently, even the super delegates, starting after Feb 3rd, but it's a number inherently in flux (the point of the post) until the very end.

I'll leave it to the people that don't understand how the process works to make believe that certain delegates will be counted and others won't.


by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 08:46:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Delegate Battle (none / 0)

So it's entirely up to your editorial discretion which delegates you will count and which you won't? No standards?

I'll leave it to the people that don't understand how the process works to make believe that certain delegates will be counted and others won't.

Oh, you're operating on make-believe. I now understand your delegate counting process! :)


by Kal on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 08:53:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Delegate Battle (none / 0)

See the update in the post, if you'd like the guidelines. Yes, you are learning about how the delegate process works, that's good.


by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 09:06:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Delegate Battle (none / 0)

Not learning from you. Care to join us in the reality-based community?


by Kal on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:17:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Delegate Battle (none / 0)

If Nevada's delegates should be considered "soft" and not relevant right now, then Iowa's are the same. So remove Iowa's from the Delegate Counter.

Jill Derby is correct, but she is engaging in spin too.


by along on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 08:47:32 PM EST

Re: The Delegate Battle (none / 0)

No, they will both be added, everything soft will be.


by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 08:51:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Delegate Battle (none / 0)

oh I saw your earlier comment afterwards. yeah, I think that's how it should be. after all, that's the convention we, and most everyone else, was using after Iowa. I'm not sure I get the hubub about Obama highlighting his apparent lead in pledged NV delegates. they too are just using the same convention we all have been using. As you say, Iowa pledged delegates could migrate, and there are a bunch of Iowa unpledged who could tip the scales against Obama. But we never considered that to be important back then.


by along on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 09:00:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Delegate Battle (none / 0)

Spin. Spin. Spin.

What else can they do?

It's just the way the game is played.


by kristoph on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 09:06:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Delegate Battle (none / 0)

As I have written a number of times before, at this point the contest is not about delegates. It's about momentum.

Consequently, it makes no difference if the delegates are hard or sort or if Clinton has 1 delegate more or Obama has 1 delegate more.

Trust me on this, neither Obama nor Clinton care and neither should you.

Obama is spinning this and the 'voter irregularities' because they need to sap Clinton's momentum. That's just the way the game is played.

Next contest is SC. For Obama it's a must win. If those Edwards supporters shift to Clinton and she somehow wins, it's game over for Obama. If Obama wins, as is expected, we still have a contest, albeit one which favors Clinton at this point.  


by kristoph on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 09:05:17 PM EST

Re: The Delegate Battle (none / 0)

Statement by Nevada Democratic Party Chair Jill Derby
Regarding the Nevada Caucus

(Las Vegas, Nev.) "Today, two out of three Nevadans who caucused chose a Democrat instead of a Republican for president. That is an overwhelming majority vote for a new direction. Just like in Iowa, what was awarded today were delegates to the county convention. No national convention delegates were awarded. The calculations of national convention delegates being circulated are based upon an assumption that delegate preferences will remain the same between now and April 2008. We look forward to our county and state conventions where we will choose the delegates for the nominee that Nevadans support."


by athyrio on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 09:13:10 PM EST

Re: The Delegate Battle (none / 0)

"It also seems likely that Obama's "close second" is going to be close enough that the super-delegates could decide that he's the VP too."

Oh, very interesting. That intrigue could be very real.

But: With Clinton making the unrelenting case that only she will be "ready on day one," how could she then sell the idea that Obama would be the best choice to be a "heartbeat away" from the Presidency, as they say?


by along on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 09:20:14 PM EST

Re: The Delegate Battle (2.00 / 1)

Obama is a quick study.  I'm sure he could be ready by day two or three.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 09:21:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Delegate Battle (none / 0)

Because people don't vote against a VP, but they might vote because a VP is on the ticket.

A month ago I expected Clinton to choose someone other than Obama because she will need someone to attack the GOP nominee.

However, now I think Obama as VP is more likely because (a) she needs him to unify the Democratic party, (b) she wants all of the young/independant voters Obama can bring in.

Also I think BillC is doing a damn fine job on offense so he might keep playing that role in the general.


by kristoph on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 09:30:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Delegate Battle (2.00 / 2)

I agree about Bill, he's damn good at what he's doing.


by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 09:38:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama will not be VP (none / 0)

The first woman nominee would not choose a black man for a running mate. She will choose a white man--either a governor or Wes Clark.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:33:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Delegate Battle (none / 0)

I wrote an entry on this today on my blog.

I've done a state-by-state analysis of what I think Obama needs to do to get close enough in delegates to win the nomination (with the help of Edwards or super-delegates).

http://electopundit.blogspot.com/2008/01 /democratic-delegate-race.html

It's looking tougher for him now with Clinton winning the Hispanic vote so decisively in Nevada.


by ElectoPundit on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 09:26:54 PM EST

Re: The Delegate Battle (2.00 / 2)

First no concession speech, then a statement saying "i win i win na na na na na na"

umm does this make ANYONE feel a bit odd???


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 12:09:40 AM EST

Re: The Delegate Battle (none / 0)

Yes.  Especially compared with Hillary's very classy and gracious concession in Iowa.  The contrast is stark, and makes Obama look like a petulant egotistical brat.  Shades of George.


by WMCB on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 12:34:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama is arrogant and childish (none / 0)


by dpANDREWS on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 02:48:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Iowa a three way tie now? (none / 0)

Can you image the furer if Clinton had tried to spin Iowa as a tie because she only got one less delegate than Obama, or if she spun it as a second place because she got on more than Edwards?   Can you imagine the outrage from Obamamaniacs and the scorn from the media?

Obama got his azz handed to him in LV.  

Clinton got over 50% in a strong three way race.

Clinton scored huge among latinos, this could spell DOOM for OBama going forward.


by dpANDREWS on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 02:48:06 AM EST

Republican Delegate Count? (none / 0)

This is a question I've had for a while now...

I take it that your current count is the Republican "soft" total without sanctions for any of the early states. Do you expect the GOP Convention to seat the remaining delegates from each state?


Further Reading
by Dave Sund on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 02:54:38 AM EST

Re: The Delegate Battle (none / 0)

Come on, Sour Grapes Armstrong. Enjoy the MSM-fueled win and don't be sore about the Obama campaign's consolation prize. If it's such a "lack of understanding" then why don't you explain the Nevada process so that everyone understands it?

Bill Clinton was also guilty of an oversimplification in explaining the Nevada delegate selection process, but I didn't hear you calling him out on it. His oversimplification was even more of a half-truth since he had less information to base it on. And it looks like it turned out to be a failed prediction since it was the rural votes that counted for more in the end.

Give your opinions, Jerome, we want them, but try not to be insulting.


by davefordemocracy on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 11:23:01 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.

Login
Username:

Password: