On the rules

by Jerome Armstrong, Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:34:54 PM EST

Markos (who seems to distill either a "coup" and/or "civil war" going on more than anyone else lately) agrees with Josh, so does Duncan (maybe). Joc at Corrente calls bluff, but leave it to BTD at TalkLeft:

If Obama is the pledged delegate leader and the untainted popular vote leader, then I will be up in arms if the Super Delegates deny him the nomination. But I do not claim for a second that this violates the rules. It clearly does not. The whining about the existing rules comes from Kos and Josh Marshall and other die hard Obama supporters. THAT is a fact.

In essence, what some Obama supporters are arguing for is CHANGING the rules so that the pledged delegate leader is the nominee. Maybe we can adopt that rule for the next nomination fight. But we won't for this one. Instead, JUST LIKE the Clinton campaign, the Obama campaign and its online supporters are arguing for what they think the Super Delegates should do.

What bothers me is they are pretending they are not. It is disingenuous of them. I am arguing for my views as well. For making the popular vote the deciding yardstick. But I admit the rules do not mandate that my yardstick be followed. Obama, his news network NBC, and his legion of blog followers pretend they are standing for the rules. They are not.

Or James Joyner (maybe it takes a Republican) will explain it:
The rules of the game, which have applied not only since the outset of this contest but for the past several decades, state that the nominee is the person who gets a majority of the delegates at the convention... Given the proportional allocation of delegates, we know that Clinton will certainly not arrive at the Democratic National Convention in Denver with that many and that Obama is incredibly unlikely to do so, either.

Despite their name, the Democratic Party has a much less democratic means of selecting their nominee than the Republican Party. They chose years ago to empower party poobahs, via their role as "superdelegates," to have a large role in selecting their standard bearer. If Clinton can make up her relatively slim deficit in pledged delegates by persuading these superdelegates that she would have a better chance of beating John McCain in November then, per the rules that everyone agreed to in advance, she'll be the nominee.

The rules. They were agreed to in advance by both sides. Like them, or argue to change them for next time, but lets quit denying what they are. And please spare us from pretending that there's some sort of violation if Clinton is the first to get a majority of the delegates through the combination of pledged-delegates and super-delegates.

Update [2008-3-24 19:7:53 by Jerome Armstrong]: Trickster with a further explanation:

I've just read posts from several people complaining that Obama's not trying to change the rules, or that Obama's not saying that Clinton is trying to change the rules.

I think you folks are misreading this post. Look at it a little more closely. This is a post about Obama's adherents' complaints that Clinton is trying to "change the rules."

Does this happen? Hell yes. Just look at Mojo Risen's post a few above this, timestamped 6:42:08 EDT, and I daresay that if you just look around this site you will see it over and over. Kos is constantly saying that Clinton can only win the nomination by a "coup," which clearly implies that she would be overthrowing the existing regime, i.e., changing the rules, if she wins by superdelegate vote, or if she succeeds in getting the FL and/or MI delegations seated.

Heck, if you don't believe that, then check out this Google search: 177,000 hits for [Hillary ("changing the rules" OR "change the rules")].

Superdelegate votes and credentials fights alike are clearly provided for under the existing rules. Winning the superdelegates votes or winning a credentials fights are not changing the rules, they're just winning the game with the current rules.

I'm all for changing the game to have better rules, but for right now we're stuck with the game we've got. For this game, the rules are what they are, and I would be greatly obliged if those who like to complain about Hillary's desire to change them would take some time first to familiarize themselves with what they really are.

Otherwise, feel perfectly free, as Jerome suggests, to argue that metrix X, such as leading in pledged delegates, should be the metric that superdelegates use. Just please refrain from making the factually incorrect claim that the use of some other metric would constitute "changing the rules."




Tags: 2008 election, Superdelegates (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 237 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: On the rules (2.00 / 2)

The rules also say Michigan and Florida could not hold their primaries before February 5th, yet they did.


by mefck on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:36:46 PM EST

Re: On the rules (2.00 / 3)

Yea, and it will take a Rules Committee to decide what to do with them too...

Rules, Math, too bad there's not Language or Writing skills involved as well.


by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:40:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the rules (2.00 / 1)

Jerome, I find your position partisan and mendacious.

You admonish Obama supporters for essentially lobbying superdelegates to use a standard that suits Obama for making the case superdelegates should vote for Obama. As far as I know, there's nothing against the rules for lobbying superdelegates. And certainly the HRC campaign is lobbying superdelegates for seeing things to the benefit of their campaign.

So, you seem to be arguing the Obama campaign is disrespecting the rules by merely making the case superdelegates vote for Obama.

In the same discussion you are implying that if the rules committee changes the rules vis-a-vis Florida and Michigan at the convention this is OK b/c that's what the rules committee is empowered to do.

I suppose the rules committee also has the power to not seat any HRC delegates if Obama partisans gain control of the rules committee. Would you consider this changing the rules after the contest began? Or would it merely be a fair exercise of legitimate power?


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:10:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the rules (none / 0)

Obama and NBC are already declaring he's won the nomination - and if he doesn't get it there will be H_ _ L to pay.
Obama supporters promise to riot and boycott if he's not the nominee. Obama has not discouraged it.
The SDs choose the nominee.
Which candidate would be best nominee for the Dem Party?
Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:33:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama will be better for the Dem Party (2.00 / 0)

based on mobilizing more volunteers and contributors and his relative strength is the South and West. Obama also makes a play for expanding the Dem base by attracting independents and Republicans.

I am not certain he will be a great POTUS. I think he may be. I'm pretty certain HRC will be a mediocre POTUS.


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:49:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama will be better for the Dem Party (none / 0)

Uh,  no.   The most  current   polls  in  already-voted   states  at  SUSA  show   that  after the  Wright  fiasco,   the  Independents  and  Reagan Dems    have moved   to  McCain.  

Obama  is  also  losing  the  now disillusioned  youth  vote    and  the  white  male  vote.  

Superdelegates  have  every right  to acknowledge  that   and  consider   same  in  making  choices.  

You  don't  win  in  November  with   delegates.    You  win  with   electoral  votes.  


by auntmo on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:04:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama will be better for the Dem Party (none / 0)

There's a "dissillusioned youth" vote?

How do pollsters factor that in? "If Tinkerbell were dying, would you:
a) Clap to save her?
b) Walk off an listen to more Panic! At the Disco?


Someone tell the Strom Thurmondgeist to stop haunting the Clintons: upending chairs, opening creaky doors, possessing during USA Today interviews.
by Lettuce on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:34:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama will be better for the Dem Party (none / 0)

Have any Obama supporters on MyDD stopped supporting Obama b/c of Rev. Wright?

It seems that you want there to be a big backlash against Obama to justify what you wanted before the Rev. Wright tapes surfaced.

Obama has weathered the Wright tapes. And his volunteers are still volunteering. And his contributors are still contributing.


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:38:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the rules (none / 0)

Well I guess we are extremely lucky to have the SD's here to think for all us common folk...


by Rockville Liberal on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:58:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Observing that the sun rises in the east... (2.00 / 0)

...does not mean you're 'threatening' the east with the sun.

If people observe that the democrat party will be torn apart when the nominee with the greatest numbers of votes/states/delegates loses to the one with less, then that's hardly a threat. It's just information. And common sense. Spinning it back on the sayer is spanish inquisition tactics


by brit on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:00:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Observing that the sun rises in the east... (none / 0)

That  depends on whether  a  large  group  of  the popular   vote  felt  bamboozled   and   regret  that  vote  after  seeing  the  Wright  videos,    which  changes   the   equation.    

If  current state  polls   show  a  large   change  in    same ,   superdelegates  have  every  right  to take  that  into  consideration.  


by auntmo on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:07:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the rules (none / 0)

Every single time I see this mentioned I ask then why even have a primary in the first place? Shouldn't we just allow party leaders to determine the nominee? Isn't that what you advocate when saying that?


by zep93 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:31:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the rules (2.00 / 0)

I'm not going to talk math, although I'm a math teacher.

The super delegates certainly can vote for whoever the hell they want, so until someone has the magic number, the race is not over.

However, I have to disagree with you about FL and MI. Here is my analogy as a math professor:

If I catch a 2 students breaking the rules on an exam, the grades they otherwise would have received are replaced with zeroes. These rules are well known in advance as published in my syllabus.

Sometime when they are caught, the students ask for a redo, but I don't do that as that would reward cheaters and would be unfair to the other 48 students in my class who followed the rules.

If these students don't like the rules or feel they were treated unfairly, they can always appeal to the Dean! (no pun intended)


by mo on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:19:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the rules (2.00 / 0)

the pun may not intended, but it is quite funny!  kudos :)


just callin' em' as i sees em. I'm a whale biologist.
by Doug Tuttle on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:07:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the rules (none / 0)

I would say your analogy falls a little short, at least on Florida.

The Florida legislature (both houses) and the Governorship are in the control of the Republicans. The moving of the primary date to its early position was the result of Republicans putting it in as an amendment to popular legislation on voting reform to create a paper trail for elections.  
It was a political no-win for the Florida Democrats.  If they opposed the legislation, it would still pass with a party-line vote and provide ripe political fodder against them in their next election.

Michigan, on the other hand, moved up their primary after Florida had already been admonished by the DNC.  I'm unclear whether it was the Michigan Party or the legislature that moved the date, but the Democrats are in control of at least the Michigan House of Representatives, so, either way, the moving of their primary can clearly be seen as a more egregious violation of DNC rulings.

The final decision will lie with the Credential Committee, but the tendency to lump both FL and MI together, I think, misses the huge differences in the situations.  

Personally, I'd say the DNC was right in initially chastising FL, if only to serve as a disincentive for other states to try and move up their primaries.  However, considering the circumstances, their delegation should be recognized as decided by the primary.  MI, on the other hand, I think should be possibly allowed to attend the convention, but not stand to vote until a candidate is definitively decided upon.

Then the DNC can spend the next 4 years(or hopefully 8, assuming we have an incumbent to defend in 2012) figuring out a better way to handle these primaries and to get rid of these ridiculous, antiquated caucuses.


by JLEcru on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:23:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the rules (none / 0)

Why do we have such silly rules?  Did anyone expect that the DNC rules would control what state assemblies choose to do?  

Why do we have the silly rule that NH and Iowa must go first?  Did we all decide that?  If so, why?  Couldn't it be argued that other states, like Florida and Michigan, are more important than Iowan and New Hampshire?  Who would we rather alienate?  New Hampshire or Florida?  

Our rules are just silly.  They make no sense.  We'll be fighting about this foolishness from now until August, if not November.  It's just not helpful to our chances of winning in November.  When will we learn to keep our eyes on the prize and not these silly rules?!  


by SueBee on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:34:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the rules (none / 0)

A FL Dem co-sponsored the bill to move up the primary date.  The FL Dems were willing accomplices to this debacle.

FL votes should not count unless a re-vote can be done and the re-vote is done fairly and credibily.


by Terry from Killingly CT on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:01:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the rules (none / 0)

Re, breaking the rules and receiving zeros.

The Clinton camp should have immediatly insisted that Obama forfeit the Florida delegates when ran TV ads in Florida. He broke the rules, and his pledge.


by jrole on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:53:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the rules (none / 0)

Yes indeed. And his illegal   press  conference  after the  fund  raiser,   during  which  he  told  Floridian   voters  that  he  would  support  their  reinstatement  at  the  convention,   was  also  against  the  rules.  

And   yet  now,   he  refuses  to  help  those  same  Floridian  voters  he  told  that  he  supported  them.    

If  Obama  gets  the nomination  by manipulating  these  rules,  he  won't  win   Florida  or  Michigan.  

And  without  those  2  states,  he  can't  win  for  our party  in November.  

The  RULES    say   superdelegates  get  to consider  all  of those   issues,  and   as  Tom Daschle  said,   "I'm  a  superdelegate.  I can  do  whatever  I  want. "    


by auntmo on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:12:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're clairvoyant... (none / 0)

what other states won't Obama win?


by Erik on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:05:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the rules (none / 0)

Gee, that's witty.  Too bad the Clinton Campaign doesn't have some sort of a "Reality Threshold" huh...


by Rockville Liberal on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:57:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the rules (none / 0)

Sure, MI/FL may end up in the rules committee. The point is that you are complaining about Obama adherents trying to change the rules (by spinning the superdelegate issue to try exert pressure to have them simply ratify the primary/caucus results) but ignore the more egregious Clinton attempt to seat the results of the MI/FL primaries. This is not an Obama-style attempt to persuade superdelegates to vote their way - which is perfectly within the rules - but an actual attempt to override the rules (about when to hold those primaries.)

Your partisan slip is showing.


by KitBinns on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:10:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the rules (2.00 / 2)

They sure did, and what happened when their punishment was meted out?  Bloodcurdling screams all around about their disenfranchisement.

I agree with the diarist.  Everyone agreed to the rules beforehand, so they should apply, no matter who it helps.  If in hindsight we have decided we don't like the rules, then change them for next time, but it's too late to do it now...


No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...
by jarhead5536 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:45:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

According to the DNC Rules (none / 0)

The list of delegates who are being sent to the Convention by the state parties is officially known as the "Temporary Roll," and the final decision as to which delegations will be seated will be determined by a floor vote at the Convention.  So, even not taking into account the fact that there is still time for FL & MI to schedule re-votes, it's definitely not "too late" to do anything.


by Trickster on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:05:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the rules (none / 0)

The  actual  RULES  do not  allow  for  denying 100%  of  the  delegates;   they  only  allow  for  denying   50%.  

Donna  Brazille, however, pushed  through   100%   instead,   which  was   BREAKING  THE  RULES.  

And  we  ALL know  who  she's  supporting.  


by auntmo on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:16:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the rules (none / 0)

Pushing for the maximum penalty rather than the mandated one is hardly BREAKING THE RULES.  Claims to the contrary are misleading and disingenuous.  

Besides, since we ALL know who you're supporting, everything you say can be disregarded, per your own logic.


by semiquaver on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:43:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the rules (none / 0)

The rules say no such thing. They say if you hold a primary before Feb 5, only half the delegates will be counted.


by Nobama on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:00:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

if the superdelegates side with the minority... (2.00 / 1)

...then please excuse me if I stay home in November


by shlenny on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:40:38 PM EST

Your grandkids will suffer for that. (2.00 / 1)

Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court.  Any time you start entertaining such foolishness as boycotting the election, repeat the above mantra until you come to your senses...


No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...
by jarhead5536 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:49:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Your grandkids will suffer for that. (none / 0)

Not a good enough argument to vote for BO.  Just got to keep our majority in the Senate (maybe increase) so no whack-a-doodles can get through.


by cmugirl90 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:55:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Your grandkids will suffer for that. (2.00 / 1)

Justices Scalia and Thomas are evidence that a democratic controlled Senate will not stop that form happening.  


by mefck on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:02:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

so you will be ok (none / 0)

if BO supporters say the same about Hillary?
And won't vote for her?
-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:08:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

what you got against Obama? (none / 0)

What's your beef with Obama?

And did you have a problem with him before he ran for POTUS?


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:12:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: what you got against Obama? (none / 0)

Of course not.  He never did anything before he ran for President.  He has no record of anything.  He never brought anyone together to solve any problem.  He never ran a state or even a business.  We know nothing about him, other than he appears to be extremely liberal.  


by SueBee on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:56:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: what you got against Obama? (none / 0)

He obviously has a record. He has built coalitions to pass legislation.

These wildly inaccurate allegations against Obama make me think that opposition to Obama is overwhelmingly an emotional response to the situation.


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:00:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if the superdelegates side with the minority.. (none / 0)

Stay home if you want, just stop your bloody crying.

I'm getting a headache.


Until recently I was selling drugs, and now I'm selling Obama T-shirts.
by switching sides on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:01:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the rules (none / 0)

Good post, Jerome.

BTD is being intellectually honest, as are you.

For some reason, intellecual honesty seems rare lately in parts of the so-called "progressive blogoshpere."

As one who has no preference, it is easy to see through the fig leafs of the various supporters' arguments.

Obama supporter arguments often are "whatever way Obama can win," but they are hidden in supposed rules of general application.

Clinton supporter arguments often are "whatever way Clinton can win," but they are hidden in supposed rules of general application.

Meanwhile the war between two centrist candidates continues, and and the left is left out of the Democratic Party once again, except when they come calling for our votes.

And with McCain running whichever half of HillObama prevails will get our votes, but it does not mean we have to like it.
 


by TomP on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:41:06 PM EST

Re: On the rules (2.00 / 1)

"Meanwhile the war between two centrist candidates continues, and and the left is left out of the Democratic Party once again, except when they come calling for our votes."

Both candidates may be a bit too centrist for your (or my tastes) but they are more progressive than any of our recent nominees in past GE's were at the time they were running.  I will be happy to see either instead of McCain.


by DreamsOfABlueNation on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:39:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the rules (none / 0)

screw those centrist assholes!  My platform calls for single-payer insurance for pets, banning fire and other carbon sources, the shuttering of wal-mart, and  also compulsory sterilization of republicans.


by semiquaver on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:49:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Finally, a reality check in the blogosphere! (none / 0)

I've been waiting for a story/diary just like this for weeks!

(I had to get my head out of Markos'...blog to find it.)

Hal-le-freakin'-leu-jah!

The most sane, realistic overview of this process I've read in a long, long time...as hard is it might be for certain followers of one camp (or the other) to swallow.

Bigtime kudos to Jerome & Co.!


by bobswern on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:54:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the rules (2.00 / 2)

The rules say Michigan and Florida don't count.

All candidates agreed on those rules.

Now when Hillary is losing, she demands the rules be changed.

Please spare us from pretending that she just wants to change the rules to help the party.

Lets quit denying what she is doing.


by Mojo Risen on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:42:08 PM EST

Re: On the rules (none / 0)

All candidates agreed on those rules.

100% false.


by Trickster on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:45:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the rules (2.00 / 1)

Are you saying the Obama and Clinton campaigns did not agree to the rules that Mich and Fla would not count?

News to me.


by Mojo Risen on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:50:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes I am (none / 0)

And I know what I'm talking about, too.  If I could prove a negative, I would, but I can't, so the ball is in your court to produce a cite saying that Clinton--hell, I'll take either candidate--ever agreed that the MI & FL delegations would not be seated.

Save yourself some googling time.  It never happened.


by Trickster on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:08:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes I am (2.00 / 2)

So the quote of Hilliary saying that: "It's clear. This election they're having is not going to count for anything."  didn't actually happen?

Try the audio: http://www.jabberwonk.com/flinker.cfm?cl iid=zydzt


by SKI on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:15:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes I am (none / 0)

And if Hillary were leading in pledged delegates, she would be pushing just as hard for FL and MI to be seated.  Maybe James Carville would be leading the way.


by PatriotAct1984 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:28:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's not an agreement (none / 0)

It's just a statement of fact.  One person unilaterally making a statement doth not an agreement make.  Contracts 101.


by Trickster on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:29:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's not an agreement (2.00 / 0)

Actually, with detrimental reliance (all the voters who believed her and stayed home), it is an binding agreement.  

I guess you stopped coming in after the first class...


by SKI on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:37:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Heh heh (none / 0)

Nope.  For detrimental reliance you must have a clear and unambiguous promise, and whatever you call that statement it is not a clear and unambiguous promise.

You also have to have reasonable reliance, and it's not reasonable to rely on a single off-the-cuff statement on a radio program made by a person without the legal power to affect the outcome of the vote as an assurance that your vote won't count.

Nice try, though.  What are you, a 2nd-year?  :)


by Trickster on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:50:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heh heh (none / 0)

No, I'm about 8 years out and in-house now in an area I'd NEVER see detrimental reliance. :)

My basic point remains:

  • Trying to argue that she did not state that Michigan wouldn't count is simply false.
  • Trying to argue that despite that statement, she never "promised" or "pledged" is pathetic.


by SKI on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:56:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heh heh (none / 0)

Ugh, just realized I'm actually 11 years out - I'm getting old. :(


by SKI on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:57:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Come now (none / 0)

There are no words indicating any intent whatsoever in that quote, no "promise," "pledge," "covenant," "intend," "desire," "wish," "want," "agree," nothing like that.  To the contrary, the words "it's clear" are a positive indicator that she was stating a fact instead of an intent, because clarity pertains to perception.  

Further, it was an off-the-cuff statement during a radio interview, the kind of statement where some leeway as to wording is generally allowed.  (Obama's "typical white person" statement last week was exactly the same thing, an off-the-cuff statement during a radio interview.  Leeway?  Good thing or bad?)


by Trickster on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:13:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come now (none / 0)

You guys really have been out of law school a while.  A promise doesn't need any "words of intent".  In fact it doesn't need any words at all.  It is just a manifestation of a willingness to enter an agreement so given as to justify a reasonable person in believing that a commitment has been made.

Let me say upfront that I don't think that whether Hillary's actions and words can be construed as sufficient for a legal contract should be the appropriate touchstone for whether the rules should be binding.  Lets remember, the candidates don't make the rules, the party does.  That said, however, I'll play along and suggest my argument as to why I believe that Hillary's actions and words constitute a "promise" sufficient to form a contract. (Non-lawyers may skip the rest of this section if I'm putting you to sleep).

A promise may be be inferred from a course of conduct that indicates to the other party the manner in which the promisor agrees to act in the future.  Hillary's pledge not to compete in the primaries, her fulfillment of that pledge, the actions of her agent (Ickes) in effectuating the DNC penalty, and her statements that the primary "Would not count" represent a course of conduct consistent with a promise that she would abide by the DNC penalty.  A reasonable person observing these manifestations (before Hillary's reversal) would conclude that a commitment had been made.  In relying on these manifestations in ordering their own conduct (i.e deciding not to vote, to vote in a different primary, or to vote for a different candidate than they would have if they believed the votes would count) the voters entered into a contract by estoppel with the Clinton campaign to abide by the DNC rules.


by DreamsOfABlueNation on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:01:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Mighty, mighty thin course of conduct (none / 0)

First of all, her performance under a separate contract, "the pledge," is not evidence at all of a course of conduct related to a second contract.  In fact, the existence of the pledge contract is evidence that any action she took that was required by that contract is NOT a course of conduct that would validate the existence of another contract to another effect.  How on earth could contractually-required conduct be used as evidence of intent of something outside the contract that requires the conduct?

Second, Ickes was not acting as her agent when he worked with the DNC.  Not even close.  (Even if he was, all he did at the DNC was change the rules about who would appear on the "Temporary Roll"--the final composition of the Convention delegations were always to be determined at the Convention, as they always were.)

Third, a single statement--which is all you're left with, by the way--is in no shape, manner or form a "course of conduct."

Fourth, try selling a course of conduct argument to a court based on any contract involving an individual and her actions over a short period of time.  Especially when no statement of promise was ever made.  Course of conduct is pretty much exclusively for long-term relationships, usually buyer-seller relationships.

I was joking with the first poster, who I actually took to be an attorney all along, but I'm guessing that you really ARE still in law school.


by Trickster on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:10:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's not an agreement (none / 0)

Since both FL and Michigan had record breaking primary turnout you will need better evidence.


by souvarine on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:53:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's not an agreement (none / 0)

http://www.dcourage.com/Nini%20-%20Probl em%20with%20Existing%20FL%20and%20MI%20P rimaries.pdf

Among the proposed alternatives for seating the delegates from Florida and Michigan is to use the results of the primaries that already happened, based on the argument that doing so would avoid disenfranchising the 1.7 million Floridians and 600,000 Michiganders who already voted. However, doing so would disenfranchise many people from Florida and Michigan who did not vote in the earlier primaries because they did not expect their delegates would be seated at the convention. Based on a statistical comparison with turnout in other states' primaries, it appears that roughly two million more people would have voted in Florida and Michigan had they expected their delegates to be seated.

Although the Democratic turnout rate was impressive in Florida and Michigan, it was not nearly as high as it has been in other primaries so far. Of the first 37 states that have held either a primary or caucus for both Republicans and Democrats, only six states have had a larger turnout for Republicans than for Democrats: Florida and Michigan, plus heavily Republican Alaska, Alabama, and Utah, as well as Arizona, where many voters turned out to support home state favorite John McCain. In many other states, Democratic voters outnumbered Republican voters by at least 3 to 2. Simply stated, in states where Democratic voters expected their delegates to count and the candidates spent time and money campaigning, Democratic turnout has vastly exceeded Republican turnout. The fact that Republicans outnumbered Democrats in Florida and Michigan suggests that many would-be Democratic voters in those states chose not to vote at a much higher rate than in other states.


by SKI on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:03:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's not an agreement (none / 0)

The claim from dcourage.com was debunked here when it came out, but it's fundamental problem is its attempt to compare Democrat to Republican turnout across states, rather than compare historical turnout within a state. It also ignored the property tax referendum in Florida, which suggests that the study is intentionally misleading.


by souvarine on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:32:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Seriously? (none / 0)

HRC may not agree to the DNC rule that the MI and FL delegates would not be seated, but she darn well knew before hand that they would not be seated, and she also signed a pledge promising to not campaign in the two states, and she did not make a fuss about the issue BEFORE these primaries.  

So, maybe she didn't write/create/enforce/agree with the DNC rule, but that doesn't mean she doesn't have to abide by it.  This makes her attempts at seating these delegates based on the early primaries disingenious at best.

My problem with this article is this
"In essence, what some Obama supporters are arguing for is CHANGING the rules so that the pledged delegate leader is the nominee."

No, in essence Obama supporters are pointing out/making a prediction that were the Supers to go against public desire, a great injustice would be dealt.  No one is changing any rules, as if Obama supporter, Kos, HuffPo, or anyone else has the power to do that.


Eyes are like the groin of the head - Dwight Schrute
by KLRinLA on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:55:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the rules (none / 0)

This what they pledged...

Four State Pledge Letter 2008

Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina

August 31, 2007

WHEREAS,  Over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a 2008 nominating calendar;

WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic diversity of our party and our country;

WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process, to insure that money alone will not determine our presidential nominee;

WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.

THEREFORE, I _____, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus  before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.

Where does it say anything about delegates not counting?


by JimR on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:32:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the rules (none / 0)

It  doesn't.  

And  that's  the problem with   DKos  and  TPM  (Markos  and  Josh):  they  never  really   publish  the  actual  rules  for  their  easily  led  and  gullible  followers.    

Markos  and  Josh   publish   OPINIONS,   not  facts.    

Their  readers  have  been   HOODWINKED.  


by auntmo on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:23:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the rules (2.00 / 2)

Actually, the rules state that states that violated the primary dates set by the DNC should lose half of their elected delegates and all of their super delegates.
The "rules" were also not applied fairly, as New Hampshire also moved their primary up and lost no delegates.
The rules also state that a revote is legal and that if the DNC decides to reinstate the delegates, that is also legal.
So no, Hillary is not trying to change the rules.
by skohayes on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:52:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the rules (2.00 / 1)

New Hampshire was allowed to move up its primary ahead of Michigan by the DNC.


by jturn17 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:54:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the rules (2.00 / 2)

That's not accurate.

The rules that Obama and Clinton agreed upon were that the votes in the Mich and Fla primaries would not count. (unless someone has any evidence otherwise and no one seems to)

Now she is losing and Hillary wants to change rules that were previously agreed upon.

You Clinton supporters are squirming around the facts and it is really unbecoming.  


by Mojo Risen on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:56:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the rules (none / 0)

She won't succeed in a rule change (nor should she, I think), but don't blame her for trying.  Obama would be doing the same thing in her place...


No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...
by jarhead5536 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:01:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the rules (2.00 / 1)

Would Obama be doing the same thing? I don't think that is a given or is a justification for what Hillary is doing.

I know if Obama did try that, he would be laughed out of the campaign and scorned by everyone. His supporters would be embarrassed.


by Mojo Risen on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:05:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the rules (none / 0)

No, I agree.  There is a good chance Obama would be doing the same thing in seeking to effectuate a rules change if he were in Hillary's position.  And I'm an Obama supporter.  Its just good politics.  Will you agree that Hillary would act in much the same way as Obama is with respect to the FL/MI delegates if she were in HIS position?


by DreamsOfABlueNation on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:46:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the rules (none / 0)

i don't think so.
by alex100 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:50:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Really (none / 0)

Get some clue of what you're talking about before you start blaming the people who are factually correct of "squirming around."  The pledge was not to campaign in those states.  NO candidate EVER pledged that those states' votes wouldn't count.


by Trickster on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:09:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Really (2.00 / 0)

Squirming is the correct word for what you are doing.

Hillary, Oct 11, 2007, on Michigan: "It's clear: This election they're having is not going to count for anything"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULxxBz-PA jg

If you want to say that she did not agree that Mich wouldn't count, you are squirming. You are pretending.

I haven't googled for a Fla statement yet. Maybe there isn't one as clear cut, but you know as well as I that they agreed to follow the DNC rules and the DNC rules are that the primary in Fla does not count.

This is a sad debate.


by Mojo Risen on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:19:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's not a pledge (none / 0)

n/t


by Trickster on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:27:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

but she did say it (none / 0)

or what she says counts for nothing now?


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:02:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's a different question (none / 0)

I'm discussing whether Mojo Risen's repeated statements in this post that Clinton has "promised," "pledged," or "agreed" to exclude Florida and Michigan delegates are accurate.  They are not.


by Trickster on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:15:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

no offense (none / 0)

but you are definitely parsing.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:22:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Words have meaning (none / 0)

You can call it parsing if you want to, but Clinton never pledged, agreed, or promised that Michigan's vote wouldn't count.  Frankly, it's insane to think she would have.  The polls had her way ahead in MI at the time.  With all its union voters, it's a natural Clinton constituency.

I'm not sure why she said what she said, and it was probably a mistake for her to say anything like that at all.  But to take one statement of fact in a format where she had to give unprepared answers and construe that into saying that she "pledged" that Michigan's delegates would never be seated is just way way way over the top.


by Trickster on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:40:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

why would (none / 0)

she think it counts if it was stripped of delegates?


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:03:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Once again (none / 0)

That's not the question here.  I'm not saying you don't raise a valid question, because you do, but I just want to stick to the point I'm making.  I don't want to get distraced because I've seen this "Clinton pledged x" idea all over the blogosphere and I think it's important to show that she never did.


by Trickster on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:53:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no offense (none / 0)

No  he's  not.   He   GAVE  the  actual   written  rules  that  all candidates   agreed  to  in  signing  the  form.  

YOU   are  parsing  and  playing  word  games  that    don't  match  the  reality  of  the  rules.  

YOU  are  changing  the rules  by  not  knowing   what  the  actual  rules  were  to  begin with.


by auntmo on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:30:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no offense (none / 0)

Sorry,   alex.  

We  simply  can't   support  Obama.   We  saw  no tears  from  him    after  Katrina.    

Now......WHO  played  the  race-baiting?    


by auntmo on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:35:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Really (2.00 / 1)

"You know, it's clear this election they're (Michigan) having is not going to count for anything." Hillary Clinton, October 11, 2007 on New Hampshire Public Radio


by Benstrader on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:20:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Really (none / 0)

That's not saying she AGREED with those rules.  She's saying that is what the party says about the Michigan vote.  


by SueBee on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:40:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the rules (2.00 / 1)

The Obama campaign's unwavering line has been that they would follow whatever the DNC decides to do.  They have not violated the rules or argued for a change of rules.

Also, all posters should go and read Markos' most recent comment regarding the delegates before passing judgments or making uninformed posts!


by cwsaterfield on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:03:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the rules (none / 0)

Yes.  A  revote  is  legal.  

In fact,  the  DNC  had  already  APPROVED  revotes  in   Michigan  and  Florida.  

It  was  only   Obama's  campaign  that objected.  

He  broke his promise  to   abide  by  whatever  the  DNC  decided.  

And  we  all know  why.


by auntmo on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:25:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the rules (none / 0)

The rules say the Super Delegates can vote for whomever they wish.

All candidates agreed on those rules.

Now when Obama is could possible lose, he demands the rules be changed.

Please spare us from pretending that he just wants to change the rules to help the party.

Lets quit denying what he is doing.


Until recently I was selling drugs, and now I'm selling Obama T-shirts.
by switching sides on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:14:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You miss the point (2.00 / 2)

Jerome, as seems usual these days...

I don't think anyone on 'Team Obama' (however you want to define that) is arguing that SuperD's vote per whatever at bayonet point.

They're making the SAME ARGUMENT Clinton is trying to make.

Just as Team Clinton is arguing to SuperDelegates to vote X way because of Y, Team Obama is doing the same thing.

I have yet to hear ANYONE on the 'Obama side' of things arguing for any sort of rules change or otherwise remove free will from the SuperDelegates.

The Obama argument is simply that SuperD's should endorse the will of the people.

The fact that Clinton still holds a (shrinking) lead in SuperDelegates should clearly illustrate this....  No one is arguing for removing the ~260 SuperDelegates supporting Clinton from the rolls... No one is arguing that they should expelled from the party, arrested, or anything else.


by zonk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:42:51 PM EST

Re: You miss the point (2.00 / 0)

It's the perception. The Obama media, his followers and supporters have all made it clear. If our method of allocating the remainder of the super delegates is not followed then this is not legitimate and they will not support Hillary. That is how they have positioned this. THAT is the difference.


Voices in the Wilderness
by Wiseprince on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:02:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You miss the point (2.00 / 1)

First of all, they've done no such thing....

But - just for the sake of this little exercise - let's stipulate that they have... just for this post.

The campaign that argues against overturning the will of the people is somehow worse than the one that actually DOES overturn it?

I mean... geez... the contortionism is astounding.

I thought Obama supporters were all 'party activists' - isn't that why he won all the caucuses?

...now back to reality.

There is NO METHOD for allocating the remainder of the SuperDelegates.  They simply vote as they vote.  As the rules say they can vote.

Team Obama is making the argument that they shouldn't overturn the will of the people - SuperDelegates are free to either heed that argument or ignore it.


by zonk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:11:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You miss the point (none / 0)

If they "overturn the will of the people" is Obama going to tell all his supporters that it was legitimate and campaign for her. The impression that I have gotten over the course of the last several months is that he would not and his supporters would stay home. Obama's media has also been parroting this talking point.

I wonder what the Obama supporters would do if Hillary, like Joe L. left the impression that if she lost the Primary she would run as an independent. Do you think the super delegates would take that as a threat?


Voices in the Wilderness
by Wiseprince on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:18:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You miss the point (2.00 / 1)

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts...

The fact is - it's NOT going to turn out that way.  For Clinton to take a pledged delegate lead is impossible at this point - at least, impossible without a live boy/dead girl story about Obama.

Beyond that, I'm no longer in the business of arguing made up strawmen.   If you have an actual quote from Obama - kindly provide it and the citation that proves it.

I'm not going to argue with some vague "well, Obama said X" statement.  Provide the unclipped quote and a citation to it, and then we'll talk.


by zonk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:29:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You miss the point (none / 0)

Will Obama go to the convention with a majority of the pledged delegates? No he won't. Neither will Clinton. It then becomes the responsibility of the super delegates to vote for the candidate of THEIR CHOICE. Not your choice, theirs. As far as "Obama said X" goes, I'm not going to take the time to look it up either, but I can tell you that I HAVE heard some not-so-veiled threats from Obama, and some outright ones from some of his supporters.
by NJ Liberal on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:05:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You miss the point (1.00 / 0)

McCain/Clinton 2008!!!


by PatriotAct1984 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:31:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You miss the point (none / 0)

actually, mcCain/Clinton makes too much sense.

you have one candidate with a whisper of a chance to win the nomination. That candidate's team has been race baiting, using religion in a negative sense, photoshopping Obama darker then he really is while praising McCain's experience.

wow. it's not gonna happen but would I be surprised? not at all.


by alex100 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:56:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So where did Obama say that? (2.00 / 1)

I have never seen Obama quoted as saying that we should change the rules.  He's offered a suggestion, but he knows that he doesn't make the rules.

So... [citation needed]


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:44:10 PM EST

Re: So where did Obama say that? (2.00 / 1)

He didn't.

Apparently there are light pickings from NewsMax, FoxNews, Bill Kristol, Debbie Schlussel, or other right wing sites --- so today, we get stuck with more benign GOP electoral experts.

Take heart... tomorrow, I'm sure Sean Hannity will break some new big piece of news on Obama, so we can return to arguing over the wisdom of more recognizable wingnut operatives.


by zonk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:54:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, alright. (none / 0)

For a second I thought i was going crazy, but it sounds like we're on track.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:22:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the rules (2.00 / 2)

More on the point of this article, I do not think anyone believes that the superdelegates don't have the right to change the overall delegate lead by coming out for Hillary.  The argument lies as to whether they should.

Speaking of rules though, like my comment above, the rules also say that the caucuses count (no matter the criticisms of them being undemocratic) and delegates are awarded pursuant to state-driven formulas (and are not necessarily representative when taken as a whole-much like the electoral college).

Just because we don't like all facets of the process doesn't mean we can try and advocate living without some, while embracing the others.

Of course, I agree Hillary would have the legal authority to the nomination if she is behind in pledged delegates, but wins enough super-delegates  to overcome that deficit.  The only issue is if that is the right thing to do and most importantly:

What would be the cost to the democratic party?  That is the question that worries me the most.


by mefck on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:44:30 PM EST

Re: On the rules (2.00 / 1)

If Kennedy, Kerry,, and Richardson and others can go against the winner of their states, I don't know why there should be a question about why any of the delegates that go to Clinton shouldn't.  That doesn't make sense, and what is good for Obama Superdelegates should be good go Clinton's.


by Scotch on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:47:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the rules (2.00 / 2)

You are aware that, if we did it this way, Obama would now LEAD Clinton in SuperDelegates, too, right?

You'd pick up some big names - but Obama's delegate haul would be MUCH larger... it would just come from more city council members, mayors, and congresspeople that don't have the visibility of Kennedy, Kerry, and Richardson.

It's little surprise that Clinton is having such trouble with the delegate math.

Her supporters seem incapable of doing simple addition.


by zonk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:52:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the rules (2.00 / 1)

My favorite argument for whenever someone tries to say that Kennedy and the rest are not following the will of their electorate.

I would GLADLY trade Kennedy and Kerry and the like willingly for the HRC portion of ill-gotten (by that logic) Supers. It just gets Obama closer to the nomination.


Just because you don't like the answer doesn't make it "Obamamath". It's just "Math".
by Darknesse on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:54:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the rules (none / 0)

That's a pretty weak argument, though. What you're suggesting is that the super delegates should only follow the popular vote, and THAT IS NOT WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO.

The purpose of all this is to select a candidate to run in the general election. If the supers think that Obama is the right man for the job, then they should select him. If they think the nomination should go to Clinton, then so be it.

If you don't like that, then get yourself on the DNC and change the rules.

By the way, when I last checked the math, I didn't see Obama entering the convention with enough delegates to secure the nomination. This WILL be decided by the supers.


by NJ Liberal on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:14:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Relax (none / 0)

We're not really saying that it should be like that; we're just saying that Obama said that, by his estimation, it would -probably- be good if the supers didn't flout the will of the people.

It's an opinion, and no different than saying that the supers should back the person who has won the states in the primary with the most electoral votes.

Just some fun everyone seems to be having.  


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:28:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the rules (none / 0)

Actually, I know there's a breakdown somewhere (can't find it - if someone can help me out, that would be great) that shows if Supers voted with their states / districts, it would be over and HRC would be the nominee.


by cmugirl90 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:58:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the rules (2.00 / 0)

Good luck finding that.

I would suggest starting at alt.reality.rec.net


by zonk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:00:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the rules (2.00 / 1)

Nice snark - too bad you look foolish.

From Mickey Kaus (not exactly a Clinton supporter).

As of now -

"Just asking: If the superdelegates all voted with the winner of their state, would Hillary get the nomination? I think maybe. That would be one way she might colorably claim a superdelegate decision in her favor would vindicate democracy. ... Update--Just answering: Ann Hulbert, enlisting Slate's Trailhead in an unprecedented team effort, says Hillary gets a superdelegate lead of only 3 under this winner-take-all allocation rule--so far"

Now, she would have have to win the rest big, but she's polling big, so it might be hard, but not impossible.

I await your apology.


by cmugirl90 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:08:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the rules (2.00 / 0)

You won't get one because:

#1 - There is no "winner take all" rule... you can't divy by state, you have to go by district because DISTRICT not state, is the level at which delegates are awarded.  In other words - Clinton SuperDelegate Tammy Baldwin shouldn't switch to Obama because Obama won Wisconsin, Tammy Baldwin should switch to Obama because Obama won her DISTRICT.

#2 - Please post the URL - because either it's out of date - or, incorrect...  

#3 - you said, QUOTE Actually, I know there's a breakdown somewhere (can't find it - if someone can help me out, that would be great) that shows if Supers voted with their states / districts, it would be over and HRC would be the nominee.ENDQUOTE.... Clearly -- you're quite wrong.  

Hillary would be losing by MORE than she is now.

Right now, her Superdelegate lead is about +25 to +40 (depending on whose count you use).   If we use your system -- or hell... let's just use the patently silly "state winner take all" -- she goes from +25-to-+40 to +3.  

In other words, she would be FURTHER behind.

So... no, my friend -- I await YOUR apology.


by zonk on Mon Mar 24, 2008