MyDD :: The Popular Vote & MI

The Popular Vote & MI

by Jerome Armstrong, Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:22:44 AM EST

The real popular vote is very close. Clinton leads by just 12,506 votes, a lead of .04 percent. The numbers I passed on in a post yesterday about Clinton's lead in the popular vote excluded estimates from 4 caucus states, which I didn't realize until being able to check in later (and updated the post). I see that Markos flipped out with a tirade about it.

But, rather than be content with calling out a math error, Markos has to up the ante audacious to demand we "count the count the Michigan "uncommitted" votes for Obama". Ah, well, John Edwards was still in the race at the time and was surely in the same boat, having also pulled his name off the ballot in Michigan. At least Markos isn't calling for Texans that caucused to have their votes counted twice, or that Puerto Rico votes won't count... yet.

No one but Obama is to blame for his having no votes in Michigan. His campaign came up with the gambit to take his name off the ballot in MI to score cheap points in IA, and his campaign took the lead in convincing Edwards and Richardson to follow along and remove their names from the MI ballot to try and force Clinton to follow suit (my sources are from top people in the Edwards campaign). it didn't work, Clinton took the hit of the political stunt and kept her name on the ballot in Michigan.

I get the idea that Markos is talking about with the uncommitted votes, and believe that they will represent themselves in delegates. Chris Bowers has a couple of posts up about this here and here. The allocation of the MI vote that went for Obama, 72%, should translate into his getting at least that many of the uncommitted delegates from MI. Obama will get delegates from MI. The uncommitted delegates can move to Obama. MI has already begun the process of selecting the delegates, and its probable that Dean is favorable to backing the half-delegate vote solution (as thats what the rules support). I'm not sure about how Florida will be solved. They may not go along with a half-vote delegate solution, but they may not be given a choice. On the other hand, if Dean thinks he has to get candidate approval for a FL and MI solution, then nothing is more likely to happen anytime soon.

Delegate-wise, its very close (DCW). Obama is ahead 1795-1786, with the 55 uncommitted, 31 for Edwards, 408 remaining delegates, and 340 remaining super delegates. A 9 delegate difference with over 800 to go shows the closeness of this contest. Bowers projects it out further and comes up with a 1,890 Obama vs 1,845 non-Obama total, and 680 other delegates. The "Pelosi Club" thing is a joke though, as among its 7 hypothetical numbers are those whom say they will follow the popular vote or pledged delegate vote leader, and we see how problematic the popular vote is above.

Also, regarding super delegates, you can see by this graph that its picked up for Clinton recently. Obama too is picking them up, but the dry spell that Clinton had appears to have ended.

Update [2008-4-24 12:43:47 by Jerome Armstrong]: What many don't seem to understand is that counting the votes isn't a procedural measure, explained here:

Here's the thing; however you construct the "popular vote" it certainly has no binding legal force. To the extent it matters at all, it's a moral argument; the superdelegates, the theory goes, should vote for the candidate who receives the most votes, as the distribution of pledged delegates has anti-democratic elements. Scott has critiqued this argument (pointing out that the structure of the competition affects strategy, and thus that if the candidates had known that the artificial construction called the "popular vote" would be important, they would have campaigned differently) but, frankly, the superdelegates can use whatever measure they want to decide between the candidates. For the reasons Scott suggests, and because there are several different popular vote counts, I think that assessing the race on popular vote is pretty stupid, but whatever.

The point, though is that in making what is essentially a moral rather than a procedural argument, you can't invoke a procedural decision in order to exclude some substantial number of votes. Note that this isn't such a problem with the pledged delegate total; the pledged delegate number is procedurally meaningful, and as such the various procedural rules and decisions associated with its tabulation matter.

Tags: 2008 election, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton (all tags)

Permalink :: 323 Comments :: Post a Comment

This process was suppose to be about (2.00 / 5)

PLEDGED delegates NOT popular vote. Thus the popular vote SHOULD be irrelevant.

The rules SHOULD NOT be changed in the middle of the game where a candidate wins by the popular vote and not by pledged delegates. If that is the case, why even count pledged delegates at all.

The reality is that Obama's pledged delegate count is insurmountable.

by puma on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:34:36 AM EST

Re: This process was suppose to be about (2.00 / 7)

Good thing that it doesn't say anywhere whether the Superdelegates need to decide based on the pledged delegates, the popular vote, or electability. They each get to decide for themselves. Also, I think it's hard to argue you have the "will of the people" behind you when more Democrats voted for a different candidate. This game WOULD be about pledged delegates only, if Obama could seal the deal with pledged delegates only. Unfortunately for his campaign, he has not been able to do that.

No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.

by hornplayer on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:42:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yep superdelegates can choose (2.00 / 0)

the Democratic nominee. They DEFINITELY can overturn millions of voters who voted and just choose a nominee.

They CAN choose Hillary as the nominee even if at the end of the primary season she has less pledged delegates, popular vote, and states won.

It will be interesting to see what would happen to the party if indeed that was to happen.

My prediction is that the most reliable base of the Democratic party which is African-Americans will be PISSED off. They most likely will just stay home this general election and perhaps for many to come. That would render Hillary unelectable in the Fall. No Democrat especially Hillary who would have to rely on drumming up the Democratic base can win without huge turn-out of African-Americans. She will LOSE the general election. I am surprised that Hillary is not thinking that far ahead.

by puma on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:00:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yep superdelegates can choose (2.00 / 2)

As soon as Obama is out there campaigning for Hillary, this concerns will be greatly ameliorated. Moreover, if HRC still has a lead in the popular vote, possibly even without MI or even FL, and is down a few pledged delegates, I don't think it could be viewed as this huge subversion of the will of Democrats nationwide. I mean, in this situation, more people would have voted for one candidate than the other, and HRC would be carrying the momentum going into the convention. Seems pretty simple to me.

No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.

by hornplayer on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:05:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yep superdelegates can choose (2.00 / 0)

I assure you, as an Oakland, California resident, that the "concerns" over a stolen election would not blow over so easily.

Please do be more connected to the history of African American voter disenfranchisement and intimidation and realize at least that you are playing a game of chicken.

by zadura on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:53:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oakland!! (none / 0)

Representing which part may I ask? East, West, the hills?

by regina1983 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:04:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oakland!! (none / 0)

I am on China Hill, which is between Lakeshore and Park. Where are you?

by zadura on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:37:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oakland!! (none / 0)

Lakeshore area. Holla!

by regina1983 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:32:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oakland!! (none / 0)

Coo. I have probably seen you at the Farmer's Market, Grand Lake Theater or the Parkway. Good to know your neighbors.

by zadura on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:56:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yep superdelegates can choose (2.00 / 4)

Sounds like a threat to me.

Is that what you are saying? Represent one group and one group only or there will be h*ll to pay?
What about this? The people in MA overwhelmingly chose Clinton over Obama. Their most well know super delegates, Kennedy and Kerry, are defying the people's voice and choosing Obama over Clinton. Should the people in MA be threating the public now too?
Because that is what you are saying.

The contest is close. No matter who is nominated, nearly half the party voters will feel cheated. So in your view of the world, no matter what happens one half of the democratic voters should be ready to take to the streets. Or is this only for one side...ONLY one side gets to feel cheated. Your view seems pretty bigoted and narrow minded to me.

by Jjc2008 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:16:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yep superdelegates can choose (none / 0)

What I believe he is saying is that denying an African American who has the lead in both elected delegates and popular votes would bring back memories of Jim Crow and qualified African Americans being denied access.

To me to tout counting votes/delegates in states that Obama did not campaign in because of the rules laid down by the DNC, sounds almost like the literacy tests given to people who wanted to vote.

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

by xenontab on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:52:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yep superdelegates can choose (none / 0)

I don't have the power to make that threat. I am telling you that you are pretty naive to think that AA's will rally behind someone who loses in every relevant measure and plays by the rules. AA's would rightly conclude that the "electability" argument were due to the fact that Obama's black.

by zadura on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:51:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yep superdelegates can choose (none / 0)

It goes beyond the African-American community. Almost as much as a candidate, to his supporters Obama represents the idea of a New Politics. To think they will fall in line if Hillary takes the Nomination in a negotiated deal with well connected Super Delegates is a dangerous assumption. A large number of Obama supporters, white and black, would sit on their hands during the general election even if Obama asked them to participate. He wouldn't have a great deal of influence over them. To encourage them to support Hillary, would be to ask them to participate in the corrupt, cynical world of the old politics. They want something new.

I find Hillary supporters who believe everyone will blissfully fall in line if she wins the nomination unrealistic. If she is the candidate, she will cause a lot of people to drop out of the process, black and white and brown and green.

by shel on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:29:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yep superdelegates can choose (none / 0)

Florida 2000, Ohio 2004. People didn't even want to hear what the AA's had to say in Ohio in 2004. It was an embarrassment.

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

by BPK80 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:13:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary: Against MI and FL before she was for them (2.00 / 4)

In America, you say, we count votes.

What did Hillary say before the Iowa and NH primary? At that point, she decided it was to her benefit to tell the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire that they had a special role in the primary process, and of course she supported their right to go first. So she said that the MI and FL primaries would not count.

She could have taken her lumps - said Michigan and FL are too important, and their vote should count. She didn't - again, let's be clear - for entirely self-interested reasons. She judged it would hurt her in Iowa and NH, and her whole strategy was premised on closing this race out early - she couldn't afford to let anyone else do well in IA.

Well, sorry, it backfired. You still don't get to play Calvinball and just change the rules.

by TL on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:03:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yep superdelegates can choose (none / 0)

Dream on.

by telfish on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:05:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"what would happen to the party" (2.00 / 1)

It would be interesting to see, sure, for people who like cataclysms. If she gets the nomination despite being behind in the nominating elections, people are going to sit this one out.

I know I never thought Democrats were all about overturning elections to give the prize to a self-proclaimed dynasty just angling for a better spot in the history books.

"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis

by MBNYC on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:05:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "what would happen to the party" (2.00 / 4)

If FL and MI were not so arbitrarily and harshly punished, HRC would be ahead in the popular vote and a mere handful of delegates behind Barack Obama. I'll agree that these election results are less than perfect, but they're the only ones that we've got from these states, both of which will be major players in the fall. If we get to the point where the only way Barack Obama can legitimately make a claim to a lead in either category by disenfranchising the voters of these two states, that's a far greater travesty than the Superdelegates performing their role as a tie-breaker (much like Congress in the U.S. elections).

No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.

by hornplayer on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:08:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "what would happen to the party" (2.00 / 3)

"If FL and MI were not so arbitrarily and harshly punished, HRC would be ahead in the popular vote and a mere handful of delegates behind Barack Obama"

Um, no she wouldn't be. If FL and MI weren't excluded, then Obama wouldn't have his name off the ballot, alongside Edwards Richardson and Biden, and therefore he would still be far far ahead in the popular vote and the delegates both.

In whichever of these two metric you can imagine, if you were counting it even with the slightest amount of honesty possible, you'd see Obama is far ahead.

by Aris Katsaris on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:27:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "what would happen to the party" (1.75 / 4)

As Jerome pointed out and many have before...OBAMA chose to take his name off in MI, and he got his ass handed to him in FL.

He should not get a 50/50 split of the delegates in MI for something he did not even compete for. He should get whatever amount of "Undecided" that he gets, and be fine with that. He gambled...He lost.

In FL, even despite the FL DEM party making efforts to make good on the Primary, the DNC chose to impose a stiffer penalty. The delegates should be penalized 50% for their gaffes, (the same in MI) and then seated.

Using reality to count these metrics, then you would clearly see that Jerome is correct. Hillary would be ahead in Popular Vote, Barack would be ahead by a small margin in Pledged Delegates, and we would be going to a nomination floor fight in Denver. The same way we are right now.

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:58:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "what would happen to the party" (2.00 / 1)

You may be right about what Florida. He might not do any better there today if a re-vote were held, and Hillary technically didn't do anything wrong. So Florida will be seated as is, but at only 1/2 the delegates as punishment. The popular vote doesn't matter and Hillary only catches up a little in pledged delegates.

As for Michigan, Obama was told to take his name off by the Democratic leadership. You know, the same ones who make the rules about nominating process? Hillary's decision to stay on was a politically pragmatic choice that did not turn out to be the correct one. There is zero chance that Michigan gets seated as is. After Obama gets to 2025, they will likely be split 55/45 or something like that, but at 1/2 the votes.

You can argue for who is wining the popular votes all you want, but so far, superdelegates don't really care.

by ProgressiveDL on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:06:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "As Jerome Pointed Out" (2.00 / 2)

In case you haven't noticed, the points Jerome makes have zero credibility outside of Clinton supporter echo chambers. It's literally absurd to say that Obama is somehow at fault for taking his name off the MI ballot. He and most of the other Democratic candidates were adhering to the rules established by the DNC. Clinton stated that "everyone knew" that the MI primary wasn't going to count; it was her sole justification for keeping her name on the ballot. If she had honestly stated that she was keeping her name on the ballot in case anyone later decided those votes should count, there would have been an uproar. So she took the low, dishonest, hypocritical road.

Jerome used to have credibility. I've been reading his posts since 2002. I don't know what has happened to him.

by deminva on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:53:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, we need to take this to the convention. (1.00 / 1)

Never mind the costs. Jerome is right. Let's take this all the way to the convention floor and see how it shakes out.

Who knows, unlike in 1968, 1972 and 1980, it could prove beneficial to the Party.

At least with Hillary we have some chance at the White House. (I don't believe the polls, and I know that Obama has no chance to win.)

Clinton Democrats care about the same things I do, most importantly beating John McCain.

by TrueBlueCT on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:34:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, we need to take this to the convention. (none / 0)

There's a weird echo sound coming from your comment.

by deminva on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:38:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "what would happen to the party" (2.00 / 1)

Neither of them competed for the delegates in MI. Clinton can't say she won't participate in the MI primary and then try to claim delegates from that primary. She can't say that those votes don't count and expect me to believe her now when she says that they do.

Clinton gambled by making the decision that her "inevitable" campaign wouldn't need the votes of MI and FL in order to steamroll the newcomer Obama. She lost that gamble, and we should not be changing the rules in the middle of the game to benefit her.

Check out McCain.

by you like it on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:54:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"arbitrarily"? (2.00 / 3)

The parties in both states were aware that there would be repercussions for moving up their primaries. That's not arbitrary at all, even by the most forgiving definition.

The best Clinton can hope for is a 50% seating of the FL contingency and a 50/50 split of 50% in MI. Guess how that will change the landscape? Not at all.

I agree with feliks; this talk of popular vote is utter horseshit since you can't get an accurate reading from most caucus states. If popular vote was a metric - which it isn't - wouldn't the exclusion or inclusion of inaccurate counts amount to disenfranchising voters? You can't have it both ways.

by bookish on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:29:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "arbitrarily"? (2.00 / 1)

But isn't that also the problem with pledged delegates?

Pledged delegates aren't a metric as well. The only metric mentioned in the rules is the overall delegate count.

And pledged delegates also feature disenfranchement. Regions get extra pledged delegates for various reasons. Hillary had more popular support in texas yet recieved less pledged delegates. (I'm not familiar with a reverse scenario where Obama recieved less delegates then his popular vote share, if you do; please share.)

So why would one faulty un-official metric be better then the other?

"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 Ernst on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:23:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Pledged delegates (none / 0)

are most certainly a metric for succeeding in the nomination process (see DNC rules), so that pretty much blows the rest of your argument out of the water. No rules changed from the time that the DNC sanctioned FL and MI to today, so everyone should have known how the contest was to be run unless they weren't (aren't) good managers of a campaign.

by bookish on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:32:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pledged delegates (none / 0)

succeeding in the nomination process requires a certain amount of delegates period. Nowhere is it mentioned that those delegates should be a certain subdivision.

The current emphasis on pledged delegates as the metric instead of popular support more then the popular vote is artificial. Both sides have their pro's and con's in a discussion of legitimacy.

But it's a false claim to make that one is more official then the other.

The rest of my comment is be a hartfelt rant that contains strong language. So please excuse me before hand.

Both Clinton and Obama supporters partisan arguments about which votes should count disgust me.

It's clear that the only way a candidate could be legitmate is if the winner of the nomination was also the winner BOTH the pledged delegate count excluding MI and FL and the winner of the popular vote including MI and FL.

It seems like hillary can't close the gap in pledged delegates, while Obama can certainly win the popular vote even with MI and FL included. so draw whetever conclusion about who I want to do well but I do not have a kind word for any Obama supporter who supports ignoring millions of voters totally.

The fact that so many people on both sides are willing to sell out their morals regarding this sort of process just because it helps a particular candidates is actually sickening to me.

"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 Ernst on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:15:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sell out? (none / 0)

Not me; I just have an opinion based on the force of rule. The folks in MI and FL were sold out by the people they elected to represent them. I certainly understand if they make that point at the ballot box in their next legislative elections. I absolutely despise some the laws passed by people who I've elected or who've been elected to serve me, but once those laws are passed, there's precious little recourse that I (or anyone) have, except regret and repayment at the polls.

From the Democratic National Committee
DELEGATE SELECTION RULES
FOR THE 2008
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION:

C. 1. a. Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state's delegation. In determining the actual number of delegates or alternates by which the state's delegation is to be reduced, any fraction below .5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any fraction of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next nearest whole number.

b. A presidential candidate who campaigns in a state where the state party is in violation of the timing provisions of these rules, or where a primary or caucus is set by a state's government on a date that violates the timing provisions of these rules, may not receive pledged delegates or delegate votes from that state. Candidates may, however, campaign in such a state after the primary or caucus that violates these rules. "Campaigning" for purposes of this section includes, but is not limited to, purchasing print, internet, or electronic advertising that reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state; hiring campaign workers; opening an office; making public appearances; holding news conferences; coordinating volunteer activities; sending mail, other than fundraising requests that are also sent to potential donors in other states; using paid or volunteer phoners or automated calls to contact voters; sending emails or establishing a website specific to that state; holding events to which Democratic voters are invited; attending events sponsored by state or local Democratic organizations; or paying for campaign materials to be used in such a state. The Rules and Bylaws Committee will determine whether candidate activities are covered by this section.

...

5. Nothing in the preceding subsections of this rule shall be construed to prevent the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee from imposing additional sanctions, including, without limitation, those specified in subsection (6) of this section C., against a state party and against the delegation from the state which is subject to the provisions of any of subsections (1) through (3) of this section C., including, without limitation, establishing a committee to propose and implement a process which will result in the selection of a delegation from the affected state which shall (i) be broadly representative, (ii) reflect the state's division of presidential preference and uncommitted status and (iii) involve as broad participation as is practicable under the circumstances.

by bookish on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:00:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sell out? (none / 0)

Of course, you just believe strongly in the rules. That makes it all alright.

Sickening.

"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 Ernst on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:41:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I would have more sympathy (2.00 / 1)

for Senator Obama if his campaign hadn't so actively obstructed the path to revotes in these states. He's lying in a bed that is in part of his own making. Disenfranchising the voters of FL and MI is the worst possible answer.

Who knows? Maybe it won't matter in the end and Obama will have a lead in both PV and PD in spite of FL and MI exclusion. That would make the outcome clearer.

by activatedbybush on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:28:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I would have more sympathy (2.00 / 1)

Don't blame Obama for Fla and MI. When these issues were being hashed out and decided Hillary was the Undesputed leader in this primary race. Both she and her husband had the power, infuence and connections to stand up for those two states, if she really wanted those states to count. Her problem was her self assured belief that she wouldn't need them prevailed. Now she is full of faux rage for the need to count them and it's embarrassing all Democrats of good faith.

by eddieb on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:58:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I would have more sympathy (none / 0)

What BS. Those revotes were never going to happen. Obama's actions didn't do a thing to block them.

And hey, I can say I would have more sympathy for Senator Clinton if she had fought for MI voters before the voting started. Instead she is reaping what she sowed.

Check out McCain.

by you like it on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:00:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The deal (none / 0)

will be sealed in NC.

by bookish on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:15:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The deal (2.00 / 5)

Well, let's not count our chickens 'til they're hatched, shall we? If it's over after NC because Barack Obama gets enough delegates, then it's over. But it's not over yet, that much is clear.

No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.

by hornplayer on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:22:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Both sides of your mouth (none / 0)

So by not winning in PA, he couldn't seal the deal, but because he can't get to 2025 in NC, he can't seal the deal.

I don't know why I bother responding to this idiocy.

by bookish on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:35:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This process was suppose to be about (1.75 / 4)

Here are the facts:

- HRC signed a pledge and is on record saying that MI and FL won't count back in Nov and in Jan again.

- Obama is ahead in the pledge (elected) delegates and HRC cannot catch up. This is a done deal.

- MI cannot count, Obama was not on the ballot.

- Caucus states are not being counted in the popular vote count. The count can be extrapolated but it hasn't. The fact is that Obama is ahead when not counting many of his wins - the caucuses! Wow, this is really a blow-out isn't?

- FL should not count, they did not campaign. As you can see from PA, Obama makes up 5-10% pts when he campaigns in any state. Remember how far ahead HRC was in Texas and Ohio?

- Super Delegates can overturn the will of the people and this is the only way for HRC to win. They can, but will they overturn the will of the people to give a known liar and master spinner a victory, I seriously doubt it.

The most HRC can ever get is VP but since she's been running like a Republican, most Democrats just want her to give up and go away.

It's over unless she win 90% of the states left, which she won't.

Obama 08!

by comingawakening on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:31:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

lies and spin (2.00 / 2)

are not facts

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

by TeresaInPa on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:14:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

OK Teresa (2.00 / 1)

pick out the lie in Coming's post. The only iffy number I see is "90% of the remaining contests", but what exactly he/she was referring to can be debated.

I don't think you can.

by corph on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:21:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: lies and spin (none / 0)

Please point to a lie or are you just like HRC? At least you would have a great reason to be for her.

Obama 08!

by comingawakening on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:45:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You make a lot of good points BUT (none / 0)

your comment about what most Democrats want is way off the mark. If most Democrats wanted her to go away they would have made her by now.

I read the body count out of the paper; now it's written all over my face.

by JDF on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:59:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This process was suppose to be about (none / 0)

If the superdelegates overturn the pledged delegates, I will not lift a finger to help Clinton get elected nor give any money to the party this year.

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:32:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This process was suppose to be about (2.00 / 1)

Then you're not a real democrat.

There, finally I get to say it.

lol

Until recently I was selling drugs, and now I'm selling Obama T-shirts.

by switching sides on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:54:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This process was suppose to be about (none / 0)

He didn't say he wouldn't vote for her... that's what Clinton supporters are saying.

unapologetic Obama supporter

by dantes on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:40:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This process was suppose to be about (1.66 / 3)

This Diary is a total crock, it's intellectually dishonest and democratically inept at best. Please revise it to reflect reality and regain some credibility.

by telfish on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:04:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This process was suppose to be about (2.00 / 1)

Absolutely. How disingenuous. Hillary said that MI wouldn't count. No wonder why she is losing in NH, a swing state that if if had gone for Gore, he would have been elected president.

Under no international standards for free and fair elections could you count those votes as is. A very basic standard is that all major candidates are on the ballot. Or perhaps it is now acceptable to have USSR style elections in the US?

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:35:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Jerome as Baghdad Bob (2.00 / 4)

"Hillary has won another great victory against the crusading infidel. The Obama campaign is in retreat - his troops drown in their own blood! [sound of explosions, gunfire, Bob ducks] Her campaign goes extremely well - -you will see!!"

by TL on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:11:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This process was suppose to be about (2.00 / 5)

It's very simple indeed. Can ANY ONE of the candidates get to 2,025 w/out the aid of Superdelegates? A simple YES or NO answer?

We all know the answer is NO. Therefore ANY metric by which the Superdelegates choose to decide the Presidental Nominee is fairgame. However, I would agree that IF Clinton is behind in pledged delegates, popular vote, and important electoral states won, then there is no way she will be able to convince the Superdelegates to vote for her.

However, as that does not seem to be the case, her taking it all the way to the convention with momentum and a lead (if it should happen to continue that way) in the popular vote, along with all of the BIG states won, as well as the blue-collar middle class white votes that many seem to be dismissing here...she has a case to be made. The Super's may not buy it, but she has a case to be made.

This process is fairgame for any metric...that's what this is about.

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:49:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This process was suppose to be about (none / 0)

She is losing convincingly in all three of those metrics. She is far behind in pledged delegates and popular vote, and I guess it depends on how you define "important electoral states." As a DFA supporter, I call all 50 states important. So yes, he's winning there also.

You can make any arguments you want about popular vote counting Michigan and Florida, but the superdelegates are not buying it so far.

by ProgressiveDL on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:09:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This process was suppose to be about (none / 0)

I have news for you. The superdelegates dont vote until the convention.

They can claim they're going to vote this way or that, but nothing is sealed until the convention.

Chew on that for few minutes.

Until recently I was selling drugs, and now I'm selling Obama T-shirts.

by switching sides on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:56:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This process was suppose to be about (none / 0)

I'm not sure what you mean by "Chew on that." But I do realize the supers don't officially vote until August. That being said, if Obama is at 2024 before then (counting pledged and superdelegates), the calls for Hillary to call out will be deafening. More importantly, Obama will begin focusing on McCain and ignoring Hillary.

by ProgressiveDL on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:18:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This process was suppose to be about (2.00 / 1)

I'm sorry but the facts just don't agree with you. She is approx 130 delegates behind. With several more contests and the SD's to vote at the Convention, there is no way you can mathmatically say she is out of contention.

As mentioned above, she is AHEAD in the popular vote...and "important electoral states" is simple to define. Are they swing states that can win the GE, i.e. Ohio, Florida, Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin just for a few that have a minimum of 10 EV's and can swing the election towards the Democrats.

As of yesterday electoral-vote.com has Clinton beating McSame 289-239 vs. Obama going 269-254 with more states in play compared to Hillary.

Obama:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Ob ama/Maps/Apr23.html

Clinton:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Cl inton/Maps/Apr23.html

That afterall is the biggest "metric" that we're all after. To not only get bigger margins in the House and Senate, but retake the White House. Is that not what we ALL are after in the end?

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:24:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This process was suppose to be about (none / 0)

First of all, I never said she was mathematically eliminated, and I am not calling for her to drop out. In fact, at this point, it is probably to Obama's benefit if she stays in to try to avoid the claims of it being somehow "stolen" from her.

That being said, she is not winning any real fair measure of the popular vote. If you want to count Florida's popular vote, I believe you have an argument there. If you want to count Michigan, go ahead, but it does not look like any of the superdelegates are going to buy that specious argument. As another commenter put it, you can't tell people that an election is "just for practice" (which both states were) and then say "oops, we changed our mind, they counted." Sorry.

by ProgressiveDL on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:00:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Correction (none / 0)

"Hillary's Mar 4 TX & OH wins"

Obama won Texas.

by ProgressiveDL on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:26:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Correction (none / 0)

Obama won the Texas election. He won the caucus and lost the primary and won more delegates. How is that hard to understand? He won the STATE of Texas. Parse it how you want.

I love how caucuses are only "undemocratic" after Hillary loses them. I agree that caucuses should probably be done away with, because I believe it needs to be as easy as possible for everyone to vote. That being said, these are the rules for now and they don't change just so you can make an argument.

by ProgressiveDL on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:02:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This process was suppose to be about (2.00 / 0)

I'm not sure why you were hide-rated, by the way. You didn't really say anything objectionable. You were incorrect about Texas, but you shouldn't have been hide-rated for that. As such, I'm uprating you.

by ProgressiveDL on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:27:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This process was suppose to be about (none / 0)

Being repeated non-stop by Clinton and her surrogates as well....

by Virginia Liberal on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:39:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This process was suppose to be about (2.00 / 1)

Obama's "baggage" is a light carry-on, half-empty to leave room for Christmas Presents compared to the "Heavy"-tagged shipping crates that the Clintons have been carting around since the 1992 election.

Just because Obama has class enough not to bring up the gigabites of info that the RNC has been stockpiling on the Clintons, doesn't make Obama's "baggage" worse. It just makes Clintons seem even less classy for feeding soundbites to the RNC.

Why Clintonites make this argument escapes me. The chutzpah is explosive in comparison.

Fight the Smears!

by Lettuce on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:01:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This process was suppose to be about (none / 0)

Obama has not been calling for her to get out - he has repeatedly said the opposite. Just one inaccuracy amongst many in your post.

by interestedbystander on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:53:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This must be some kind of new math...oh, wait..it is Clinton math. All candidates and their representatives agreed on Michigan and Florida...the only liar of all the original 8 or 9 candidates was Clinton. Everyone else honored their agreement. Do we want a president who lies and backs out of agreements? NOt for me.

by DemoDan on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:41:16 AM EST

No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.

by hornplayer on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:44:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

He didn't "run ads" in Florida. (1.50 / 4)

He made a national cable buy. Can we please stop repeating this lie?

"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis

by MBNYC on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:07:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He didn't "run ads" in Florida. (2.00 / 6)

I'm sorry, it's a little hard for me to think of it as a lie when I watched Obama commercials here in Florida. Whatever the specific circumstance, the fact remains, he ran commercials here.

No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.

by hornplayer on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:09:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You can't (2.00 / 0)

cut out states from a national (or more likely, regional) ad buy. That's just not technologically feasible.

In short, you're demanding that Obama follow the Florida policy to the letter, while trying to overturn the policy itself. I have to point that out, just in case anyone thinks your argument is anything other than goal-oriented.

"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis

by MBNYC on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:20:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You can't (2.00 / 6)

To be perfectly honest with you, I personally really don't care. I suppose I probably shouldn't have pushed the point so hard. I just get tired of Obama supporters claiming that Hillary has some imaginary obligation to think these votes should not count, or that she has violated any of her DNC campaign agreements, compared to the fact that Obama's commercials aired in Florida.

No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.

by hornplayer on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:25:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You can't (2.00 / 0)

"Obamistan"? Really?

REALLY?

REALLY!?

by smoothmedia on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:40:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You can't (2.00 / 1)

That's not the point. It isn't that Hillary "cheated" in Florida. It's that when nobody campaigns, voters go with the familiar. And Obama had much less name recognition in Florida in January than did Clinton. Notice how the polling in every single state (including PA, OH and TX) moves dramatically toward Obama when they both campaign there? In a real campaign, candidates actually visit the state. Florida was a potemkin election that got lots of participants mostly because of a property tax initiative.

Both candidates agreed in the fall that Florida's January primary will yield no delegates, and that the candidates must avoid the state. Nothing has changed except that Hillary desperately needs votes from Florida. That's not a logical or moral argument. It's a political argument.

by elrod on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:16:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You can't (2.00 / 0)

Your Obamistan comment is way off base. If you want to go there, HRC was a founding member of his country because she signed the pledge not to count MI & FL vote.

Look, I understand. You all wish she hadn't signed the pledge and are trying to play revisionist history like Bush and Nixon but hey, that's your choice.

"It would take a willing suspension of disbelief to say that MI & FL votes count."

Obama 08!

by comingawakening on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:59:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If Obama's the nominee will (none / 0)

he abide by his signed pledge to stay within public financing?

by activatedbybush on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:31:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hell, no. (none / 0)

That would be one of the dumbest moves he could make. Do you want him to lose?

He's proven that he can raise hard money from small donors by the truckload. He could easily get through the GE without PAC or lobby money, and that's the only equivocation he'll have to make on the issue.

by bookish on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:40:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Obama's the nominee will (2.00 / 1)

Wha? He had a "signed pledge" with McCain now? That's a flat out lie. He didn't have any "pledge", not even a verbal one. Saying you would try to work out a deal is not a pledge.

Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:10:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

True..he did not Pledge (none / 0)

He suggested he would try to work out a deal with the Republican nominee but no guarantee's. Besides he is getting public funding, just in a direct way..from me and many others like myself.

by netgui68 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:36:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You can't (none / 0)

It's not really a comment, it's a signature.

I'm sorry, but I have always been for counting votes in MI and FL, since the first DNC announcement of the punishment. HRC is irrelevant in this equation to me. The fact that Barack Obama happens to be on the wrong side of the argument is the biggest reason he gets flak from me.

No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.

by hornplayer on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:43:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

there was zero reason to buy national (2.00 / 3)

commercials at that point except to have an excuse to run commercials in FL.

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

by TeresaInPa on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:18:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Other than Super Tuesday (2.00 / 1)

I'd say having 20+ states voting at once is good reason. Also, Hillary was advertising in Mobile, AL, where the ads bled into the Florida panhandle market.

by Adam B on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:04:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

bullshit Adam (2.00 / 1)

it was still cheaper to buy adds in individual states.

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

by TeresaInPa on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:33:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: bullshit Adam (2.00 / 0)

Maybe, maybe not -- given transaction costs. There's certain an intangible spin benefit to being able to say you're running national ads for a national victory.

by Adam B on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:51:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He didn't "run ads" in Florida. (none / 0)

Talk about intellectual dishonesty. You say someone can't win a state when they didn't even campaign there.

Good lord.....

by Yalin on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:38:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

much more exposure (none / 0)

Yeah, his eight years as First Lady gave him a real exposure advantage.

by Adam B on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:19:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Excellent Post! (2.00 / 3)

Thanks Jerome. Rec'd ;-)

Take it to the Convention! Hillary '08"

by JHL on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:46:07 AM EST

The concept of the "popular vote" is a fairy tale...Minnesota had a caucus and Obama is credited with getting about 100,000 votes, a number "extrapolated from his delegates count. missouri had a primary where Obama received about 400,000 votes. DO Missouri votes count 4 times as much as Minnesotas? Wouldn't that be disenfranchisement?

"I am standing with Barack Obama to say, `Yes, we can!'" Hillary Clinton 6/7/08

by feliks on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:50:36 AM EST

Caucus vs Primary (none / 0)

Yup, some votes count more than others.
In a reconstructed popular vote, low-turnout caucus states lose.
In a delegate battle, low turnout states voters get more voting power per person because they still get all the delegates.
And the Electoral College is the biggest, most disenfranchising delegate battle of them all.

It's a dumb system. If we keep promoting they way it should be and running a shadow system to show how it would work, maybe it'll catch on.

Start Running Better Polls

by bolson on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:36:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, he's your friend... (2.00 / 5)

Not mine!

Fact is, Markos is the King of Intellectual Dishonesty, if he cannot admit that Florida's vote totals should count. Sure, Michigan is somewhat disputable, but Florida?

And as for Michigan, perhaps he's still sore because his campaign to bleed votes over to Romney was a bust. Who knows...the guy stopped acting like a Democrat months ago.

Never let the bullies win.

by SluggoJD on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:52:36 AM EST

Re: Well, he's your friend... (2.00 / 1)

Sure, Michigan is somewhat disputable, but Florida?

If you want the United States to be like Russia, where you can vote for candidates but they're simply never allowed to actually campaign, then definitely Florida should count.

Those of us who want the United States to be better in its election process than Russia think differently.

by Aris Katsaris on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:31:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Wow (2.00 / 3)

OK, so you're saying if we exclude Florida, we're less like Russia.

I'm stunned.

Never let the bullies win.

by SluggoJD on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:49:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow (none / 0)

I think they were actually saying that if we include Florida's flawed election results, we are like Russia. That's a guess on my part though.

by ProgressiveDL on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:12:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow (none / 0)

Yep. Including FL and MI is embracing "elections" that don't meet the most basic criteria to be certified as free and fair under international law.

Free and fair elections have open campaigning by candidates and have major candidates on the ballot.

And we really don't need to cite international law. This is Democracy 101.

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:40:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, he's your friend... (2.00 / 3)

What part of "it was agreed upon beforehand that Florida and Michigan would NOT count" do you not understand?

The only fair options are:

1. Not count the delegates at all as previously decided

2. Divide the delegates evenly among the candidates.

3. Hold re-votes.

by smoothmedia on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:46:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, he's your friend... (none / 0)

Please source your quote.

Never let the bullies win.

by SluggoJD on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:51:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, he's your friend... (none / 0)

You are disputing that it was decided before hand that MI and FL would not count?

That quote has no source, it's just a figure of speech. (What part of "__" don't you understand?) It doesn't make sense unless you throw some quotes around it.

by smoothmedia on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:00:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, he's your friend... (2.00 / 1)

"THEREFORE, I (Hillary Clinton), Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules, pledge to actively campaign in the pre-approved early states Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina. I pledge I shall not campaign or PARTICIPATE in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window (any date prior to February 5, 2008)." (My caps)

http://www.fladems.com/page/-/documents/ THREE_pledge_versions.pdf

I guess it comes down to what your definition of "participate" is. My definition is "having anything to do with those states' elections." Since she is now trying to count them, and since she did "participate" in Michigan by willfully leaving her name on the ballot, she's at least in violation of this pledge with regards to Michigan. Maybe not Florida.

by ProgressiveDL on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:16:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, he's your friend... (none / 0)

Please provide an image with her signature.

Never let the bullies win.

by SluggoJD on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:25:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, he's your friend... (none / 0)

Haha, no. Provide some evidence that my quote is wrong.

by ProgressiveDL on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:29:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Please don't act like a troll (none / 0)

If you cannot provide evidence, cry uncle, admit you tried to get away with something, and move on.

Never let the bullies win.

by SluggoJD on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:24:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

it was NOT agreed on (2.00 / 1)

that they would not count. It was agreed on that they would not campaign there. Mi and FL dispute the fact that they do not count.

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

by TeresaInPa on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:21:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: it was NOT agreed on (2.00 / 1)

Is anyone surprised that we get this kind of parsing from the people who brought us "What is the definition of 'is'?"

John McCain isn't evil. He's just wrong about a lot of things. Vote Obama!

by proseandpromise on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:57:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: it was NOT agreed on (none / 0)

exactly

Until recently I was selling drugs, and now I'm selling Obama T-shirts.

by switching sides on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:07:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: it was NOT agreed on (2.00 / 1)

Or "participate." Read my comment 2 posts up. I define "participate" to be having anything to do with that state's election process, including counting results from there. You may define it differently, which is fine.

by ProgressiveDL on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:30:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Are they still friends (none / 0)

Are Jerome & Markos still friends???
Curious to know. When did you both last have a drink together. I bet it was before Super Tuesday.

by gaf on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:53:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry Jerome, but (2.00 / 2)

you know good and well that no candidate behind in pledged delegates is going to become the nominee (the pledged delegates that count). This popular vote stuff is BS. Nothing more than moving the goal posts and finding metrics that support your candidate.

by bigdcdem on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:58:05 AM EST

Re: Sorry Jerome, but (2.00 / 4)

Except for that the endgame is not about pledged delegates, because neither candidate could get enough to close the deal. It's about Superdelegates, who can use whatever metric they feel appropriate to decide who to back.

No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.

by hornplayer on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:00:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry Jerome, but (2.00 / 0)

Are you under the mistaken impression that a superdelegate has more of a vote than a pledged delegate?

Are you under the mistaken impression that because neither candidate could close the deal with pledged delegates alone, that number is simply erased, and the candidates will be both fighting for the 50%+1 of the superdelegate vote ?

Clinton will be needing like 75% of the remaining superdelegates, while Obama will be needing only about 25% of them. Chew on that.

by Aris Katsaris on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 0