The will of the people?

Hillary Clinton won California by 416,335 votes.  For that, she netted 43 more delegates than Obama.  Each of those delegates represented an edge of 9682 votes over Obama.

As of this writing, Barack Obama is leading Hillary Clinton by 1447 votes in Wyoming.  And, as of this writing, that brings Obama a 3 delegate margin in the state.  Each of those three delegates represents an edge of 482 votes.

In other words, each vote that puts Obama ahead in Wyoming is worth more than 20 votes that puts Hillary ahead in California.  If the California votes were weighted the same as the Wyoming votes, she would have a delegate lead from that state alone of 860, not 43.

Yes, yes, yes, these are the rules that everybody knew about ahead of time.  But don't try to say with a straight face that pledged delegates represent "the will of the people."

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

Comments

113 Comments

Re: The will of the people?
If it was about "the will of the people" there wouldn't be superdelegates.
by PhilFR 2008-03-08 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?

why don't DEM use the same system as GOP?

by JoeySky18 2008-03-08 01:38PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?
A state-by-state "winner take all" system (as the Reps use) isn't all that great, either.
by PhilFR 2008-03-08 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?
Exactly. Hardly "the will of the people."
by PhilFR 2008-03-08 05:32PM | 0 recs
well actually it does

 just as much as saying Obama won Texas because he won more delegates in the caucuses....She won in the primary by 100,000 votes.  In this case texas denied the will of the people.

by debcoop 2008-03-08 06:31PM | 0 recs
Re: well actually it does

I love when Obama says,"DO THE MATH".

Well, Obama the math has Hillary ahead of you by far more actual votes.  Not indies, repubs, and students bussed in for caucusses that allow anyone to vote for something that no longer means anything.

If the caucus ever had any meaning it lacks it now as it has been entirely corrupted by Camp Obama and their tactics.

Actual votes in closed Primaries are what you can reliably expect to find in a general election.

Howard Dean has shown poor judgement on "punishing Fla and MI", and his handling of this situation lacks candor or courage, if not imagination.

Democrats always screw up by complicating what is simple. GOP know far more about doing this right.

If Obama comes to convention on his high horse and black caucus says they'll leave the party, or won't vote Hillary, the same thing happens to Hillary supporters and party has shot itself in the foot.

Look at Edwards.  If ever there was a loser. If he had gotten in on Michigan and not publicly sided with Obama to stay out, he could have gotten significant votes.  He threw his lot with Obama from the get go.  A job in Obama's cabinet?
Actually he had a good message.  But it was ONE message.

There should be a redo of MI and Fla. Clinton has offered 15 million, but doubt Obama wants this as he knows he may lose.

How the hell did the dumb elders and powerbrokers of the party let this trainwreck happen from the getgo? Kerry/Kennedy and the rest really just want their own hold on whatever power they can extract.....look at how inexperienced Obama is in sending out Power as a "foreign policy advisor"?
This is not simply inept,clumsy,and stupid, but his Canadian NAFTA crap reveals his lack of credibility.

A lightweight is a lightweight.

by morris1030 2008-03-08 10:03PM | 0 recs
Re: well actually it does
That's not Obama's doing, that's the system Texas has had in place for some time. And since it's delegates that determine the nominee, it seems reasonable to say that the person who got the most delegates won the state.

Just wondering... would you be complaining about Hillary saying she won TX if the outcome was reversed?

by PhilFR 2008-03-09 06:31AM | 0 recs
bscause

that sucks also.

by kevin22262 2008-03-08 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?

Good Question

by bradydundee 2008-03-08 02:04PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?

Dems dont use the same system as the GOP because we like to create complex situations for ourselves just so we can argue about it for months and months.  If we wanted to have a system where it is actually possible for a nominee to be decided without everyone else dropping out, we would adopt a similar style.

by mbfeldma 2008-03-08 03:37PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?

The democratic party system is screwed up, and has always been. Have been voting for 50 years, and the self immolation I've seen from the party has turned me off, but as a democrat I've stuck it out.

This time, they had it made.  So what do they do?
Dean makes it impossible for a fair convention to take place, and the party elders go along with this stupidity.

The caucus has no meaning in  the general election.
The party is headed for the cliff. Obama is sulking and petulant expecting to be knighted, and this process reeks. His caucus tactics have been unethical and bullying, and he's been allowed to get away with this.

Racism in reverse is the MO.   Sexism is everywhere.  The process is corrupted by party hacks and powerbrokers. This is a side show the GOP always avoids. Democrats can't seem to avoid contention and division.

by morris1030 2008-03-08 10:13PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?

yes!  Let's do everything Republicans do!

That seems to be the Hillary mantra lately.

by thereisnospoon 2008-03-08 05:34PM | 0 recs
We could start with winning

a presidential election. There's only been one Democrat to accomplish that feat in the last 31 years but I understand he's an asshole.

by JimR 2008-03-08 06:00PM | 0 recs
Yeah, we don't want anything to do with that guy

by earthoat 2008-03-08 06:15PM | 0 recs
Re: We could start with winning

that was bill, not hill.  and he never won the popular vote.  and he wasn't great for the party.

by thereisnospoon 2008-03-08 07:38PM | 0 recs
As I recall...

Bill Clinton won, but he only got 43% of the vote in his first election.  47% in his reelection.  It was enough to win in a three-way contest, but based on those results, it's hard to see him as anything but just adequate as a campaigner.  

They had eight years to do everything they wanted to do or could do.  Now they want eight more.  They had their turn.  It's time to let somebody else have a chance.

by Dumbo 2008-03-08 10:53PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?
Your argument would be taken more seriously if you also pointed out the hypocracy within the Clinton camp. Saying that states where she doesn't win "don't matter", for instance.
by PhilFR 2008-03-08 02:49PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?
"You folks"? Obama is my 3rd choice candidate; I don't think I can be lumped in with the die-hards.

And if Clinton wins, she'll be my 4th choice.

Now, do you disagree that both camps try to spin anything and everything to their advantage?

by PhilFR 2008-03-08 02:58PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?
I guess your words (or lack of them) speak for themselves.
by PhilFR 2008-03-08 04:34PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?

There wouldn't be EITHER delegates OR superdelegates.

It would be all about popular vote.

by Sensible 2008-03-08 04:45PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?

Guess who forced that system to start? Teddy!

by Sandeep 2008-03-08 05:25PM | 0 recs
"At the end of the day, it's the delegates

that count."  Who said that?  I forgot.

Why do I get the feeling that if Hillary were winning more caucuses than primaries, her supporters would think the primaries were wrong?

If, at the end of this, the candidate with the most elected delegates isn't chosen, I think you can be just about guaranteed a catastrophe, no matter whose candidate it is.

by Dumbo 2008-03-08 10:56PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?

As far as I am concerned the popular vote is the will of the people , not the pledged delegate.

by lori 2008-03-08 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?
The Democratic party evidently disagrees with you.
by PhilFR 2008-03-08 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: nope

At the end of the day, who calls what doesn't matter.  The reality is that delegates are what matter, ask Al Gore.

(The one caveat would be that we've learned it does matter when the Supremes make a call.)

by 1jpb 2008-03-08 04:16PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?

Nope. Only you disagree with it based on imaginary rules. There is no Dem party rule which disagrees with what Lori said.

by Sandeep 2008-03-08 05:27PM | 0 recs
Obama is ahead in the popular vote by 600K plus

he's ahead in the net popular vote estimates from IA, NV, ME, WA and WY.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-03-09 05:47AM | 0 recs
Obama is ahead in both pop. vote and pledge dels


RCP
                        Obama        Clinton   
Popular Vote Total      13,006,033  12,415,016
Pledged delegates       1588        1465

(*) Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine Have Not Released Popular Vote Totals)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/democratic_vote_count.htm l
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/democratic_delegate_count .html
by NeuvoLiberal 2008-03-09 06:09AM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?

No system is perfect. Pledged delegates are going to be the best metric we have when this thing is done.

Big states or swing states don't work because it's completely subjective. Does it matter that Hillary won Ohio, when she and Barack are polling even in OH in GE polling? Does it matter more that Hillary won OH or that Obama won CO?

Popular vote doesn't work because no one will be able to agree on how exactly we count it. What do we do about caucuses where totals aren't available? Do we count FL and MI?

At the end , we come back to pledged delegates, the best metric we have.

by animated 2008-03-08 01:41PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?
Or for caucuses where counts ARE available, it's still not quite fair to compare them to primary results. The bar for participation at a caucus is much higher. It's an apples and oranges comparison.

I'd like to see us cluster states into 5 or 6 regions (think 5 or 6 Super Tuesdays) rotating the order every 4 years.

by PhilFR 2008-03-08 01:47PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?

Do you understand you are making Bushe's case in 2000?? Popular vote does not matter?? Are you interested in winning in 2008 or just getting the nomination for Sen Obama?

by indydem99 2008-03-08 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?

Don't be silly. We don't have a popular vote system, we have an electoral system. Until that's changed, we follow the system as is.

Do I believe Gore should have won? Yes, but because I believe they should have allowed the recount in FL, not because he won the popular vote nationwide. The fact that he won the popular vote is notable, but we can't change the law after the fact.

by animated 2008-03-08 01:52PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?

The point is in the GE Sen Obama is not going to win the red states he is winning now in the caucuses. It is a very intelligent primary strategy but not a wise GE strategy.

by indydem99 2008-03-08 02:26PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?

It's not a GE strategy. He's just doing what he can to win the primary by amassing the most delegates.

by animated 2008-03-08 02:34PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?

hrc is claiming that red states don't matter. I hardly think that is an effective way to build the party or to win elections.

BHO is doing what he can to win the nomination, which means winning delegates--not the popular vote.

I'm more than happy to say that his stance on super-delegates is illogical. It's illogical because the super-delegates can't really overturn "the will of the people" because the primary/caucus system we have now isn't representative of that will.

BHO won texas and nevada by the only count that matters in terms of winning the nomination--the delegate count.

by shef 2008-03-08 11:56PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?

I suppose you think it is a good GE strategy for HRC to set up the Democratic nominee such that he/she is playing on McCain's field.

by 1jpb 2008-03-08 04:21PM | 0 recs
You are ignoring the SUSA

state-by-state matchups of last week that showed Obama beating McGain in the GE with more electoral votes than Hillary would.

I don't know why they persist in making this argument that Obama would do worse in the general election.  It's such a pointless argument based on faith in their candidate rather than facts.

by Dumbo 2008-03-08 11:00PM | 0 recs
Re: You are ignoring the SUSA

What swing states is he going to win?
FL?OH?PA?MI? If he does not win 3 out of those 4 the game is over!

Give me the list of states you would think he would win and let us figure out the electrol votes he wout get.

by indydem99 2008-03-09 01:58PM | 0 recs
by JimR 2008-03-08 02:02PM | 0 recs
Re: nonsense

assuming I'm reading it correctly, your signature is pretty offensive.

I know there are some people who think it's cute to dehumanize and insult Obama supporters. You manage to announce your contempt quite succinctly in your signature. You might as well just used, "FU and don't bother trying to converse with me."

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-03-08 03:12PM | 0 recs
it's called "Reality Check"

by earthoat 2008-03-08 06:24PM | 0 recs
Re: it's called "Reality Check"

I don't even really understand what you're trying to say, but I'll assume it was meant to be snotty.

Nice to know you wholeheartedly endorse petty insults. I'm sure if it were the other way around and Obama supporter had something similar for their sig, you'd be troll-rating till your fingers ached.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-03-11 11:13PM | 0 recs
This is the most convoluted, circular

argument for dismissing the will of the people that I've read in some time. If Hillary goes into the convention ahead in the popular vote and Obama is given the nomination because he has a few more pledged delegates, borrowing a phrase from an Obama supporter over at DKos, "...there will be rioting in the streets."

by Rumarhazzit 2008-03-08 04:09PM | 0 recs
Re: This is the most convoluted, circular

Clinton is losing the popular vote. Why do you optimistically assume that will change?

by EMTP democrat 2008-03-08 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: This is the most convoluted, circular

Well, how about we throw in MI and FL.  Then Hillary's ahead.  Don't like that, well let's just throw in 300,000 more votes from Pennsylvania for Clinton. How about Indiana, KY, WV. Another 200,000.  And, if we do a revote in FL and Mi, that will add another 700,00 to her count. Oh, and how about we remove all the vote totals coming from the likely Republican States, from Obama and Clinton. Then we have a huge popular vote edge for Hillary.

by PracticalMagic 2008-03-08 04:59PM | 0 recs
Re: This is the most convoluted, circular

Michigan:  yeah, its easier to say "we're leading" when one candidate was on the ballot and one wasn't.

by ChrisR 2008-03-08 05:21PM | 0 recs
I think Hillary would win Florida

but she would lose Michigan, if it was a fair ballot with MORE THAN ONE NAME.

But, okay, keep hoping for this one out.  You hope she wins the popular vote, but loses the pledged delegates, and then the superdelegates choose Hillary's popular vote over Obama's elected delegates.  Nice.

And then you can expect a civil war to break out.   Is that unfair?  I won't argue it here.  But that's the most likely result.  Not a good result.  

by Dumbo 2008-03-08 11:09PM | 0 recs
Re: I think Hillary would win Florida

Then let's revote in Michigan, Dumbo, and see if you are right.

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-03-09 04:16AM | 0 recs
Re: nonsense

Great.  So by saying that anyone in a red state or a caucus state "doesn't matter", does that mean they shouldn't vote.  By this logic, they shouldn't be Ds, they shouldn't vote for D senators.

Fuck it, they don't matter.  Why should we motivate them to elect Senators, Reps, State Reps, etc...

by ChrisR 2008-03-08 05:20PM | 0 recs
states that let Republicans vote in their caucuses

shouldn't count.

by earthoat 2008-03-08 06:26PM | 0 recs
Re: states that let Republicans vote in their cauc

So Texas shouldn't count, right?

by LawStudent 2008-03-09 06:01AM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?

No rule says pledged delegates are the only metrics to be used. The rule only says total delegates which includes both pledged and supers.

And for majority of "Democratic voters", pledged delegates dont represent will of the people.

by Sandeep 2008-03-08 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: nonsense

Based on your signature, you are hoping that I will die from drinking the kool-aid?  Or, were you hoping I would commit suicide for some silly reason?

I don't really like the kool-aid comments, but that is hugely offensive.  If that is not what you mean, please let me know.

by Tantris 2008-03-09 07:14AM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?

No rule: in order to make this system far less confusing than it is, the DNC should in 2012 or 2016 adopt a primary only system and award delegates based on population and not "party loyalty" or some other magic formula that someone came up with one day.  People bitch about EVs, but even that system makes far more sense than our current one.

by ejintx 2008-03-08 01:47PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?

Cool.

Who's going to pay for it?

by Walt Starr 2008-03-08 02:25PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?

I didn't claim to have details figured out, but it's a simple fix to stop rewarding "party loyalty" and go with delegates based off of population.

by ejintx 2008-03-08 02:28PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?

Then it's not a "simple fix".

Primaries are expenssive and nine out of ten cycles these caucuses would have made no difference.

So again, who's going to pay for it?

by Walt Starr 2008-03-08 02:33PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?

Why should Obama pay for the mistakes made by the Democratic PArties of Michigan and Florida?

He shouldn't have to. His funding goes to his efforts.

It's a bogus argument.

It also has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of who is going to pay for mandating primaries in the future.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-08 03:03PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?

Obama better not dip into his normal funds to pay because Florida and Michigan got too cute.  He'll have a lot of angry donors if their money is given to these two states.

Ideally I'd like to see these states have a good competition and then a vote, but I'm not paying for their screwup.

by 1jpb 2008-03-08 04:32PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?
Baloney! I'd make an additional (would be my 4th) donation to pay for re-votes! I suspect I'm not alone.
by PhilFR 2008-03-08 04:38PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?

As long as it is separate.

I want to have a choice, I never intended to fund the Florida and Michigan screwup.

Not to mention the precedent.  This thing should not be a huge win for Florida and Michigan.  Instead of a punishment, they can't end up cashing in.  Otherwise, you, can predict a huge disaster in four years, as the flood gates open in the battle for caucus and primary dates.  There needs to be some grownups setting rules somewhere in the process.

by 1jpb 2008-03-08 05:10PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?
Precedent is an issue, but WHATEVER happens this cycle is going to set an ugly precedent. The party has a lot of work to do over the next 4 years to fix the primary scheduling process.

But I for one would have no problem with the candidates dipping into their (massive) warchests to pay for a re-vote.

by PhilFR 2008-03-08 05:55PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?

I think you're posting this nonsense in the wrong diary.

The topic was discussions about future primary systems, bnot some bloviation from an idiot like Carville.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-08 03:05PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?

Hopefully seeing the mess the Democratic Party is in this Primary season, the DNC will give serious thought to changing the overall election process for future primaries!

Here's another tidbit I just added up (using CNN's posted figures).  Not counting Wyoming yet, there have been 12 states that have held caucuses.  The total "caucused votes" in the Democrat Primary in all 12 states total 527,064 (of which Barack earned 360,942 and Hillary earned 166,122--so he earned 194,820 more popular votes in all 12 of those states combined).  

So many are "pretending" as if the Florida and Michigan votes weren't placed--but we all know they were.  In FL, 1,426,249 voters placed votes for either Barack or Hillary--with Hillary earning 827,208, and Barack earning 569,041.  So in FL alone, she earned 258,167 more votes than him.  Of the 593,837 votes placed in MI, Hillary earned 90,389 more votes than the Uncommitted category (which also included Edwards).  So even if you would assign all uncommitted voters to Barack, which would be overstating his support there, Hillary's gain in votes in those two states essentially negates the entire gain Barack had in all 12 of the caucusing states.  

Will of the people?  Yeah, it seems the DNC forgot we were to represent the will of the people somewhere along the way.  And the sad thing is, we essentially have two very attractive candidates--and yet the convulated rules and practices of our party are bound to create a "foul" in this Primary no matter how they decide to resolve this situation.  Now I do have my preference of the two, and the logic would seem to indicate that she should be winning this Primary at this point.  Yet the pledged delegates and the potential bind the superdelegates will find themselves in seems to creating royal havoc!  

by ChargedFan 2008-03-08 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?

Beauty contests don't count.

And you have no popular vote tallies for Iowa, Nevada, or Washington either. All you have are delegates to county conventions for those states as the state parties never released popular vote totals.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-08 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?

It seems rather entertaining to me that Barack supporters refer to FL and MI as "beauty contests" (who's won votes because of handsomeness and his charming smile?  And no, I'm not saying that is the sole reason--however, I've heard this too many times.  I support Hillary--but I don't believe she gets votes for her beauty.)  And just to clarify again, I pulled the figures from CNN's figures...I do realize the difference between caucuses and primaries--so I've included the referenced figures of one the states you mentioned (where we also happen to have that tricky math that got him an extra delegate despite her win).  I realize it's not an apples to apples comparison--but those are the "released" figures.  

RESULTS: Nevada
DEMOCRATIC CAUCUSES January 19, 2008
Closed caucuses: 33 total delegates*
25 tied to January 19 caucuses; 8 superdelegates

Candidate     State Del.     %     Del

Clinton       5,355           51%   12
Obama         4,773           45%   13
Edwards         396            4%    0
Uncommitted      31            0%    0
Kucinich          5            0%    0
Richardson        0            0%    0

(Despite my best efforts at aligning--this system just won't allow the figures to align, so I aplogize for that.)

by ChargedFan 2008-03-08 03:07PM | 0 recs
FYI

"beauty contest" is a term used by the media, and has existed long before this primary. I'm not sure the origins, but none of us made it up.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-03-08 03:16PM | 0 recs
Re: FYI

And therefore you all are forced to use it, as mouthpieces of the media. Or what?

by Scotch 2008-03-08 04:31PM | 0 recs
Re: FYI

Would you prefer that we call them "contested elections  where delegates will be earned."

Who's drinking Kool Aid now?

by 1jpb 2008-03-08 04:36PM | 0 recs
Re: FYI

that's a pretty obnoxious response. Some people are always spoiling for a fight.

If the generally used term for primaries that have no effect on delegates were called "Snorxes," we would call them Snorxes instead.

Stop reading so literally into things. You didn't know the term, and that's fine. But just admit a simple mistake rather than continuing this astoundingly silly notion that it's meant to denigrate Hillary's beauty. Or whatever the heck your point is.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-03-08 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: FYI

I know the term alright, but the poster chooses it because he is trying to dismiss the vote of million and millions of people even through going with frivolous terms.  The reason why is that it might mess up Obama's chance if all of those people's votes counted just like his, by no action of his own in comparison to the actions of theirs, did or will.  It is pretty easy to figure out.  It's a petty title that the media has been using and has been around, but his use is to belittle those voters.  It's amazing how many Obama supporters were so bent out of shape when some votes MIGHT have  not been counted before in other elections, but are willing in actuality not to consider these important because it doesn't suite your agenda.  To those looking at it, it is transparent, and hypocritical.  THAT is obnoxious.

I am well aware that Clinton may not win the Michigan revote, if there is one, but it should go forward anyway, and The Domocratic Committee should pay for it because of their total screw up of this election.

by Scotch 2008-03-08 04:51PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?

It's one heck of an assumption to say that "uncommitted" represented both Edwards and Obama.  "Uncommitted" was a blank slate.  An ACTUAL blank slate- it's funny that some people can't see that, but claim they see Obama as a blank slate.  An empty suit. Etc.  Sadly funny.

Obama/Clinton '08

by Setrak 2008-03-08 02:35PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?

I'll agree with you, but I've tried to give Barack the benefit of the doubt there (and it's known that both Obama's and Edwards' camps were encouraging their voters to vote for "uncommitted").  Just for the record, I've never referred to Obama as a blank slate or an empty suit--granted, I think he would have been a much more formidable candidate if he'd gained a few more years experience, but I give him credit for the campaign he's run.

by ChargedFan 2008-03-08 03:12PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?

BHO wasn't on the ballot and he didn't campaign in the state.  It's perfectly reasonable to assume that a lot of his supporters didn't bother to show up to vote.  And, some of his supporters may have been voting for Romney in the Repub election, as Kos was pushing.

by 1jpb 2008-03-08 04:40PM | 0 recs
NEither does the Electoral College

This is the price of a republic.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-08 01:57PM | 0 recs
Think of the Senate, too

California with its huge population has only two Senators.

Wyoming has precisely the same representation there, too.

You go to elections with the system you ahve, not the system you want.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-08 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Think of the Senate, too

If they choose Clinton over Obama  after Obama wins the most pledged delegates, they have done so under the rules.

And they will face the consequences of that decision, too.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-08 03:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Think of the Senate, too
You do your candidate no good by posting rants over her picture.

I mean... just saying.

by PhilFR 2008-03-08 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Think of the Senate, too

Same goes the other way.  If they choose the nominee based on delegates rather than popular vote, the election is illegitimate.

by Sensible 2008-03-08 04:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Think of the Senate, too

Which rules?

by Sandeep 2008-03-08 05:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Walth Walt Walt

I agree. The Super Delegates can, if they so wish, choose Clinton over Obama even if Obama has the most pledged delegates earned in state level primaries and caucuses.

I do not dispute that for one moment.

They will also have to face the consequences of their decision.

You cannot dispute that for one moment, either.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-08 03:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Walth Walt Walt

What consequences?
People like you will leave?

Meh.

by Scotch 2008-03-08 04:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Walth Walt Walt

The consequences should be obvious.

Unlike the supremes stealing an election from Gore.  This is a primary fight.  At the end of the day you can't alienate half of the party because winning the nomination isn't the point.

The HRC team has consistently shown that they operate with a two week strategy.

-They never look out at the states over the horizon.
-They set up the GE so the Democratic candidate (he or she) will play on McCain's field.  You may not recognize it, but any objective observer will acknowledge that McCain can easily out-McCain HRC.
-There is no tactic considered too low in the pursuit of the nomination which reveals a strategy that is oblivious to the long term implications regarding Democratic unity and the GE

by 1jpb 2008-03-08 04:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Walth Walt Walt

The democrats lost in 2004. Losing more 2004 voters means losing again. Which is indeed what is likely to happen in the unlikely event that Clinton, who is losing in terms of states, delegates, and the popular vote, somehow gets the nomination.

Ultimately it's about the party and the people the party is working for. That's why we've rejected the failed tactics, pro-war record, and lack of character evidenced by Senator Clinton.

by EMTP democrat 2008-03-09 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?

Hillary Clinton will be our nominee based on winning the popular vote.

by Scan 2008-03-08 02:31PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?

Cool.

What was the popular vote in Iowa, Nevada, and Washington?

by Walt Starr 2008-03-08 02:34PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?
Popular vote doesn't matter in ANY state. Ever heard of precincts?

I love having lots of people getting engaged for the first time, but I swear, the learning curve is getting old.

by PhilFR 2008-03-08 04:42PM | 0 recs
The value of activists in the GE

I like the system more-or-less as-is because when the GE comes around the engine that will drive the party across the finish line will be those activists that show up to caucus, not the casual voter.  The current system is configured such that a candidate must do well BOTH with the activist class AND the broader population.  If you fail badly on either point you will not be nominated.  

What a Barak victory means for the Democrats is that you'll have more dedicated, enthusiastic ground-pounders out working and donating for him in the fight against McCain.  That's a valuable piece of input the electorate can provide with a caucas that can't be discovered, necessarily, with a primary.

by BeerNotWar 2008-03-08 03:02PM | 0 recs
Re: The value of activists in the GE

Let me guess.  You live in a caucus state and highly value your own activism, whereas all those causual voters don't do a damn thing but show up at the polls and touch a screen.  Why those lazy..........

by Scotch 2008-03-08 04:20PM | 0 recs
Re: The value of activists in the GE

A candidate needs people manning phone banks and ringing doorbells to get those casual voters out on election day.  If we had ninety or ninety-five percent turnout it wouldn't matter as much but in our electoral environment activism makes a big difference.  

Why do you suppose the GOP has courted the religious right all these years?  For their health?  Because all those corporate heads believe in hastening the apocalypse?  It's because the evangelicals and fundies provide a ready-made political organization that can GOTV.

If casual voters are valuable (and I think they are) then the activist is much more so...they're worth several times their number in voters actually showing up to vote.

by BeerNotWar 2008-03-09 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: The value of activists in the GE

Casual voters are the ones who will vote and determine the final outcome. We can jump around and show our activism but when the Democratic casual voters dont turn up because we sidelined Hillary and Republican casual voters go back to voting McCain, then you have a nice way of losing GE.

by Sandeep 2008-03-08 05:41PM | 0 recs
Hillary sidelined herself

She should have had this thing wrapped up on Feb 5th.  

She ran an awful campaign that's just getting worse.  Doesn't bode well for the general at all.

by LawStudent 2008-03-09 06:20AM | 0 recs
Re: pledged delegates do not in any way shape

Then tell me, what was the will of the people in Iowa, NEvada, and Washington? What were those popular vote tallies?

by Walt Starr 2008-03-08 03:08PM | 0 recs
Re: pledged delegates do not in any way shape

Yeah, isn't that the rub?

I mean, we have no idea what the votes would be in a caucus, so we're going to just count the primary states in some sort of imaginary popular vote "spin" to elect a nominee?

by ChrisR 2008-03-08 05:23PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?

Not sure I see the point of this post. Comparing caucus votes & primary votes doesn't seem like a good idea. And no state, AFAIK, translates popular vote directly into delegates.  

First, there are superdelegates, which add a variable pct. to the pledged delegates. And these SDs can vote contrary to the popular vote (take a bow Sens. Kennedy and Cantwell and others).  Second, in most states, the votes aren't pro-rated directly into pledged delegates -- there's an intermediate "binning" by congressional district, or state legislative district.  For example, if a "bin" has 4  pledged delegates, then the winner of 37.51% of the popular vote is going to get 50% of the delegates, as is the winner of 62.49% of the popular vote.

I'm not saying this is democratic or not, but the "will of the people" is pretty hard to hew to.  That said, I'm sure the DNC will make some changes for 2012... :)

by Twin Planets 2008-03-08 03:49PM | 0 recs
Okay

Let's go by popular vote totals, with popular vote estimates from caucuses. Now the winner is...
Obama.

Shiny.

by jaiwithani 2008-03-08 04:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Okay

Maybe not when all primaries are done.  

by Sensible 2008-03-08 04:48PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?

Wyoming has one senator for every 250,000 people.

California has one senator per 18 million people.

Is the Senate an undemocratic institution?

I am so very tired of the endless excuses from the Clinton camp as they lose contest after contest. Obama is winning the popular vote. He is winning the most states. He is winning the most delegates. Clinton is leading in no category except excuses offered for failure.

Clinton supporters loved the delegate system when they had a substantial edge in SDs. Now, they are all about the popular vote (which, again, Obama is winning). They discount red states, because it's all about the GE, but, at the same time, they are against open primaries, even though those are the only contests in which the appeal of the candidate is tested with the whole electorate, as in the GE.

Caucuses, of course, mean nothing, because they are undemocratic, something that Clinton never, in her oft-touted 35 years in politics, noticed, until she got her rear end handed to her in a half a dozen of them. Whilst complaining about the caucuses, Clinton partisans fail to mention that Obama has won more primaries than Clinton has.

Enough with the hypocrisy. Find a way to win, or lose with a little more dignity. Right now you are embarrassing yourselves and hurting the party in the bargain.

by EMTP democrat 2008-03-08 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?

The answer:  Yes, the senate is undemocratic.

I get sick and tired of you Obamas pointing out all of our completely disenfranchising institutions as an excuse to have yet another disenfranchising institution.

Hillary gets the core Democrat's votes.  If Obama is the nominee, I suspect a whole lot of core Democrats will stay home...contrary to St. Arrogance's own beliefs.

by Sensible 2008-03-08 04:50PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?

Are you suggesting we should just ignore all laws of the United States because the bills went through the Senate?

Or, are you only excited about the parts of the system that have resulted in BHO having an insurmountable elected delegate lead over HRC?

The system is the system.  If you think it sucks, build a coalition and change it.  That's called government.

by 1jpb 2008-03-08 05:01PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?

I thought system was broken and Washington was a hell (as per Messiah). You shouldnt say otherwise when it suits you.

by Sandeep 2008-03-08 05:45PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?

AS per McCain DC is the "City of Satan."

But you were close.

http://wonkette.com/365473/mccain-shocke r-he-lives-and-loves-with-dc-satanists

by 1jpb 2008-03-08 06:33PM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?

Do you think her core of women will stay home when the Supreme Court (and therefore Roe V. Wade) will be up for grabs? Do you think blue collar workers will go for McCain who assures them he will continue Bush's economic "plan" right where he left off? These people have already been a great dem base, and I find it hard to believe they would no longer make up our great base. That said, I think MOST of Obama's voters will vote Hillary, but the indie vote I'm not so sure about. And MCCain, the "Maverick", has some kind of strange power over indies.

by cecilybecily 2008-03-08 07:04PM | 0 recs
Why can't she compete in these small states?

What's the excuse?

Quit trying to belittle these "small" states.  Their votes matter, too.

But I want to know why the Clinton campaign can't be competitive in an election where roughly 10,000 people voted.

If she's going to compete for this thing, then compete.

Frankly, it's kind of pathetic that they couldn't compete in Wyoming.

by jaywillie 2008-03-08 05:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Why can't she compete in these small states?

It is not that she can not compete. She is a much  better candidate and individual.

It is Penn and Salis Doyle who screwed it up. And I am angry with her that she trusted them so much.

But that's human, she loves loyalty and trust. We dont claim she is the second coming!

by Sandeep 2008-03-08 05:49PM | 0 recs
I put the blame on MSM beating a propaganda drum

for Obama 24/7.  No one could have anticipated that.

by earthoat 2008-03-08 06:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Why can't she compete in these small states?

Hillary, Bill and Chelsea spent a fair amount of time in Wyoming.  The election came right after Super Tuesday II.  The turnout was historic.  Yet Obama won 61-38.  

Isn't the time for excuses over for the Clintons?  

by mainelib 2008-03-09 05:01AM | 0 recs
Re: pledged delegates do not in any way shape

fine, they don't represent the will of the people. It's a convoluted system, and I agree it should be changed.

But, that doesn't take away from the fact that this is the system we have. The only--only--rubric used to determine the victor is the delegate count. This is why it is illogical for BHO to claim that super-delegates would somehow overturn the will of the people, etc.

By the same argument, however, if the delegate count is what is important for victory, then BHO won Texas and Nevada.

You can't have it both ways.

by shef 2008-03-09 12:03AM | 0 recs
Factually Inaccurate

Your diary is incorrect and thus your premise is wrong. At the end of the night Barack Obama's lead in Wyoming was just over 1,000 DELEGATES, not voters. There's a difference. Each one of those delegates represents multiple voters. I see this mistake made far too often, possibly in an attempt to marginalize the scope of Obama victories. Caucus states report state delegate, not voter, totals.

It doesn't matter how you slice it; Obama leads in popular vote, delegates won, and states won. He can legitimately claim that at this juncture he has the will of the people behind him. Rather than attempting to marginalize his victories and the voters of the states that he has won, you should try to help Hillary Clinton become more in-touch with the needs of primary and caucus voters.

by chicagovigilante 2008-03-09 12:21AM | 0 recs
oh cripes

I wish everyone would get off their sanctimonious high horses in these debates and admit they see things the way they want to see them so their side wins.  Democracy, will of the people, what's best for the party has nothing to do with it anymore.

Get real.  If Obama took every big blue state and Clinton took all the small red ones everyone's definition of democracy and terms of electability on both sides.  The same is true for delegate count versus popular vote.  

All the "math" changes for people depending on where we are and who win's using what math.  IT would refresh the hell right out of me to see people post from either side saying this is what's truly fair and I don't care who wins as long as it's fair.

For the record, the "rules" already were changed in the middle of the game for Florida and Michigan.  All delegates, including pledged delegates, can vote however they damn well please in September.

The bottom line is we have one big fricking mess on our hands in large part due to the freaking system.  If the system didn't suck we wouldn't be in this position.

And whatever happens now half the activists in the party are going to feel ignored and screwed over.  Thank you Howard Dean.

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-03-09 04:30AM | 0 recs
Re: oh cripes

You're right. Superdelegates will decide what they think is best.  However, I think that part of their calculus will be who leads in the delegates. They don't want to turn off Obama supporters who have gotten so involved in political organizing.

I also think that Clinton's recent tactics are also turning them off, although Obama needs to show that he cannot be swiftboated by Clinton.  If he gets tougher and fights back, this will be a big plus for the superdelegates.

And the win in the special election in Illinois, Hastert's seat, by a novice who Obama supported and whose organization worked for, will also get superdelegates' attention.

by mainelib 2008-03-09 05:04AM | 0 recs
It should go to the convention

The ridiculous Rube Goldberg contraption that this nomination represents actually requires us to go to the convention, and certify the candidate who got the most aggregate votes as the nominee.

I don't care if its Clinton or Obama (although I prefer Senator Obama), but if we want to avoid a severely split party, both candidates need to start feeling their way towards that solution.

Count up the total votes--and whoever was supported by more voters, give them the nomination.

by chicagolife 2008-03-09 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: The will of the people?

I agree.  I find the delegate math to be very weird....  Notice that in Wisconsin where he won by 54%, the difference between them is 10 dels., but in Ohio where she won by 54%, the difference between them should be larger, but somehow it is smaller, with her getting only 9 more dels!

The math is weird. It does not reflect the will of the people.

By the way, I get my information from www.realclearpolitics2008.com

by findthesource 2008-03-09 11:03AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads