home

Edwards Delegates Bolt To Obama In Iowa

By Big Tent Democrat, Section
Posted on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:52:09 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Ah, the will of the people:

Democrat Barack Obama expanded his fragile lead in delegates over rival Hillary Rodham Clinton on Saturday, picking up at least seven delegates as Iowa activists took the next step in picking delegates to the national convention. Half the 14 delegates allocated to John Edwards on the basis of caucus night projections switched Saturday and Obama got most, if not all, of them.

I can only laugh at this caucus system. I understand Clinton picked up delegates this way in Colorado. The whole system is a travesty.

< Predicting Pennsylvania | The Will Of The Voters >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Edwards Delegates Bolt To Obama In Iowa | 135 comments (135 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    The rules, the rules!!!! (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:07:03 PM EST
    <small>except Super Delegates</small>

    OMG (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:08:34 PM EST
    Obama is STEALING delegates /snark

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:11:32 PM EST


    Parent
    If you don't mind BTD (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by sas on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:09:17 PM EST
    I'm wondering what you and the people think of Pelosi's comments in regard to delegates, that is , the delegate leader should get the nomination.  Do you think that is slanted toward Obama (as in Pelosi wants him to win), or just a general statement?

    Of course it is (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:11:18 PM EST
    Pelosi is filled with damaging statements. The funny thing is no one is listening to her. I wonder that she does not realize how foolish she looks.

    Parent
    i guarantee you (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Turkana on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:17:12 PM EST
    some people listen to her- and i'm sure you'll hear about it, in various shades of orange, tomorrow!

    Parent
    She doesn't do well (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:17:12 PM EST
    on the whole "dictating a vote" thing.

    Remember the majority leader race. . .?

    Parent

    I imagine House (none / 0) (#60)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:47:29 PM EST
    Members listen to Pelosi....

    Parent
    I just cited a similar example (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:02:08 PM EST
    where they did not.

    Parent
    Many of them did (none / 0) (#70)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:04:47 PM EST
    vote for Murtha over Hoyer....

    Having the Chair of the Convention in your corner is not bad....Hillary wouldn't want Pelosi on her side?

    Parent

    If Pelosi was on HRC's side, HRC (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:08:05 PM EST
    probably would have been forced to fire her by now.

    Parent
    You're moving the goalposts (none / 0) (#78)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:11:46 PM EST
    Pelosi had limited pull then, and by all accounts it has remained limited.

    Watch the moneyraiser: Hoyer.

    Parent

    Who stiffened the Dems' spines in the (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:25:23 PM EST
    House on the latest FISA vote?

    Parent
    Can I credit Obama just on (none / 0) (#88)
    by JoeA on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:26:28 PM EST
    general principle?

    Parent
    Probably not, as some of his (none / 0) (#91)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:30:19 PM EST
    Super-D endorsers didn't vote his way.

    Parent
    Reyes n/t (none / 0) (#125)
    by shoephone on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:59:34 AM EST


    Parent
    Bleh.........Hoyer (none / 0) (#93)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:31:35 PM EST
    Cough.......gag......choke........Hoyer......I can't watch him, he hurts my eyes.  So far you've been pretty good at watching him for me.

    Parent
    system (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Nasarius on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:09:59 PM EST
    Edwards finished second in the state's leadoff precinct caucuses on Jan. 3, but those caucuses are only the first step in a complicated process of picking the state's 45 pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Denver in August.

    The next step in that process was Saturday with selection of delegates to congressional district and state conventions. Party officials said the results Saturday marked the election of 2,173 of the 2,500 delegates who will go to those convention.

    The county conventions are traditionally sleepy gatherings where party leaders have trouble gathering a quorum to conduct business, largely because the party usually has a nominee by this point. With the race still up for grabs, activists jammed school gymnasiums, auditoriums and meeting halls across the state.

    "Travesty" is the right word. Why does it have to be so needlessly complex? Caucus or primary, just vote and divide up the delegates that actually matter in proportion. What a mess.

    but these are PLEDGED delegates (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by Turkana on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:15:30 PM EST
    who are allowed to pick whomever they want (just so they pick the right guy!), as opposed to SUPER delegates, who must abide by the will of the pledged delegates!

    The Iowa caucus rules are the only ones (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:17:29 PM EST
    I've assimilated so far.  Looks to me like they can change their minds after the local caucuses.  Next:  state convention.  

    Parent
    as long as they pick obama (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Turkana on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:18:53 PM EST
    they're kosher.

    Parent
    watch your language here! (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:20:10 PM EST


    Parent
    Is there something wrong with saying (none / 0) (#65)
    by derridog on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:59:34 PM EST
    "kosher?"

    Parent
    Nope. My reply to one of Turkana's (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:03:03 PM EST
    comments was deleted earlier.  Just kidding.  

    Parent
    They can change their minds as many times (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:19:38 PM EST
    as they want. there is no such thing as a "pledged delegate."

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 7) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:18:11 PM EST
    The funniest thing is Edwards did not release his delegates.

    Weren't they supposed to stay pledged until he said otherwise?

    Parent

    you mean (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by Turkana on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:20:29 PM EST
    there are rules?

    Parent
    Actually (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:21:43 PM EST
    There aren't. but the "theory" of pledged delegates is that they are pledged until released.

    Parent
    from reading the blogs (5.00 / 6) (#37)
    by Turkana on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:26:06 PM EST
    i've figured out that pledged delegates cannot change their minds, unless they weren't for obama and switch to him.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:28:35 PM EST


    Parent
    Same w/DK diarists, I gather. (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:31:46 PM EST
    Why I Finally Am Convinced Obama is The One.

    Parent
    i just find it offensive (5.00 / 6) (#44)
    by Turkana on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:33:01 PM EST
    that anyone else had the temerity to run against him!

    Parent
    Of course... (none / 0) (#113)
    by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:46:17 PM EST
    OBAMA CAMP CRIES FOUL

    "The Obama campaign held a conference call to continue to pound the issue raised in the Politico article, that the Clinton campaign may decide to go after and try to sway pledged delegates...They called this a "disturbing pattern" and "grasping at straws;" that this is another example of a "say-or-do-anything-to-win tactic;"

    Parent

    Guess Paterson is hands off for Obama (none / 0) (#115)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:59:12 PM EST


    Parent
    Ummm Verrrr (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:21:21 PM EST
    Delegates, just doing what they want?  What's next?

    Parent
    Time to check back with my (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:22:55 PM EST
    anecdotal Iowa caucus goer, who voted for Edwards.  

    Parent
    As Hillary keeps pointing out (none / 0) (#34)
    by JoeA on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:23:33 PM EST
    pledged delegates are not committed to support their candidate . . . to expect 100% of them to stick with their candidate even though he has dropped out is not realistic.

    Especially when you consider that we are talking about hundreds and hundreds of caucus delegates just now,  as the actual Iowa delegates are still to be selected.

    Parent

    When Hillary points that out (5.00 / 10) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:25:55 PM EST
    she is accused of trying to steal delegates.

    that is what makes this entire episode a hoot.

    Parent

    Still, wiser not to be bringing it up. (none / 0) (#38)
    by JoeA on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:27:04 PM EST


    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:29:05 PM EST
    But the hysterics are hilarious.

    Parent
    Oh, don't back down now. (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:35:30 PM EST


    Parent
    He did (none / 0) (#74)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:06:50 PM EST
    By dropping out, it is my understanding all pledged delegates are automatically released.

    Parent
    You assume wrong (none / 0) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:18:44 PM EST
    They were free to bolt no matter what.

    You are also wrong in assuming Edwards released them. He suspended his campaign, he did not end it, PRECISELY to preserve his claim to these delegates.

    They bolted.

    Parent

    Hillary can knock herself (none / 0) (#98)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:51:46 PM EST
    out trying to poach Obama's delegates.....Edwards is no longer in the race.....There's a big difference between the two.

    Parent
    are these new Obama rules? (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:12:15 AM EST
    Delegates are of course free to change their votes, as are super delegates.

    When Obama's campaign was making noise about Clinton trying to steal their delegates, it was just a bunch of whining.

    Please don't invent new standards of ethics to suit your purpose...I'm not whining about the delegates movement today and I'm not suggesting that anything untoward or unfair happened in Iowa today. I even give props to Obama's campaign for their gains today.

    I do want to point out though, that the issue of transcendental politics has been rendered entirely moot.

    Parent

    They are pledged to a candidate (none / 0) (#18)
    by JoeA on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:18:08 PM EST
    who is no longer in the race.  As such they can now exercise their judgement.

    It looks like Obama's campaign have done a better job / they view Obama as the natural heir to Edwards / they are jumping on the "winning bandwagon,  or any/none of the above.

    Parent

    Um (5.00 / 7) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:19:02 PM EST
    So they are not pledged then? Edwards "suspended" his campaign and did not release his delegates.

    They broke their "pledge." Which is nonexistent anyway.

    Parent

    However "suspended" is a distinction (none / 0) (#35)
    by JoeA on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:25:26 PM EST
    without meaning,  unless there is a brokered convention and Hillary and Obama really do manage to nuke each other back to the stone ages.

    Parent
    Pledged dleegate is a distinction (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:27:42 PM EST
    without meaning. there are NO pledged delegates, as per the rules of the Democratic Party.

    That is the point here.

    Every delegate is free to exercise their independent judgment under the rules.

    Parent

    What happens in Iowa (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Coldblue on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:30:22 PM EST
    stays in Iowa.

    They'll show those upstarts in Las Vegas how to run a proper caucus...

    What are the other half waiting for? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:10:37 PM EST
    No better time than the present to go where ever they are going to go.

    They haven't yet realized they are the (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:15:53 PM EST
    ones they've been waiting for.  Kind of funny actually, but being a former Iowan, I recognize the stubborn resistance to the inevitable.  

    Parent
    I love your comment! Very funny. Thanks. (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by derridog on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:03:07 PM EST


    Parent
    They have been urged to stick (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by JoeA on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:16:17 PM EST
    with Edwards by people affiliated with his campaign,  presumably to give Edwards some leverage potentially at the convention or when he endorses.

    Parent
    Somehow I feel like that is a good thing (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:19:05 PM EST
    If there is a Democratic voice out there that I don't mind having some leverage at convention.......it's Edwards.

    Parent
    Can't disagree with you there. (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by JoeA on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:21:28 PM EST


    Parent
    Fragile? (none / 0) (#8)
    by almondwine on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:12:02 PM EST
    A 7% lead in pledged delegates is fragile?  Wow.  Usually when you're up by seven points in the current running total, you're considered in a relatively strong lead.

    Iowa delegates can flip again (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:40:07 PM EST
    at the next stage, as can delegates from other caucuses in other states.  Each stage starts over again.  You do understand that?

    If so, then you know that there is no 7% lead, there is no actual count of national delegates yet, etc., because final counts from caucus states of national delegates are far from done yet.

    And so the candidate most reliant on caucuses this year is the candidate with the most unreliable delegate count so far.  So it goes with one of the great risks of Obama's caucus strategy.

    The super-delegates understand this, anyway, even if you do not.

    Parent

    Lazy writing on the wires (none / 0) (#9)
    by dmk47 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:14:36 PM EST
    Yeah, the delegate lead seems to be about the only certain outcome. The popular vote lead is what's fragile.

    Parent
    You mean lazy commenting no? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:16:52 PM EST


    Parent
    In the pledged delegate lead? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:16:34 PM EST
    Oh that seems assured.

    In the DELEGATE LEAD? Not so much.

    Did you read delegate lead to mean "pledged delegate lead?"

    I wonder why? Maybe you need to brush up on the rules of delegate selection.

    Parent

    I think you are right that they meant (none / 0) (#27)
    by JoeA on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:20:22 PM EST
    delegates,  i.e. pledged and super.

    His pledged and overall delegate lead looks less fragile when you consider that superdelegates have been splitting 5-1 for Obama since Super Tuesday.

    Parent

    They WROTE delegates (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:22:36 PM EST
    Which is exactly what they meant.

    The parent comment in this subthread is absurd.

    Parent

    Correct (none / 0) (#110)
    by Dancing Bear on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:29:58 PM EST
    Especially Super Delegates being threatened by Jessie Jackson Junior with community uproar if they vote for anybody but Barack.
    Let's not forget Florida and Michigan either.  They, despite one candidates views do still count.  Or they will eventually and the great big lead everybody keeps speaking of becomes an actual deficit.  You, know, the will of the people.  Delegates, popular vote.  
    The Super Delegates are Super interested in being elected or being popular.  Flavor of the month people no matter who they are for.
    I won't be too hard on them though because they will be deciding this mess anyhow.

    Parent
    Also, if you don't mind, BTD (none / 0) (#20)
    by sas on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:18:49 PM EST
    (it is a little off topic), in regard to Pelosi comments:  what are you thinking of her comments on the impossibility of the C/O or O/C dream ticket.

    With the delegate totals so close, and no one getting to the 2105, I can't see any other way to keep this party together.

    I wrote a post on it (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:20:02 PM EST
    Ripped her for it.

    Parent
    It's ironic that (none / 0) (#45)
    by JoeA on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:33:16 PM EST
    Obama will probably net 7 delegates from the decisions of a few hundred Edwards delegates,  and this is almost as many as Clinton netted from the whole state of Ohio.

    I agree with BTD that it does show how undemocratic and to a degree farcical the Democratic nomination system is,  but at least for this cycle you're stuck with it.

    I also think it does illustrate how steep a hill Clinton has to climb.  

    I actually disagree (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:35:22 PM EST
    I think it demonstrates how empty the pledged delegate concept of legitimacy is and opens the door for the popular vote argument of nomination legitimacy.

    Parent
    What do you think of Mark Schmidt's (none / 0) (#48)
    by JoeA on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:38:40 PM EST
    theory that "uncertainty" is the Clinton campaigns ally,  and that either revotes,  or counting existing delegates will actually work against them by closing off paths to the nomination?

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:40:14 PM EST
    I responded to Mark's critique of my post.

    I guess no one saw it.

    Parent

    Actually, didn't you "rip" Schmidt also? (none / 0) (#94)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:31:57 PM EST


    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:37:35 PM EST


    Parent
    Made me look. (none / 0) (#99)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:52:56 PM EST


    Parent
    According to Chuck Todd of MSNBC (none / 0) (#51)
    by JoeA on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:40:26 PM EST
    the final totals from this stage leave Obama up 7 from 16 to 23,  Clinton up 1 from 15 to 16,  and Edwards down 8 from 14 to 6.

    Parent
    So Clinton did not lose a delegate? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:41:36 PM EST
    That seemed to be a ridiculous result.

    Parent
    I know. (none / 0) (#71)
    by JoeA on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:05:33 PM EST
    I saw that in the un-updated version of Justwinbaby's diary over at Dailykos here
    The only way that would have made sense in my mind was if Clinton delegates were defecting or not turning up in the same numbers as Obama's.   Even then at least some Edwards delegates were going to go Clinton's way so he actually losing a delegate always seemed a bit far-fetched.

    Parent
    I saw another AP report that has Clinton up 2 (none / 0) (#120)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:44:05 PM EST
    delegates in Iowa from this stage.

    The national media simply have not done their homework on the caucus process, still reporting each stage as the final one, yet with several stages to go.  And they can't even agree on the count today.

    I'm waiting (it's not up yet) for the Des Moines Register report on this -- and that it's still waiting is telling, isn't it?  Best bet always is the local media; they understand their states' processes, and they wait to get it right.

    Parent

    "Bolt" is kind of a strong word (none / 0) (#49)
    by rdandrea on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:40:10 PM EST
    Don't you think?  Maybe Obama just appealed to more delegates than his opposition.

    1200 people in an Iowa H.S. gym (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:58:03 PM EST
    playing Red Rover, Come Over.

    Parent
    Um (none / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:40:46 PM EST
    Whatever. Bolt is what they did.

    Parent
    Yep, you're right.--whatever. (none / 0) (#59)
    by rdandrea on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:46:23 PM EST
    Delegates are delegates.

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:04:20 PM EST
    All of them are just delegates, free to exercise their independent judgment as they wish, according to the rules. There is no such thing as a pledged delegate.

    Parent
    I read his campaign started courting (none / 0) (#55)
    by JoeA on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:41:47 PM EST
    Edwards delegates in Iowa 2 weeks ago,  and Clinton only 1 week ago.

    Also, apart from issues,  there could well be an element of bandwagon jumping.  The momentum,  at least delegate wise is definitely with Obama.

    Parent

    I had a vision of the deer... (none / 0) (#73)
    by kredwyn on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:06:44 PM EST
    headed for the backyard/woods after I get out of the car.

    Now they bolt.

    Parent

    Does (none / 0) (#53)
    by sas on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:41:23 PM EST
    anyone think the popular vote total should enter into this process of deciding the nominee?

    That is, do you think super delegates will pay attention to it , after all is sadi and done in June in Puerto Rico?

    See countless earlier threads on this. (none / 0) (#80)
    by JoeA on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:18:59 PM EST
    Virtually all Clinton supporters do,  as do most Obama supporters that are posting on here and most neutrals.

    I think it will potentially be a consideration,  however Obama currently has a c. 1,000,000 popular vote lead according to Mark Schmidt if you exclude FL and MI.  The overall PV is only going to come into it if Clinton starts posting some big wins to show that she is likely to pull back even or ahead.  Otherwise I can see Superdelegates bringing it to a de facto close.

    Parent

    Did you see where Newsweek (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:54:55 PM EST
    posted a retraction on Jonathan Alter's numbers?  It was in small print at the front where no one would really see it...as opposed to his original article, "Hillary Needs to Get Out Now," which apparently was based on those faulty numbers.

    Still waiting for the "Hillary Needs to Stay In Now" headline...

    Parent

    I missed that. (none / 0) (#101)
    by JoeA on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:57:38 PM EST
    If the popular vote lead is only what, 800,000?

    The nomination is practically in the bag for Hillary then!

    Parent

    Big "if." (none / 0) (#89)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:28:03 PM EST


    Parent
    A trend confirmed by Al Giordano (none / 0) (#92)
    by JoeA on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:31:33 PM EST
    at The Field,

    Democratic Party leaders (including those formerly supporting John Edwards) are coalescing overwhelmingly behind Obama.


    Parent
    Fragile lead? (none / 0) (#56)
    by Chango on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:42:55 PM EST
    How about "mathematically unbeatable lead"?

    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:43:30 PM EST
    You are bad at math I see.

    Parent
    No Quarter (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:48:16 PM EST
    has an interesting math rundown.  Apparently, if either Clinton or Obama got all the remaining unpledged super d's to themselves, neither could win the magic number for the nomination.

    I expect to see this all over the MSM by noon tomorrow.

    Parent

    Presumably that would involve (none / 0) (#75)
    by JoeA on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:07:09 PM EST
    assuming that none of the remaining contests took place and no more pledged delegates were allocated?

    An unlikely scenario.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#72)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:05:52 PM EST
    surely you must concede, given a certain set of assumptions that may or may not be valid, it is IMPOSSIBLE for Hillary to win.

    Parent
    My brain hurts. (none / 0) (#77)
    by JoeA on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:08:09 PM EST


    Parent
    Oh, I forgot! (none / 0) (#109)
    by Chango on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:29:35 PM EST
    Hillary can win if she takes all the remaining contests by 30% or so  My bad.  

    Parent
    Obama can't win either... (none / 0) (#114)
    by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:58:32 PM EST
    ...simply based on 'pledged' delegates...

    Parent
    I've not seen that claimed anywhere (none / 0) (#81)
    by JoeA on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:20:06 PM EST
    before.  Very unlikely, perhaps.  A steep uphill battle maybe.  

    Parent
    Ridiculous (none / 0) (#58)
    by Korha on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:44:05 PM EST
    I agree 100%.

    However, in reaction to some comments above, it looks like Obama will probably win the overall popular vote in addition to the pledged delegates (not counting Michigan). So Obama is still the frontrunner for the nomination by any measure.

    Of course he is the frontrunner (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:49:31 PM EST


    Parent
    Please. Anything but the truth. (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:58:57 PM EST


    Parent
    There's not many claiming otherwise (none / 0) (#83)
    by JoeA on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:22:22 PM EST
    at least unless their name is Mark Penn.

    Though there were a couple of Clinton supporters on here who got a bit carried away in the wake of Ohio and thought it was all downhill from there for Obama and that Clinton was a lock.

    It's still far from over though.

    Parent

    Especially given the current news cycle. (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Dancing Bear on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:44:01 PM EST
    You see a few things have happened in the last few days/weeks Like the NAFTA thing, The Rezko trial and all the stuff coming out, The Reverend.  

    A few things that have made a few headlines that won't include MSM ass kissing of Barack.  They are getting ugly with him generally and Chris Mathews said it was over for him.

     Not that his opinion means much but given his legs tingle when Barack walks by perhaps we should wait a day or two before we have his celebration party. Maybe all the real stuff about him will actually make it out where people can hear about it.

    Super Delegates don't like Racist Reverends or money/Politics connections. They are too scared of being associated with corruption. Geeze at least somebody is.

    Parent

    This in no way could be a consequence... (none / 0) (#82)
    by jor on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:22:01 PM EST
    ... of hillary's campaign repeatedly disparaging caucuses and small states. It probably doesn't matter in primaries, but it does among people who vote in these convoluted things.

    I don't think ordinary voters really care about this caucas vs. primary thing. Its clear that this strategy for hillary is aimed at super delegates. It  seems though, they forgot that it could come and bite them in the ass with pledged delegates that still have to be fully assigned.

    Yup, those Iowans especially love their (none / 0) (#84)
    by JoeA on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:23:19 PM EST
    caucuses.  It encourages retail politics don't you know (apparently!).

    Parent
    Doesn't explain why they didn't stay... (none / 0) (#86)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:24:13 PM EST
    ...with Edwards.

    Parent
    They decided they wanted to be relevant (none / 0) (#102)
    by JoeA on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:58:41 PM EST
    and support the next president of the United States?

    Parent
    Oh the arrogance (none / 0) (#105)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:10:03 PM EST


    Parent
    Pride (none / 0) (#106)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:12:09 PM EST
    meet fall.

    Or is it Spring?

    Parent

    I object! (none / 0) (#116)
    by Dancing Bear on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:59:29 PM EST
    I care hugely.  Caucuses are the single stupidest thing I have ever heard of Politically in my life.  

    Who gets to participate?  People who can take the day off and people who can stand in line for four hours playing Hackie Sack?  I quite frankly don't want them picking my President.

     Let the people who work and the people who have supported the Democratic Party vote for the Democratic Presidential nominee.  Not unemployed slackers or people who can afford to take a day off.  

    That doesn't reflect our parties major support.  Older people, hard working people living hand to mouth can scarcely take half a day to fight with big mouthed children in Community College over who should run our country.

    Any state that has more animals than people do so for a reason. Either nobody wants to live there or the people who moved there are extreme and isolate themselves from society.  That's fine but they can elect their local officials and not determine the Presidential race for 300 million people. Iowa does not nor will it ever reflect me or any of the other states I have lived in.  New York, Tennessee, California, Virginia, Connecticut.
    Caucuses don't reflect the will of the people.  They reflect the will of the people who can participate and make it impossible for the bulk of even small states to attend.

    It takes over 11,000 people in California to seat a delegate yet only 800 in Wyoming. I lived in Wyoming. If I did currently I still would not be able to take a day off to caucus.

    The small states will go Republican anyway.  They always have. So when somebody gets the most votes that will never get heard they really aren't winning the race. Maybe the battle, just not the race.

    Parent

    New York has more animals than people (none / 0) (#121)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:50:00 PM EST
    too, you know.   Beware assumptions.  There are more rats in New York City alone than you know (see the book Rats -- amazingly engaging!).  Add in all the poodles on Park Avenue plus the breed-of-the-month in Soho; add in all the other pet dogs, cats, hamster, gerbils, birds, bunnies, etc., and there's serious competition vs. the number of cows and chickens in Iowa. :-)

    Parent
    you are not... (none / 0) (#135)
    by jor on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:12:06 PM EST
    .. a normal voter. Sorry! Neither am I. By sheer fact we are discussing politics on a blog.

    Parent
    If it hasn't already been said let me be the first (none / 0) (#85)
    by Ellie on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:24:05 PM EST
    SOME people say America's not ready for democracy.

    you know the more I look at the way (none / 0) (#90)
    by Florida Resident on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:30:02 PM EST
    the Democratic party runs it presidential candidate selection process makes me wonder if they took the electoral college as a guide.

    will of the people (none / 0) (#95)
    by diogenes on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:32:56 PM EST
    Obama beat Hillary soundly in the caucus and now has a large majority of the Iowa delegates.  What's the problem here?

    Well (none / 0) (#103)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:01:42 PM EST
    Obama beat Clinton by 9% on election night.  Yet he now has 21% more delegates than Clinton at the state level.

    In Marshall County, Obama won approximately twice as many delegates on election night as Clinton.  He now has three times as many delegates from that county.

    In Pocahontas County, Clinton won approximately twice as many delegates on election night as Obama.  They are now tied.

    That's the will of the people, baby!  Because if you finish a few percentage points ahead on election night, OBVIOUSLY you should get massively more delegates than the other candidate, completely out of proportion to the size of your victory.

    What's the problem, indeed?  Only a whiny Clinton supporter could see this as an absurd system.

    Parent

    Yeah...But... (none / 0) (#107)
    by steve503 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:19:16 PM EST
    They were all playing by the same rules weren't they? It could easily have been the other way around. The rules may be crazy or stupid, but if they apply to everybody then...seems like it's fair.

    Parent
    Fair, yes (none / 0) (#108)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:33:38 PM EST
    Also quite silly.  Hence the original post by BTD.

    Parent
    Witness Nevada... (none / 0) (#117)
    by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:01:05 PM EST
    ...Clinton more of the popular vote, Obama more delegates.

    Will of the people when it's in Obama's favor.  When it's not, tough noogies.

    Parent

    Wow (none / 0) (#118)
    by Dancing Bear on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:03:09 PM EST
    Yeah, of the 40,000 people who voted he got the most.  I have 45,ooo people who work where I do. 5,000 more people work with me than voted in the entire state of Iowa.

    Next question?

    Parent

    I just (none / 0) (#97)
    by tek on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:40:25 PM EST
    read in MSM that "about half of Edwards' delegates went to Obama."  And I thought, okay, so at least 1/2 of them went to Clinton, right?  Framing, framing, framing!

    Heh (none / 0) (#104)
    by JoeA on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:03:12 PM EST
    Yeah,  about half went to Obama, half stayed with Edwards, and 1 went to Clinton.  As you say, framing.  Clinton has managed to keep the overall press narrative about the contest still being "close" and "neck and neck",  so the press are ignoring the fact that Superdelegates,  and Edwards delegates seem to be coalescing around Obama.  Hillary needs to arrest this momentum now,  but I just don't see how she does it without Obama imploding.  Unless the controversy surrounding he who must not be named or Rezko actually gets some traction then I really think she is toast.  Someone (maybe Halperin) was saying that time was on Clinton's side given the gap until PA,  I'm not sure that's really the case,  if anything he has it the wrong way round.

    Parent
    those durned caucases (none / 0) (#111)
    by Miss Devore on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:42:58 PM EST
    never heard "dem" bloggers gripe much about them until now.

    And I thought you a fatihful reader of mine (none / 0) (#127)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:17:23 AM EST
    Course you probably are saying I am not a Dem blogger.

    Parent
    Ha. Ms. Devore is honoring the (none / 0) (#129)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:30:42 AM EST
    no profanity rule of TL.

    Parent
    nah (none / 0) (#133)
    by Miss Devore on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:15:54 AM EST
    I glaze over those endless responses to Broder.

    Parent
    I've been griping about them forever (none / 0) (#128)
    by shoephone on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:23:18 AM EST
    because they are not legitimate representations of registered voters in a state. And I couldn't care less what those other Dem bloggers you've conjured up think about that.

    The only reason the Democratic Party of Washington State supports caucuses is because they claim to fear the mischief of an open primary (we do not require party registration here, and the state supreme court upheld that notion). Unfortunately, they don't address the fact that mischief happens in caucuses as well.

    But it's no surprise the state's League of Women Voters is strongly and consistently opposed to caucuses.

    Gee. Imagine that. A longtime voting rights organization opposing wholesale disenfranchisement of voters.  Who coulda figured?

    Parent

    BTD, I see my old friend (none / 0) (#123)
    by riddlerandy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:27:49 AM EST
    Teresa Vilmain was doing the same thing for Hillary, altho without her usual success.

    Altho I do get your bigger point about caucuses generally.

    When I used to live in Iowa, I thought they were quaint.  I understand the concern about them now

    my comments are being erased again (none / 0) (#124)
    by Miss Devore on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:54:24 AM EST
    and I was so careful not to use vulgarity, or go against any of your rules.

    apparently, comments that imply that HRC pissed off AA's that were initially behind her are not allowed here.

    push comes to shove. Hillary must be elected so her supporters must censor.

    I can't believe you folks get paid more than me. Oh wait, I can. You have kissed more glutei maximus than moi.

    and you are not even clever or funny.

    Not by me (none / 0) (#126)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:16:36 AM EST
    So I  have no idea what your transgression was.

    I can tell you what the one is in this comment, whining about getting deleted.

    Write an e-mail next time.

    Parent

    re: "apparently, comments that imply" (none / 0) (#130)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:32:50 AM EST
    The comment I saw didn't imply, it stated.

    Parent
    As though... (none / 0) (#131)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:28:46 AM EST
    "Hillary must be elected so her supporters must censor"

    Not sure you should be so presumptuous as to believe your comment had any bearing on the outcome of an election.  I'm sure there are plenty of other good reasons why you may have been scrubbed...

    Parent

    huh? (none / 0) (#132)
    by Miss Devore on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:50:29 AM EST
    I said that at the beginning of the campaign, Hillary had the AA vote behind here. Then she lost it when she and her husband denigrated Obama's success.

    "Not sure you should be so presumptuous as to believe your comment had any bearing on the outcome of an election."

    I don't get this at all.

    "I'm sure there are plenty of other good reasons why you may have been scrubbed..."

    and what makes you so sure?


    Parent

    Edward's endorsement (none / 0) (#134)
    by glennmcgahee on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:40:35 AM EST
    Mentioned on the Sunday am Chris Mathews show in the segment, "Tell me something I don't know" included that according to Mark Halperin, John Edwards will be endorsing a candidate before the North carolina Primary and that he will endorse Hillary Clinton.
    I pray this is true.

    Edwards Delegates Bolt To Obama In Iowa | 135 comments (135 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment