home

Endorsing The Tweety Solution For MI/FL

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:00:11 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

On Hardball, Tweety Matthews came up with this novel solution for Michigan and Florida:

Both candidates agree to full revotes in Michigan and Florida and both candidates agree that the winner of the national popular vote will be the nominee of the Democratic Party.

I second that motion Chris. Tweety thinks Hillary would turn that down. He is so wrong. She would take it in a heartbeat. OBAMA will say no no no to that one Tweety.

< If The Dem Race Goes To The Convention, It Will Be Obama's Doing | SUSA Polls on Electability >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Endorsing The Tweety Solution For MI/FL | 156 comments (156 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Obama has been the one to frame the pledged (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by tandem5 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:05:15 PM EST
    delegate count as "the will." If anybody is against the national popular vote metric its Obama.

    agreed (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by heineken1717 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:11:08 PM EST
    Obama loves that Hillary won New Hampshire, Nevada, and Texas, but didn't win the delegates. Obama loves that his Idaho win cancelled out Hillary's New Jersey win. The delegates go against the will of the people, which is perfect for him since his bubble has burst and his campaign is crashing down.

    Parent
    And winning Idaho in November (none / 0) (#141)
    by shoephone on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:58:07 PM EST
    is such a shoo-in for the Democrats.

    NOT.

    Parent

    Look at the numbers... (none / 0) (#175)
    by ROK on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:31:42 AM EST
    With FL and MI as is, he is still winning the popular vote.

    Parent
    I don't see how that fact impacts (none / 0) (#181)
    by tandem5 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:25:10 PM EST
    the truth of my original comment.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#182)
    by ROK on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:18:13 PM EST
    Obama might be framing the del count as the "will", but when he's winning the popular vote as well (and probably will hold it) it simply does not matter how he's framing it.

    So, he has the popular vote and delegate count. What does Hillary have that gives her the right to claim that she has that "will"?

    Parent

    but again I don't understand how that impacts my (none / 0) (#183)
    by tandem5 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:47:39 PM EST
    original comment - especially now that you admit the possibility that it is true that he "might be framing the del count as the 'will'."

    It does matter how he is framing it when it comes to the context of the topic of the larger thread which is that Chris Matthews assumed that Clinton and not Obama would be opposed to solely considering the popular vote total in determining the nomination. It may be ultimately irrelevant, as you point out, in the end, but it doesn't change the inherent strategies that each candidate has taken in proving their claim to the nomination and my point of contention was simply that Matthews essentially assigned the wrong strategy to the wrong candidate.

    Parent

    Why did he question if Hillary would take it? (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by TalkRight on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:06:59 PM EST
    but never questioned if Obama would have the guts to take it...

    Because He Doesn't Know What He's Talking About (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by BDB on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:14:50 PM EST
    Tweety is an idiot.  This is a good idea, but he's only proposing it because he has no idea of what is actually going on in the campaign or the world generally.  

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:18:52 PM EST
    Which is why if I was the Clinton campaign I would shame him with it.

    Parent
    It's just so ridiculous (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by dk on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:30:34 PM EST
    because that was always the Obama strategy because it mirrors what Axelrod did for Deval in Massachusetts.  He worked the state Democratic convention delegates to endorse Deval Patrick before the primary as a way to give him more credibility against the state attorney general, who was, at first, the establishment candidate.

    This whole delegate game and being too clever by half with the rules, that is how Axelrod plays.  Now, on the one hand I guess I can't condemn him for it, because pretty much that's just politics.  But when you see the media being so clueless (or willfully blind, as long as the alternative is Hillary), it boggles the mind.

    Parent

    Because Tweety (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:28:09 PM EST
    suffers from a terminal case of Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

    Parent
    Because his audience would freak (none / 0) (#133)
    by catfish on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:34:42 PM EST
    this was his way of siding up to making the case for Hillary before his audience was ready for it.

    Parent
    How accurate are the estimates (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Manuel on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:07:05 PM EST
    for caucus states where the total isn't available?  And what would you use for WA?  What is the margin of error in the PV calculation?
    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:08:25 PM EST
    We do not need estimates. The actual votes are available in Iowa and Nevada and Washington primary.

    Maine is the only open issue, but the Maine Dem Party says it knows how many people voted so they should have the votes too.

    Parent

    RCP (none / 0) (#20)
    by Manuel on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:21:02 PM EST
    It would be nice if RCP had figures with the WA Primary.

    Parent
    They accept that their nuimber is (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:24:44 PM EST
    overstated by 50k.

    Parent
    This is the main concern with the popular vote but (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by tandem5 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:27:03 PM EST
    one can certainly make a very educated estimate with Caucuses included.

    It has always been by contention that if there is a difference in outcome between the popular vote and the pledged delegate count - that's when super delegate discretion should truly be utilized. I can't think of a more valid reason for super delegates to stop and evaluate the big picture.

    Of course if I could overhaul the whole selection process I would have all the states hold their elections on the same day and use the overall popular vote as the deciding factor (no delegates) - How anti-republic of me.

    Parent

    Obama won the WA primary too. n/t (none / 0) (#142)
    by shoephone on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:00:23 PM EST


    Parent
    Barely over 50%. (none / 0) (#170)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:54:54 AM EST
    Nowhere's near the ratio at the caucuses...which have yet to play out, delegatewise.

    Parent
    I would accept that (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:08:13 PM EST
    and agree with BTD's analysis.

    Me too n/t (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Coldblue on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:10:22 PM EST


    Parent
    I would too (5.00 / 6) (#45)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:49:27 PM EST
    Olbermann is on TV right now complaining about how Clinton is still trying to get a re-vote in MI "just to make Obama look bad."

    Yeah, Keith, and your point is?

    Olbermann covers the DKos writers' strike next.

    Parent

    I no longer subject myself to Olbermann (5.00 / 6) (#46)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:51:22 PM EST
    And I've given up tilting at windmills on dkos, though I'm not on any kind of strike.

    Markos's pronouncement that the diaries there are now as good as he's ever seen. . . wow. NO COMMENT.

    Parent

    I haven't been tilting (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by Lahdee on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:59:51 PM EST
    windmills over a orange, but I have stopped going over for everything except the community stuff and even then there's a measure of dailyobama.

    Yep, and Olbermann is starting to concern me. Just exactly what about "Politics" pisses you off Keith?

    Parent

    Check out Alexa (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Gabriele Droz on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:49:51 PM EST
    http://alexa.com

    and do a search on Daily Kos, to see where this is going.

    Parent

    interesting (none / 0) (#147)
    by white n az on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:17:10 PM EST
    seems to be tracking Obama numbers and the economy...

    Parent
    I watch Olbermann only occasionally now (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:01:07 PM EST
    I was hoping to hear something on McCain, and he did cover McCain's continued -- and possibly deliberate, rather than demented -- conflation of Al Qaeda and "other extremists" being trained by Iran to go into Iraq.

    I didn't pay attention to most of the rest of it.

    Parent

    Wow, I missed the reference to kos (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:02:47 PM EST
    He actually said the diaries at Orange are as good as they've ever been?  Wow, they must have gotten a whole lot better in the last four weeks, because last time I tried to get passed the titles on the rec list, I became nauseated.

    Parent
    Kos being, ahem. . . (5.00 / 5) (#61)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:04:32 PM EST
    here

    this last week has been the most consistently good the diaries have been on the site, perhaps ever. I don't say that lightly. In fact, I've never said that before. It's been positively incredible and, to be honest, humbling for me that so many incredible writers and thinkers have decided to share their wit and wisdom with this community.



    Parent
    Is that a not so (5.00 / 6) (#75)
    by leis on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:23:24 PM EST
    subtle slam against Alegre? And people really think anybody NOT in the tank for Obama is going to go back to that site after the primary is over?  

    Parent
    Yes, Kos thinks the scab diaries (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:46:52 PM EST
    are better than the union's.

    Because whatever they say, they are pro-Obama.

    Parent

    It's far more damaging (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:54:26 PM EST
    if we just take him at his word. Kos's taste is so bad that he thinks these diaries are good.

    heh.

    Parent

    Wow (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by akaEloise on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:48:06 PM EST
    You found a whole paragraph in which Kos didn't mention his forthcoming book.  That's hard work!

    Parent
    Kos is an O-list blogger now. (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:07:53 PM EST
    Yuck.

    Parent
    I don't care a fig about Kos (none / 0) (#99)
    by zyx on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:00:03 PM EST
    but Jon Swift sure did write a good one about him and his.

    Carved up Kos but good with a rapier.  I like that sort of thing.

    Parent

    He's Pandering (none / 0) (#159)
    by Commander Vimes on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:05:24 PM EST
    He's pandering to get his 'hits' up.  What a crock, i quit that place long ago when he did a misogynist hit piece against another blogger.

    Parent
    I found that quite amazing also. (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:35:24 PM EST


    Parent
    You saw that? (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Joelarama on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:29:48 AM EST
    Best diaries ever?  I just said "wow."  Man, it sounds like a Tony Snow press conference.  This is Bush-level denial.

    The sheep who are the most active users at Daily Kos may eat that up.  But no one who is "reality-based" will buy it.  If there's anyone left.  

    Parent

    HE IS OFF MY TIVO (none / 0) (#93)
    by delandjim on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:54:28 PM EST
    I put him on tivo in 2004 I took him off last week. I can't stand him and it took up memory on tivo.

    MSNBC doesn't even hide how much they love Obama. Amazingly  Scarborough is not too bad and the new one with David Gregory isn't too bad. Although Rachel Maddow doesn't hide Obamania.Too bad I really her.

    Parent

    I've never been comfortable ... (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:10:57 PM EST
    with Olbermann.  He's always been too hot for the media, in my opinion.  And though I sometimes agreed with him his mix of Walter Winchell and Howard Beale rubbed me the wrong way.

    Plus his show isn't journalism.  It's just a lazy clip show.  Most of the show is taken up with promos of things he's going to do in a few minutes, and cheaply made bumpers.  And then there's the endless videos of monkeys riding dogs or whatever.

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by zyx on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:11:51 PM EST
    In January my cable company dropped MSNBC from my midlevel package, along with one or two others I haven't missed.  I was kind of upset for a couple of weeks.  Then I read about how Matthews and Olbermann were covering the campaign, Chris's thrill up his leg, the guys sitting with their arms crossed and big scowls on Clinton-win days...screw 'em.  I'm not paying twelve bucks more a month for that.

    Parent
    Same here...don't miss it. n/t (none / 0) (#172)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:02:01 AM EST


    Parent
    yeah that was pretty silly (none / 0) (#140)
    by commonscribe on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:57:47 PM EST

    unless he was referring to the smattering of non-candidate diaries somehow slipping through... but I think not.

    Parent

    Olbermann is complaining... (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:43:50 AM EST

    Olbermann is on TV right now complaining about how Clinton is still trying to get a re-vote in MI "just to make Obama look bad."

    Isn't that what political opponents are supposed to do? And even if that is her reason it's still the right thing to do. If someone does the right thing for the wrong reason and it causes a good result for the people, that's fine with me.

    Olbermann has become a total doofus.

     

    Parent

    I jumped for joy when I heard him (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by jes on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:54:05 PM EST
    say it. I can't believe Rachael Maddow thinks he is so astute. More kissing the ring, I suppose.

    Parent
    TV jerks (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by TalkRight on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:25:09 PM EST
    First the KO on MSNBC is just full of @@@ and now..
    Rolin Martin on CNN answering how does Obama defend against 527 bringing his Rev Pastor:

    Well I think democrats will bring in the point that pastor who endorsed McCains is against Catholics

    I think I should take the plug off this cable.. and save myself the pain and monthly bill!

    had the same thought re: cable (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:57:43 PM EST
    but baseball starts not a moment too soon! lol!~

    MSNBC is OFF my watch list though.

    on McCain's anti-Catholic pastor, the Catholics seem to not have a problem voting for Clinton  ;)

    Parent

    It was rowdy (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:13:37 PM EST
    Those guys were pissing Roland off.  Campbell Brown had to cut it off.  She looked really uncomfortable.  It was jarring.

    Parent
    1 hour Andersoon Cooper with Obama (none / 0) (#130)
    by TalkRight on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:30:21 PM EST
    what's the point???????

    FREE RIDE I GUESS


    Parent
    Something else not to watch, Thanks :-) (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:33:32 PM EST


    Parent
    Anderson is traveling (none / 0) (#149)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:30:49 PM EST
    with Obama now.  CNN takes care of their guy.  They have a rough time when he's not doing well.  Jack has to post loaded ticker questions for his crowd to respond to so he can read Hillary-hate on his show.  Somehow not even that cheers him up.

    Parent
    It's just as bad (none / 0) (#35)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:35:46 PM EST
    on satellite. :-)

    Parent
    I wish I'd been sitting on a towel when (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:26:09 PM EST
    I read that.  Holy crap, talk about a total disconnect--unless, could it be...has Tweety turned into a Clinton supporter?  Otherwise, what a freakin' idiot.  I'm sure Obama won't answer the bat phone after the show tonight to tell Chrissy what a wonderful job he's doing.

    This would be a pot o' gold for Clinton.

    It was his way (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:09:57 PM EST
    He thinks Obama should give her the option as a way to shut her up.

    Parent
    Obama doesn't hand out the options (none / 0) (#155)
    by Friday on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:49:51 PM EST
    or make the rules. He's running in the same race and agreed to the same rules as Hillary.

    It's just that Hillary is 200 delegates behind and won't be able to get the nomination without a couple of massive wins in late-stage do-overs.

    Parent

    142 delegates...actually (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:07:46 PM EST
    according to the CNN count.

    Parent
    A lead of 171 in pledged (none / 0) (#179)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:11:47 PM EST
    delegates according to the site you link to....I was surprised it was so high.....It was a lead of 159 in pledged delegates before Ohio and Texas....Obama has gained ground....

    Your number takes into account the Super Delegates...

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by echinopsia on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:11:29 AM EST
    She could take it to the convention and win on superds. Just like Obama will have to do, no matter how many delegates they get between now and then.

    Parent
    I still think (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:40:09 PM EST
    Revotes 4 months after when the votes were supposed to take place are a bigger betrayal of the rules than votes that took place 5 days sooner than they were supposed to.

    Florida seems in the mood to have Jan. 29 count.

    They'll vote again if they have to, but I guess it's not their first choice in all this.

    revotes are the only way to do it (none / 0) (#143)
    by commonscribe on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:00:37 PM EST

    if this is really about the voters speaking, revotes are the only way.


    Parent
    Perhaps dancing with Ellen (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:46:23 PM EST
    made Tweety realize that we need a woman president?

    Or, alternatively, Tweety is so sure that everyone hates Hillary as much as he does that he thinks there's no way she'll win the popular vote.

    Or, alternatively, he mixed up popular vote and delegate count. You know, like McCain mixed up Al Qaeda and Iraqi extremists.

    I don't think Clinton should agree (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Foxx on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:53:59 PM EST
    I want the super delegates to have complete freedom. Suppose Obama leads slightly in one calculation of the popular vote but is tanking so badly in the polls it is clear he cannot win?

    Also of course, everyone would have to agree on how to caluclate the popular vote. Good luck.

    Popular Vote and PA (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by PennProgressive on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:01:07 PM EST
    Of  course Hillary will accept this.Clintoncamp is  focusing more and more on popular vote. This afternoon in Wilkes Barre (Northeastern PA)Bill Clinton said that a solid victory in Pennsylvania will be critical since that will help her significantly to be  the popular vote winner.

    Also, perhaps  it is  not OT ( I apologize if it  is) the rally with  Bill Clinton had a significant number of African American voters in attendance. We spoke  to some of them. Thhey are very strong Hillary supporter. So Clinton's AA support in PA as reported by PPP and noted in TL last night may be  real.

    Governor Bredesen of Tennessee just offered (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Dancing Bear on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:01:08 PM EST
    a Super Delegate  pre-convention where they basically discuss the implications and decide how to settle Florida and Michigan. Rather than just the DNC who would not represent the will of the people who already voted.

    He is uncommitted even though Tennessee went totally for Hillary.

    His argument is that if Supers vote for who won their areas and the uncommitted weigh in it would still be the will of the people without favoring one over the other. Like a Super caucus to decide how to handle FL and MI.

    Little sketchy on the details because Cambell Brown kept interupting and shooting everything he said down. Was that Kool- aid in her cup? I don't know.  But it made sense and I hope BTD sees this because I am not a real fact monger and he is.

    It seemed to make sense though,  plus I live in Nashville and it would be cool to have here. Large AA population, blue dot in red state.  Diverse.

    Oh, and Al Gore lives right down the street from (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Dancing Bear on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:14:30 PM EST
    me and many Dems are waiting for him to weigh in.

    Parent
    Bredesen better be a HC SD after the (none / 0) (#74)
    by Teresa on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:23:06 PM EST
    strong vote she had here.

    Before I say hi to you, are you a Vol or a 'Dore? :) (I'm all Vol)

    Parent

    I'm a Dore,lol. (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Dancing Bear on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:31:17 PM EST
    I work at Vanderbilt. But you can't live in TN and not be a Vol also.

    I think he will come out for HRC but I think that many of them will do so in a block to show support the way all the AA ones crossed over or renegged on her to support BO.

    We are a 4 seed in mens and women's NCAA. The ladies kicked our behinds but we beat Bruce Pearl in Nashville. Do you think Bruce and Pat Summit are an item?

    Al Gore needs to speak up.  People from the party begged him to run so I think many will listen. He went to Vandy,lol.

    Parent

    Just teasing you. I live in Knoxville so I (none / 0) (#80)
    by Teresa on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:37:10 PM EST
    have to be a Vol plus I was born with orange blood.

    I go back and forth with Gore. At first, I thought for sure he'd endorse Obama but now I don't think he'd approve of leaving out MI and FL. I guess he is working behind the scenes to come up with some plan.

    Good luck in the tourney! I'll be pulling for all SEC teams. And Bruce and Pat are just really good friends.

    I hope BTD gives us a tournament open thread the next few days (hint).

    Parent

    Another couple of Vols? (none / 0) (#144)
    by TN Dem on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:03:14 PM EST
    I'm in Maynardville...small world!

    Parent
    Long-suffering Vandy fan here. (none / 0) (#151)
    by nashville on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:36:00 PM EST
    but I also root for the Razorbacks. Seems like there are lost of Tennesseans around here. Wasn't it great to see our state do so mething right for once!

    Parent
    Indeed (none / 0) (#164)
    by TN Dem on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:09:56 AM EST
    It was!

    Parent
    If you work in the party there (none / 0) (#153)
    by rilkefan on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:44:10 PM EST
    You probably know my mother.  Small world, sort of.

    Parent
    Pipe dreams (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:08:08 PM EST
    As usual, I wish I had some of what Tweety is smoking. I think it is pretty clear that any 'solution' that relies on revotes in MI and FL is just not going to happen.

    As usual on MSNBC Hillary is the bad guy.  I find myself literally running for the remote sometimes when I try watching them. Like just now, Dan Abrams starts out with the headline - Obama gives major speech on Iraq!!!!  To be fair, I wasn't watching the last two days when Clinton gave speeches on Iraq, so maybe he did the same thing then.  Somehow I doubt it.

    They barely covered it. (none / 0) (#65)
    by Dancing Bear on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:12:37 PM EST
    They were too busy talking about the amazing speech and how we will all be united because of it.

    Tweety is for McCain and I am not sure why he is offering solutions that might favor the will of the people. But at least it's an offer or a solution of sorts.

    Parent

    Uggh (none / 0) (#70)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:16:00 PM EST
    As usual, I wish I had some of what Tweety is smoking.

    That's the last thing I'd want to smoke.

    Parent

    New punch line for Obama on Hillaryis44 (3.66 / 3) (#68)
    by TalkRight on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:14:44 PM EST
    Barack Obama:

    God Damn Florida, God Damn Michigan
    Good idea... (2.00 / 1) (#11)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:12:59 PM EST
    Send the "super delegates" back to their day jobs, power to the people.

    Power to the people (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by lilburro on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:24:08 PM EST
    or power to the people who organize ...some people?  

    Power to the people with time on their hands!  <snark>

    I'm sure some of the Super Ds love the attention.

    Parent

    Not Power to the people (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:41:12 PM EST
    Power to the loudest most obnoxious people threatening to leave the party if they don't get their way.


    Parent
    Donna Brazile (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:20:05 PM EST


    Parent
    Power to all people.... (none / 0) (#178)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:09:14 PM EST
    no qualifiers except party membership (where required) and US citizenship.

    Flipping a coin is preferred to letting the "super delegates" pick the nominee in a backroom in exchange for promises of cabinet positions.

    Parent

    I saw that (none / 0) (#2)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:03:15 PM EST
    He said Obama should say here is the option and to shut up with all the messing around.

    You do know that (none / 0) (#9)
    by jcsf on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:10:47 PM EST
    The popular vote lead that Obama has is currently 800,000?.  Not including Florida and Michigan, assuming you do a revote.

    Clinton's lead in New York, at 40 to 57 her favor, only gave her a 317K lead.  While Ohio was a 229K lead.

    Now, if things really start to go badly for Obama - Penn by 25, FL by 25, tied in NC, and just continue to go downhill - that's the only way Obama loses the popular vote.  

    As we keep saying, the popular vote also tends to discount the caucus states.  

    At any rate, I don't know why Obama isn't agreeing to Michigan.  I wish he would.

    the caucus vote should be discounted (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by heineken1717 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:13:42 PM EST
    less people voted, therefore the will of less people is represented. One person one vote is (or should be) a foundation of democracy. Of course, the stupid electoral college and the more stupid Democratic Party delegate allocation system try to undercut this, but we should strive for it. The fact that a tiny Idaho caucus cancelled out a huge New Jersey primary is proof.

    Parent
    And that (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by DaleA on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:30:00 PM EST
    Vermont and Wyoming get the same number of delegates.

    Parent
    If he wins the majority (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:31:53 PM EST
    of the popular vote fair and square, that's OK by me-- although I will have to go out and get pretty drunk.

    We're not sitting around here looking for ways for HRC to win, but for things to be done fairly and for Democratic Party voters to decide on the best nominee, not just a subsection of the ones with the most free time to go to caucuses and the ability to yell the loudest.

    Parent

    How convenient to cite only the best stat (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:39:29 PM EST
    at your link -- where another of many other ways of citing the popular vote total, and the one most relevant to this discussion about including FL and MI, puts Obama ahead by only 80,000 votes, or 0.2%.

    Parent
    I cited that in the context of revotes (none / 0) (#53)
    by jcsf on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:58:40 PM EST
    Clearly, if we have revotes, then FL and MI, as is, won't count.

    Parent
    750,000 (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:14:46 PM EST
    Not counting Florida and Michigan.

    Parent
    Absolutely not (none / 0) (#19)
    by jcsf on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:19:49 PM EST
    You don't get to choose WHICH votes count.  Look, you are already:

    a. Ignoring delegate counts
    b. Ignoring Clinton's double standard on this issue, from late 2007 to now
    c. refusing to have any accountability for MI and FL for jumping the gun.
    d. Ignoring the fact that, while the percentage change would have been closer, in all likelihood, the caucus states WOULD have gone to Obama, by a large margin.

    And on top of this, you want to ignore the projected votes of caucus members, in IA, NV, ME, WA??

    No, absolutely not.  If THAT is your "fair" or "right" solution, you have no concept of what those terms mean.


    Parent

    Excuse me (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:24:19 PM EST
    The PRIMARY counts the popular vote period.

    I am telling you what the popular vote is.

    Just as in Texas, it is the POPULAR VOTE, the one that has 3 TIMES AS MANY PARTICIPANTS, that counts in the popular vote.

    Parent

    I'm not counting the Texas caucuses (none / 0) (#26)
    by jcsf on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:26:54 PM EST
    And the number is clear, right there on RCP - +813,945 for Obama.  

    So why 750,000?

    Parent

    RCP With FL and MI (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Manuel on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:39:16 PM EST
    Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA*    14,191,430 47.6% 14,000,566 47%    Obama +190,864 +0.6%

    is closer to what it would be if revotes were held.  And this is likely to change after PA.

    If Obama were interested in clarity and legitimacy, he would favor revotes.  It does semm that is interested in running out the clock.  If Clinton comes close without revotes, the SDs will have one tough decision.


    Parent

    More likely? (none / 0) (#42)
    by jcsf on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:42:51 PM EST
    Really?  Counting numbers where Obama doesn't get a vote?  That's a "more likely" outcome, where people DO get to vote for Obama?

    You disqualify yourself on this.

    Parent

    He chose that. (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by ineedalife on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:22:46 PM EST
    Obama took his name off the ballot. That was his strategic choice. Just as Hillary made strategic choices, and did not campaign in many states like Idaho and Kansas, allowing Obama to run up the score. She is living with the consequences of her decisions. He should live with the consequences of his.

    Parent
    "Strategic" choice? (none / 0) (#154)
    by jcsf on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:49:08 PM EST
    The same choice that Edwards made?

    No, there was an agreement made between the candidates and the DNC, and then Clinton left her name on the ballot anyway.

    Parent

    DNC had nothing to do with the (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:54:01 PM EST
    Michigan ballot.  The campaigns got together on their own.  Clinton, Dodd, Kucinich, and Gravel were on the ballot in Michigan.


    Parent
    Taking names off was not part of the pledge... (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:27:05 PM EST
    Nothing in any of the signed pledges called for removing their names from the ballots.

    It was a strategic move on the parts of Obama and Edwards. And frankly, I thought it was a stupid move to have done so.

    Parent

    Fashion show primary? (none / 0) (#40)
    by jcsf on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:40:51 PM EST
    With the delegates already determined?

    No, no, no, 1000 times no. That is NOT a good example of popular will, when the caucuses had ALREADY been held.  The more meaningful contest had already happened.

    Parent

    Caucuses are the most ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Dancing Bear on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:00:54 PM EST
    part of the Democratic party.  They disenfranchise more voters than any other part of voting (because caucusing is not voting).

     We are given the right to vote. Caucusing is an invention of the party and a dumb one at that.

    I work with more people than caucused in many states.Mosh Pit politics disenfranchise older voters or voters who work for a living and can't take a day off to intimidate the other candidates supporters.

    Parent

    Sez you...the voters disagreed. (none / 0) (#173)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:09:27 AM EST
    They voted anyway.

    I did both...voted in the primary and went to my caucus and so did lots of other people.  In fact, the Obama camp had a huge GOTV for the primary, very fearful of the outcome.  Turned out they were right to be...they barely got over 50%.

    You don't get to decide which of my votes was more or less meaningful than the other.

    Parent

    These points are debatable (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by Manuel on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:29:55 PM EST
    a. Ignoring delegate counts

    Delegate counts aren't any better indicators of the people's will than PV.
    b. Ignoring Clinton's double standard on this issue, from late 2007 to now

    This is irrelevant for deciding what is fair.
    c. refusing to have any accountability for MI and FL for jumping the gun.

    They have already suffered damage.  I don't see the impetus for any state to want to be in this position ever again.  Also, you can exact a delegate penalty if you want.
    d. Ignoring the fact that, while the percentage change would have been closer, in all likelihood, the caucus states WOULD have gone to Obama, by a large margin.

    Where is the evidence for this? WA shows the opposite.


    Parent
    How so? (none / 0) (#37)
    by jcsf on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:39:17 PM EST
    How does a fashion show primary, with delegates already elected, show that?

    This is what I mean.  I get the context of "popular votes", it's important.  But then popular vote totals gets manipulated.  In this case, by not mentioning the context that the delegate contest had already been decided by caucuses - so again is a BAD INDICATION OF POPULAR VOTING.

    Not to mention, as a counter-example, take Wisconsin. If a caucus had been held there, you WOULD NOT have had a 192,000 vote differential, but a much much smaller vote differential - only those who came to participate in the caucuses.

    Hawaii would have been an example of this.  If Hawaii would have been a primary, while the spread would have been reduced, the vote total would have been MUCH larger in the differential between Obama and Clinton.

    Parent

    OK How about TX? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Manuel on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:45:38 PM EST
    It isn't a given that a caucus can be projected in a straightforward way to a primary. The point is that delegates do not represent "the will of the people" any better than PV.

    Parent
    I'm not disagreeing (none / 0) (#50)
    by jcsf on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:55:24 PM EST
    Especially with states that had close popular votes.

    If someone was TRULY interested in the popular vote totals, there would be a RANGE given -

    a. Estimate range of turnout in caucus states, if there had been a primary - probably based on last election plus say 30% more.
    b. A "spread subtraction range" given to each caucus state, whereby, say, in the caucus states, a 10% post to Clinton is given (or some range, maybe depending on the state).

    Instead though, we have these declarative statements about "the popular vote", which elide the issues here - and then, in the case of Washington, really ignore the reality of the situation.

    Parent

    The reality of the situation (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by badger on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:48:12 PM EST
    is that in WA, everyone had the right to choose the Dem ballot and vote for their candidate - that's what an election is.

    You don't get to change the numbers because you have some excuse, like "the weather was bad" or "my supporters were too lazy to vote" or "it was only a beauty contest". And in WA, the actual primary balloting tracks the state polling pretty closely, so the lame excuses don't really seem to apply in the first place.

    What's a travesty is not allowing people's votes to count in the first place - nobody in MI or FL had the right or ability to cast a vote that counts under the current arrangement.

    But if you want a single excuse, it's that the DNC and state parties screwed the entire nominating process by placing largely irrelevant states first and protecting that privilege at any cost, excluding MI and FL, allowing states to run any kind or combination of contests they want, and generally operating a process that makes the "will of the people" impossible to determine.

    In a fair and reasonable nominating process, people wouldn't be making all of these lame voter psychology arguments. This isn't psychometrics - it's an election and there isn't any reasonable methodology in an election besides counting the votes that were actually cast - all of the votes.

    IMO, there isn't any way to sort this out but to let it go to the convention, hopefully with all 50 states having their full complement of delegate representation when the nomination balloting begins.

    Parent

    Choosing which votes count (none / 0) (#30)
    by rilkefan on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:30:03 PM EST
    Not FL and MI, apparently.

    a.) Superdelegates could agree to make this result happen via delegate counts, so this is a silly complaint
    b.) plain false, and totally irrelevant anyway
    c.) read up on the history in FL - and of course a revote in MI makes everyone whole, as Dean admits
    d.) not sure how BTD wants to handle this - see my comment on rescaling (#13).

    Re e.g. WA, they had a primary - you want to ignore their votes.  This proposal screws fewer voters.  A simple procedure to equally weight the primary and caucus votes would be obviously fair and no doubt would be endorsed by those suggesting this.

    Parent

    No, I'm saying REALLY reflect popular will (none / 0) (#55)
    by jcsf on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:00:08 PM EST
    On top of everything else, don't distort the votes we DO have.  

    Parent
    It will nattow substantially (none / 0) (#131)
    by delandjim on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:31:07 PM EST
    I'm thinking it will narrow a lot after Pa. I also think that the N.C. result may tilt to Hillary also. I know there is 21% AA population but there is a lot of the rural areas that seem to tilt Hillary. W.V. small but should really go big to her, I'm thinking Ind. about even.

    Parent
    Therre is that possibility (none / 0) (#157)
    by jcsf on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:52:12 PM EST
    We will see.  

    If Penn goes 25%, certainly that possibility.  And more recent polling makes that possibility more likely.  Up to recent polling that possibility was remote, and STILL unlikely, based on the pop. vote, that Clinton can make it up.  But, if there's a run, and states start swinging hard to Obama, it is possible.

    In the so-called pop vote, of course.  Which again, doesn't accurately reflect caucus states populations.

    Parent

    And how many (none / 0) (#167)
    by blogtopus on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:34:59 AM EST
    of those were Democrats the day before the primary election? How do you justify the national poll that says a majority of Democratic voters prefer Hillary as their candidate?

    Do you REALLY think that everyone who voted for Obama in the primary will stick around for him in the General? Really?

    BTW Hillary has crossover draw too, with conservative women, conservative latinos and more. She just doesn't have a massive movement among indies and repubs to make her the DEMOCRATIC candidate.

    Sometimes it seems like some kind of High School election. Pick Flick!

    Parent

    Calculation (none / 0) (#13)
    by rilkefan on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:14:29 PM EST
    Presumably states' EV weighting would be discarded, which would incense the small states.  Also, how would caucus states' results be calculated?  By rescaling the caucus numbers to the state population (and ditto for the primary states)?  The state D population?  That's a mess, but otherwise caucus states would be relatively disenfranchised.

    Obviously the answer is to organize a one-day national closed primary over the internet to start the convention.

    Internet voting? (none / 0) (#34)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:34:29 PM EST
    Yeah, great idea.  The farmers in my town with dial-up so slow they have to get up at 3:00 AM to get onto farm price Web sites and the like would just love that plan.

    C'mon!  We want the voting to be more small-d democratic, not less.

    Parent

    Um (none / 0) (#72)
    by rilkefan on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:21:36 PM EST
    That was a joke.

    Parent
    My mistake, nikefan (none / 0) (#108)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:09:47 PM EST
    Thought you were serious because I actually have seen people advocate for that idea seriously!

    Parent
    Well this can only impact the framing of the (none / 0) (#16)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:15:15 PM EST
    delegate debate, since there is no way Tweety's (obvious) solution will be adopted.

    Am I mistaken? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Joelarama on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:16:15 PM EST
    Am I mistaken that a Florida vote cannot happen now, because the state deadline passed?  So is this just academic?

    Pretty much, yeah (none / 0) (#63)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:09:51 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes to revotes, no to popular vote deciding (none / 0) (#78)
    by AF on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:35:05 PM EST
    That significantly undercounts and therefore disenfranchises caucus states.

    Yes, because 8,000 votes in Wyoming (5.00 / 6) (#84)
    by Dancing Bear on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:41:27 PM EST
    is certainly of higher value than 1.7 million in Florida alone. Caucuses disenfranchise voters already.  90 % of voters don't participate because they can't camp out for a day and don't want to be intimidated by other caucusees.

    Parent
    ...and don't forget (4.66 / 3) (#96)
    by smott on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:57:54 PM EST
    Caucuses disenfranchise the eldery or disabled who are less mobile, because you can't mail-in vote to a caucus. They're a sham, they represent a tiny fraction of the voting public.

    Parent
    But states choose whether to have caucuses (none / 0) (#105)
    by AF on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:06:49 PM EST
    or primaries, and they make the choice based on the rules in place at the time.  It is sandbagging caucus states to undercount them after the fact by switching to the popular vote.

    Parent
    It's like big city politics (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Dancing Bear on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:18:19 PM EST
    going down on the farm.  The power mongers in these states run around intimidating people that they see at the grocery store.  They push for caucuses so they can control the outcome.

    So while Barack won the caucuses the voters lose.  Old people can't stand for 4 or 5 hours in line.  Guys and gals in the factory who can barely scrape out Ramen noodles for lunch can't take a day off to vote.  Hmnn.  Let's see.  Who are Hillary's core voters?  Elderly and working class?
    17 year olds can also caucus. I can't vote until I am 18 and registered. Clustf*ck!

    Parent

    The voters do not decide. (none / 0) (#162)
    by phat on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:41:19 PM EST
    The decision made by states to have a caucus or a primary is not made by the people who vote. It's made by party leaders.

    Parent
    Caucus votes worth more? Undemocratic! (none / 0) (#171)
    by dwmorris on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:56:47 AM EST
    The current criteria for winning is 2025 delegates - which neither candidate is likely to achieve.  How is switching the criteria to the one with the most popular votes any less valid than the one with the most pledged delegates after the last primary?  The Obama camp is beating the drums for the latter only because it biases the outcome for their candidate.  Total votes is the best criteria at this point.

    Parent
    and those with work hours that (none / 0) (#118)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:16:35 PM EST
    don't fit the caucus time. if my state had been a caucus state, i would not have been able to participate this year. i had my back against the wall with deadlines and didn't have a couple hours to spare. 15-30 minutes to walk 3 blocks to my polling place at a quiet time i did have time for though.

    Parent
    Logic? (none / 0) (#86)
    by AF on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:43:58 PM EST
    What part of "yes to revotes" did you not understand?  With a revote, Florida will count far more than Wyoming.

    As for the low turn-out in caucus states, that's precisely why it's unfair to have the nomination turn solely on the popular vote.  Primary states will have a significant advantage.

    Parent

    But it's more fair for a Wyoming delegate (5.00 / 5) (#98)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:58:41 PM EST
    and say, a California delegate, to be standing on a level playing filed, even though 1 of Wyoming's delegates equals about 800 voters, and 1 of California's represents over 10 times more?

    My hope is that this election will spur a concerted effort to get rid of the caucus system altogether, along with open primaries.

    And - not addressing this to you, AF - I cannot believe it has come to the point where we are cheering the opinions of Chris Matthews, who has done nothing, that I can see, to further the democratic process.  He may have a point - that the popular vote does matter, and should be part of the calculus that the superdelegates are charged with making - but Michigan and Florida should be counted or re-voted, and neither candidate should be agreeing to anything at this point.  

    Parent

    They represent about the same number of people (none / 0) (#104)
    by AF on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:04:51 PM EST
    Though not the same number of votes.

    Parent
    Because they represent significantly (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Dancing Bear on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:10:58 PM EST
    larger numbers of voters.  By millions. The turn out is low because the process is ridiculous. It totally disenfranchises voters. It takes 800 caucusers in Wyoming to get a delegate.  It takes 10,000 voters to get one in California. Very few high population states rely on caucusing.

    The party decided to make the other states feel more a part of the process and for years we have had Iowa and New Hampshire sway the will of the people by overstating their importance. Primary states represent the will of "more people" than do the caucus states. It should always be popular vote. Even if my candidate doesn't win that battle.

    Parent

    Don't forget (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:20:42 PM EST
    also military, college students out of state, people who have vacations planned at that time--all who cannot caucus OR use absentee ballot.

    Parent
    It's been consistent (none / 0) (#90)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:50:02 PM EST
    The low turnout in caucus states has consistently favored one candidate over the other.

    Does a candidate really want to be the candidate who only wins when less people show up?

    Parent

    This is about states, not candidates (none / 0) (#95)
    by AF on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:56:53 PM EST
    Just like having revoting in FL and MI is about states not candidates.  Deciding the nomination on the popular vote would be selling out the caucus states.

    Parent
    Caucusses (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:02:36 PM EST
    Sell out voters.

    You know, there might be some logic there if common sense weren't applied to it.

    What I mean is look at Texas.  Or look at any other state that held both a caucus and a primary.

    The assumption that a caucus is an accurate reflection of a states wishes has simply been debunked at this point.

    Caucusses sell out caucus states.


    Parent

    You are confusing the issues (none / 0) (#115)
    by AF on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:11:54 PM EST
    It's one thing to say states should abandon caucuses in the future.  It is another to say they should be underrepresented retroactively by switching from a delegate system to a popular vote system after the fact.

    Parent
    On paper or in the minds of voters (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:19:37 PM EST
    You're talking about an offense that only exists on paper.

    If a plurality of voters in a caucus states are looking at their caucus results and scratching their head, they're not going to be outraged if the popular vote turns out to be a better reflection of their popular will.

    Parent

    selling out the caucus states (none / 0) (#152)
    by DaleA on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:44:06 PM EST
    sounds like a good idea. Can we vote for it? The caucus states run these travesties, usually poorly. There should be only primaries with at least 12 hours of open polls, absent ballots and early voting. That is open to more people.

    Parent
    bravo for tweety and our btd! (none / 0) (#87)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:44:30 PM EST
    both have a home run here! i hope our candidates are listening also

    Plan sounds like a shot for Hillary, but (none / 0) (#106)
    by kenosharick on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:07:01 PM EST
    not realistic politically. I see no real way Obama loses the nom. BTW- americablog (super anti-Clinton,hysterically so.) is saying if Barack losesin Nov. it is all part of Hillary's "secret plan" and her fault. THey may be starting to realize he cannot win the general and are already looking to place blame.

    The O-list bloggers have all endorsed (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:10:07 PM EST
    Bush v. Gore reasoning on the Democratic primaries:  
    hurting Obama's chances is irreparable harm, in and of itself.

    Parent
    Wonder who whispered that into Tweety's (none / 0) (#113)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:11:21 PM EST
    earpiece?  You know he couldn't think of it on his own.  :-)
    an implausible idea (none / 0) (#128)
    by white n az on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:28:04 PM EST
    from an implausible talking head.

    Chris Matthews is a loud mouthed bore.

    Who watches him anyway?

    Who cares what he thinks?

    Jerome at MyDD has a post up "The Bigger (none / 0) (#134)
    by Angel on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:37:47 PM EST
    Loss" and it is quite good.  It includes the McCaskill quotes from earlier today.  (Posted this at thread below.)

    Better put an ice-pack on it (none / 0) (#135)
    by Gabriele Droz on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:45:33 PM EST
    Quick.

    Al Gore (none / 0) (#150)
    by diogenes on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:34:04 PM EST
    What we really need is for the superdelegates to pick the real dream team, Gore-Obama.  Gore has fewer negatives than Hillary, and Obama's black supporters will be less angry at ticket than if he is coerced into Hillary-Obama.

    Parent
    You're kidding me (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by Friday on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:51:26 PM EST
    Obama's black supporters will be less angry

    Tell me you're kidding me.

    Parent

    I don't understand (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by standingup on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:33:26 AM EST
    and am getting rather tired of the theory that the party should be more concerned with angering Obama's supporters.  Are Hillary's supporters less important to the party?

    Parent
    Your dream... (none / 0) (#168)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:42:18 AM EST
    my nightmare.

    Parent
    Not looking good for HRC, per (none / 0) (#138)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:54:01 PM EST
    Nagourney:

    NYT

    On AC 360 on CNN (none / 0) (#139)
    by DodgeIND on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:54:41 PM EST
    Obama has said that he'll play by whatever the DNC puts down as the rules.  That memo put out is not a DNC approval.  This still has to pass through the MI legislature.

    Call me crazy (none / 0) (#145)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:09:16 PM EST
    But I don't think there should be any "deals" on the minimum standard of legitimizing this election by letting people's votes count (by revoting MI and FL).

    Okay, I'm sleep deprived so I know I'm just making crazy talk ;-).

    Off topic comment Dodge (none / 0) (#163)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:52:46 PM EST
    This is about revotes and Tweety's proposal.

    Your comment has been deleted as have been about 40 others for the same reason.

    Great solution (none / 0) (#169)
    by dwmorris on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:45:03 AM EST
    The delegate count is likely to be inconclusive until the convention.  Also, the popular vote is the only fair metric.  I'm from CA and resent the fact that we are getting 1 delegate per 12,650 votes cast while in WY they are getting 1 delegate per 724 votes.  The biases of big vs small and caucuses vs primaries makes the pledged delegate count grossly unfair in a contested nomination race.  Why should my vote have 1/17th the weight of someone from WY?

    There Won't Be Full Revotes in Florida or Michigan (none / 0) (#177)
    by kaleidescope on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:17:49 AM EST
    There aren't the votes in the legislatures of either state to make the re-votes happen.  Republicans control the Florida Legislature and they also control at least one house of the Michigan Legislature.

    Obama wouldn't want these re-votes, since they only throw a lifeline to HRC's campaign.  But he won't have to say, "no, no, no."  He can just sit back, ask questions about how to make sure all Democratic voters can be enfranchised, ask questions (good ones, for the most part), and say (without much enthusiasm) that he'll support what the state parties can work out with the DNC.  Which will not be re-votes.

    It isn't within Obama or HRC's power to move the Michigan or Florida legislatures.  If the governments of those two states want their Democratic citizens to have a say in the Democratic nomination, the governments of those two states will act on their citizens behalf regardless of what Obama wants or doesn't want.  And if the Florida and Michigan state governments don't act -- and act quickly -- it will the state governments of Michigan and Florida that will be responsible for their Democratic citizens not having a primary-elected voice at the national convention.

    And if the governments of those two states don't act, the Michigan and Florida state Democratic parties can still seat their delegates at the national convention by holding state-wide caucuses.

    Lame (none / 0) (#180)
    by BethanyAnne on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:34:11 PM EST
    And the national popular vote leader should get the nomination ... why?

    Ok, I get the idea of a popular vote being more fair and a better way to do things. But, um, that's not what the rules for this contest were.  This was our usual patchwork of rules and contradictions.  Arguing that the rules should be changed in the 3rd quarter is simply wrong.  No.  You set the rules beforehand, and you compete on the basis of those rules.  And if it stinks, you fix those rules in between contests.  Not in the middle.  It's absolutely unfair to change the rules to a national popular vote total at this point in time.

    Endorsing The Tweety Solution For MI/FL | 156 comments (156 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment