home

Gore: No Need For "Party Elder" Intervention In Dem Race

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:48:52 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Good for Gore:

Former Vice President Al Gore said Thursday that he expects the Democratic nomination fight will "resolve itself" before the party's convention in late August. . . . "What have we got, five months left?" he said in a brief interview after a speech at Middle Tennessee State University.

When pressed that several prominent Democrats, including Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen, have expressed hope for an earlier decision on the nomination, Gore said: "I think it's going to resolve itself. But we'll see."

First Dean, and now Gore, have expressed extreme reluctance to intervene. Both say let the voters decide. Good for both of them.

< Dean Supports Letting The Voters Decide | The Delegate Race Isn't Over >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Gore: No Need For "Party Elder" Intervention In Dem Race | 100 comments (100 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Gore remains one of my favorite people (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:50:34 AM EST
    if only he'd gone with Bob Graham instead of Joe Lieberman. . .

    When Hillary has the right to stay in the race (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by TalkRight on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:55:03 AM EST
    everyone who will ask for her to quit will only show how much of an idiot he is.. Gore is not one of them..

    Gore doesn't want to intervene (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by rebrane on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:02:35 AM EST
    It's far too early for the party elders to step in. And of course they'd rather not have to do so at all.

    Gore wants to wait because... (1.00 / 1) (#99)
    by diogenes on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:14:57 PM EST
    If the elders intervene now, Obama wins.  If no one intervenes, then the situation will "resolve itself" quite possibly by having Gore be drafted.
    I'm sure that the people make their votes partly based on the endorsements of respected party elders, and if Al Gore really wanted the Hillary he watched for eight years while he was VP to get the nomination he could endorse her and then let the people decide.

    Parent
    Gore does not want to intervene, (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:31:30 PM EST
    I would think, because he now has a life of his own.  He would be insane to get into the middle of this. Furthermore, the Democratic Party cast him away when he lost.

    Democrats have not learned that level of courage and sensibility. We did it with Kerry, Dean, Carter, Clinton....ask them to serve, elect or try to elect them and then chew them up and spit them out.

    Don't get involved Al. We have work to do on the environment.


    Parent

    Endorsement (none / 0) (#104)
    by alexei on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:28:12 PM EST
    I strongly disagree.  I believe that Al Gore should remain neutral since that is what he said he would do and I was for the Draft Gore 2008 until I absolutely knew he wouldn't come into the race (December 2007). And I am absolutely opposed to any drafts of other Democrats including Gore for the nomination.  Talk about disenfranchisement - no one voted for any one other than the candidates that officially ran or are running(except for a few write-ins). This would be a travesty and a huge waste of time, effort and money.

    Parent
    There's no benefit in endorsing (none / 0) (#126)
    by spit on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:08:02 PM EST
    to the work Gore is doing now. In fact, for furthering his work on global warming, he's likely going to stay the hell out of it until the very end -- he probably wants to retain influence in either administration. Given the importance of what he's doing, I think that's a wise move.

    Anyway, I disagree with you on endorsements in general. I don't think they do a whole lot, except generate some media buzz, maybe lend some perceived legitimacy to a relatively unknown candidate, that's about it. Unless they can provide actual ground game resources -- union endorsements can be helpful in that regard, say -- but even there, they're not necessarily totally game-changing anymore.

    Parent

    Richardson's endorsement (none / 0) (#127)
    by diogenes on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:18:14 PM EST
    Bill Richardson's endorsement sure seemed to swing the momentum, and it sure got under James Carville's "Judas" goat.  Why would Carville make such a big deal about what doesn't matter?

    Parent
    IMO that was about timing (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by spit on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:30:51 PM EST
    Everybody was waiting to see what the next thing after the Wright mess and his speech would be. Richardson stepped in and gave the media another story to report, one that helped end the "is Obama collapsing?" stuff.

    As I said, endorsements can help the media buzz. Obama needed good media buzz at that moment, badly.

    Otherwise, I don't think it moved anybody in itself. Most of the people I know barely know who Richardson is, and of those who do, most are like "wasn't he that lame guy in the debates?"

    FWIW, I think Obama helped himself far more with his speech than Richardson helped him, though both were helpful given the timing, I expect. I've been observing the polls all season, and there's been a surprisingly significant lag for most events to really show up in the polls -- bloggers hyperventilate the second an event occurs, but it often takes at least a few days for stuff to even trickle out into broader public awareness, and it seems to then usually take a few more days for opinions on it to congeal. I can think of a few exceptions, but very few.

    There are plenty of counterexamples to yours, too. Did Kerry's or Kennedy's endorsement matter much, other than the storyline the media got to play up for days?

    Parent

    According to a Huff Post link, (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:40:09 PM EST
    carville says that up to a month before he endorsed Obama, Richardson was telling Clinton big donors that he would endorse Clinton.  

    Parent
    It was obvious for a long time (none / 0) (#131)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:11:44 PM EST
    and not to just big donors....Bill looked a little deflated when watching the Super Bowl with Richardson.  As if he knew that Richardson would not endorse Hillary....

    When he dropped out, Richardson said he might endorse because he had gotten to know the candidates on the campaign trail.  He had obviously known Hillary for years, so he was talking about Obama....

    Bill kept Richardson on the sidelines for a long time....The timing of the endorsement was key...and a big help.  

    Parent

    Thank you, thank you Mr. Gore (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:06:53 AM EST
    I love you again, Mr. Gore.  Call me fickle, but letting voters vote is more important to me than you are.  When you didn't come out at all about this, I hated you for it.

    Thank you for siding with sanity.

    interesting.. it will also be resolved if all the (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by TalkRight on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:15:30 AM EST
    people shouting for Hillary to Quit will just watch till the primary process is over.. and ofcourse if Obama doen't like that .. He can ALSO quit.. that will ALSO resolve this. No?

    good question (none / 0) (#22)
    by TalkRight on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:21:29 AM EST
    ... why should a person quit when there are still primaries left.. "OH you think she cannot catch up!!" ... if only you were the adviser to McCain...he would not be the nominee right now!!!

    Parent
    Well if there are few more (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by TalkRight on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:35:44 AM EST
    fiasco's like the Rev Wright.. it will happen a lot sooner than you think!!

    But it can happen the same on the other side too.. so let's chill it out.. and wait rather than say I have a fortune telling mirror!

    Parent

    Also: Ras Says Dems Not Interested Gore... (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Exeter on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:25:52 AM EST
    ...jumping into the race. It would be interesting, though, to have a poll of just Obama versus Gore or Clinton versus Gore and a poll of McCain versus Gore.  

    Polls (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by alexei on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:35:40 PM EST
    Sorry, the Gore bus as left the station (and I was a strong supporter of the Draft Gore 2008).  It is either Clinton or Obama and boy, do I hope that it is Clinton;  I think the Democratic Party would have an epic disaster if Obama is the nominee and I am also talking about down ticket.  

    Parent
    Watching Fox (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:48:00 AM EST
    (I know, leave me alone).  Talking head Halperin stated Leahy, Pelosi, Gore say what's going to happen is inevitable.  Clinton (or camp) has said she thinks people are going to blame her.  She has to stop Obama as he will lose to McCain, it's sensitive issues .....  McCain thinks so too.  She needs to stop him in June by holding him off with enough superdeez so that both of them go to the convention.

    What I got was the impression that she thinks Obama will lose, she can win, and this is important to the party, and she's going to do her best to prevent a loss.  She won't quit because Obama or journalists tell her to, she won't quit until her supporters tell her to.

    What really gets me (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:53:38 AM EST
    is that some (e.g. Chris Dodd) actually believe that stopping the primary now would be the path to party unity.

    Personally, I think if the primary were stopped today, the division that would occur would make what we're experiencing now LOOK LIKE party unity in comparison.

    Apparently there's a new (none / 0) (#5)
    by david mizner on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:10:17 AM EST
    line of argument bubbling among some Obama supporters:

    The right to vote doesn't exist in a primary.

    http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/3/28/85535/5597/313#c313

    There is no right to vote for President either (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:11:51 AM EST
    See Bush v Gore.

    In theory, states can decide to allow their legislatures or some convention to decide.

    Parent

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:18:14 AM EST
    I thought Democrats used to be against that BS. . .

    Parent
    Even if that were true (5.00 / 0) (#103)
    by badger on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:21:21 PM EST
    there's still a right to equal protection under the law.

    If there's no right to vote in a primary, then nobody's vote counts. But if somebody's vote counts, then everybody's has to count.

    I don't think that's difficult to understand, unless you're a segregationist from the 1950s, or opposed to women's suffrage. That's the camp you're in if you oppose seating MI or FL (or holding a revote in those states).


    Parent

    yes the people are pro-hillary (none / 0) (#7)
    by TalkRight on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:11:08 AM EST
    that doesn't mean someone will not manage to throw few rocks at her!

    Parent
    Ok, fair (none / 0) (#20)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:19:52 AM EST
    What I propose.  "The elders" can use their powers, but there must be accountability.  Right now, the party gives itself the Superdelegate option over the voters, but how do we hold them accountable if they pick "the loser".   If they pick a loser, I want the whole lot of them to resign.  They have to deliver the White House.  As a party member, that is what I expect from leadership.  Frankly, I don't think they are capable.  

    Parent
    I took Kos off my feed, but (none / 0) (#95)
    by alsace on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:11:46 PM EST
    fortunately, I still have the "right to vote" for your most appropriate comment there.  

    Parent
    For those who do not know (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:10:27 AM EST
    Off topic comments are deleted here.

    That seems pessimistic (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:12:35 AM EST
    Do you think Obama can not reach the delegate number required?

    OF course that is what he means (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:17:09 AM EST
    Dean wants it top happen by July 1.

    That seems eminently sensible to me.

    Parent

    You think that will happen? (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:26:10 AM EST
    I do not. I think Obama will almost certainly be the nominee.

    If he holds the pledged delegate lead and a 500K popular vote advantage he will be the "legitimate" nominee.

    That ends the race well.

    A super Delegate shutdown before these facts are clear after the end of the state contests would be disastrous.

    The people urging ending it now are the one who have a recipe for disaster. From NBC on down. Extremely foolish.

    Parent

    I would feel (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by rooge04 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:37:22 AM EST
    extremely comfortable voting for Obama AFTER all the states have voted and he's the popular vote leader. Like you, I think this is still the likelier outcome. However, if the supers decide and end this before the contests are over, I'm siting this out.  That would utterly enrage me. I don't understand Obama's supers arguing for her to drop out since it damages him in the GE with Clinton voters. I know a lot of us would be comfortable with him as the nominee if he has the popular vote.  

    Trying to pressure her into dropping out when she still DOES have a chance is suicidal for the supers.

    Parent

    The superdelegates will have the decisive vote (none / 0) (#84)
    by rebrane on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:53:26 AM EST
    as we've all been aware for a while. Why are they under an obligation to have their say only after all the primaries have been held? They have never done that before.

    Parent
    Because the idea (none / 0) (#102)
    by rooge04 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:21:18 PM EST
    of them making the decision when it is still close (no matter the current delegate math) and there are 10 states left to vote without having a say would be disastrous. I would be extremely angry and I would sit out in protest. If they stop this nonsense and let the voting continue as scheduled and Obama is the popular vote winner, I'll gladly vote for him.

    If they try to strong-arm the nomination for him before 10 states that are not all leaning his way looks extremely suspect. And it would be.

    Parent

    To me, it seems more fair to (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:25:31 AM EST
    follow the rules, have the Super-Ds sit with their state delegations, and cast their Super-D votes publicly at the convention; as opposed to the Super-Ds have a mini-convention before the convention and decide the nominee.  

    Parent
    There is no reason to wait (none / 0) (#132)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:17:18 PM EST
    If the superdelegates can do what they want, and all the primaries are over, it would be better to decide sooner rather than later....

    Parent
    Not true (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:00:59 PM EST
    Whatever they do will most likely have much more legitimacy after everyone has voted. Like others I will say if Obama is the nominee and it is done now it will look wrong. If he is ahead by the end is the nominee I think the democratic party will have a much easier time putting it all together.

    Also it gives everyone time to make sure that Obama is the right nominee.

    Parent

    It all depends on MI and FL (none / 0) (#16)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:18:33 AM EST
    Seat them as is or go to committee which I understand won't happen till after July 1.
    Anything that deviates (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:23:27 AM EST
    From a full seating and deviates from what we know about the state as of Feb. 5th is not going to work either.

    So.  Committee.

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:30:04 AM EST
    Not in this case.

    Or find someway else to do it.

    Hell.  Some states are even deciding to give convicts the right to vote.

    Disenfranchisement is a punishment that does not fit the crive as it strikes to very core of who we are as Americans.  To think that you can go there without causing long term damage is....


    Parent

    Gotta figure out another punishment (none / 0) (#77)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:48:59 AM EST
    Most primaries are over before a lot of states vote, but that should never be because two states had their votes taken away.


    Parent
    insulting to them? (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by blogtopus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:02:11 PM EST
    So taking away their votes ISN'T?

    Now who's treating them like children?

    Parent

    Which adults? The voters? Why? (none / 0) (#138)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:01:52 AM EST
    They did nothing wrong, and they are the ones being punished.  Your argument is entirely illogical.

    And, of course, you continue to state untruths such as that there only was one name on the MI ballot.  So your evidence is incorrect, too.

    That leaves you with . . . nothing here.

    Parent

    Sigh (none / 0) (#92)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:06:27 PM EST
    Listen, I understand there needs to be a punishment.

    Disenfrachisement is.

    In the legal system you figure out a way to punish and sanction people without taking away some basic rights.  I mean in some cultures it was figured that slicing off a person's hand was an appropriate punishment, rules are rules and you can't just let people steal things without punishing them.

    The right to vote seems pretty basic to me.

    I'll defer to you for the last word here.

    The people in those states are going to understand what the rules are.  But for once, their vote is going to matter.  Maybe the first time in decades.  And it's the most historic primary in the history of the Democratic Primary.

    Their vote won't matter like the way it does right now ever again in their lifetimes.

    The folks in charge have lost their sense of perspective and are very badly mis-judging how this chapter in history will be written.


    Parent

    I recognize the informed choices of the voters (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:57:26 PM EST
    in the MI and FL primaries, and support the right for their voices to be heard in August.
    Wasn't that easy?
    By the way, the punishment of FL and MI already had the effect of removing the influence of the early dates. Why is it so important to punish them so extremely, when the rules do not require that?

    Parent
    Absolutely agree! (none / 0) (#125)
    by alexei on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:07:20 PM EST
    Thank you for your cogent and compelling argument!

    Parent
    Stop! He took his name off. (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by MMW on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:30:10 AM EST
    No one took it off for him.

    Parent
    Okay, I'll draw this line in the sand (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:40:26 AM EST
    None of the elections were fair because MY NAME wasn't on the ballot.  

    That makes about as much sense.  Obama chose not to compete in Michigan. That was purely his choice and he did it for POLITICAL reasons, to make Iowa happy.

    Parent

    Please stop with this falsehood (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by echinopsia on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:47:49 PM EST
    There were four plus "uncommitted."

    You do yourself no favors by repeating that there was only one name on the ballot; four does not equal one even using Obama math.

    Parent

    so acording to you Gore is being stupid (none / 0) (#26)
    by TalkRight on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:24:02 AM EST
    to suggest that everyone should for all the primaries

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#17)
    by tek on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:19:06 AM EST
    yesterday Dean was saying along with Reid that they were going to make the Supers vote in April and end the primary season early.  I wonder if letters and petitions changed his tune?

    Hardly. (none / 0) (#19)
    by sweetthings on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:19:35 AM EST
    Depending on what you mean by 'resolve.'

    One of the candidates is certain to reach the 2024 delegates required to win. In theory, that's all that required for the situation to be resolved.

    In reality, of course, it's a little more complicated, because of FL and MI. However, it's very, very likely that if the winning candidate is Obama, he'll win with a large enough delegate margin that the FL and MI can be fully seated without changing the outcome. So, situation still resolved.

    However, it's quite possible that we'll see a situation in which Obama wins the nomination (even seating FL and MI) with a significant delegate lead but without winning the popular vote, as best as we can measure it. (which isn't very well)

    Is that a problem? Depends on who you ask.

    I think it's reasonable to assume (none / 0) (#23)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:21:34 AM EST
    That the party will be a microcosm of the anger that resulted in Bush vs. Gore if Obama loses the popular vote and wins on delegate totals alone.

    That is a worst case scenario.

    Parent

    That is an argument against caucuses (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:29:02 AM EST
    Not the popular vote.

    It has long been my view that caucuses are institutionalized disenfranchisement.

    Obama has greatly benefitted from this institutionalized disenfranchisement. We know the caucuses votes. They just are miniscule compared to primaries.

    We can and will calculate the popular vote result.

    Parent

    I'm not calling you a republican (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:33:56 AM EST
    But every time I hear that line from an Obama supporter I can't help but remember the same kinds of lines I heard from Republicans in 2000.


    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#64)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:41:07 AM EST
    Lets assume that's what you were saying in 2000 then.

    As you are someone that understands our system.


    Parent

    Well insofar as the electoral college is concerned (none / 0) (#105)
    by Faust on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:29:00 PM EST
    they were right. We almost had the reverse situation in 2004, except for the likely BS in Ohio.

    The electoral college is BS but it IS how it works. It's a rule based contest. The rules may be crap but they are still the rules until they are changed to new rules.

    The funny thing is in the current contest it's not even the rules. It's just a delegate race that includes the SuperDs. They are free to choose whatever metric they like at any point in the contest. They can chose to look at the popular vote or ignore it. They can look at pledged delegates or ignore it. They are free to commit now or wait till the convention.

    Basically at this point everyone is arguing for the scenarios primarily to try to convince the superdelegates.

    Parent

    Not only the Supers... (none / 0) (#120)
    by alexei on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:48:46 PM EST
    can vote as they want.  But also the pledged delegates (some states have some rules on this) can too.

    Parent
    But in 2004... (none / 0) (#137)
    by diogenes on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:44:54 PM EST
    Some Dems say that Bush stole the election in Ohio although BUSH WON IN POPULAR VOTES.  
    I guess we do whatever is expedient at the time.

    Parent
    Indeed we will (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:33:41 AM EST
    The popular vote will be argued in this race. To super delegates.

    Learn to deal with that.

    Parent

    I just fail to understand how (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by TalkRight on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:40:47 AM EST
    some people manage to twist their tongue to say, We don't want to overturn the peoples mandate.. so lets go with delegate leader and not popular vote!!!

    Parent
    The people's mandate? (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by sweetthings on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:50:10 AM EST
    You can't honestly believe that either candidate represents a 'mandate.' We are where we are precisely because the Democratic electorate is split down the middle on Clinton/Obama. We obviously like them both, or we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.

    Parent
    Obama has the advantage (none / 0) (#32)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:26:03 AM EST
    With caucus states anyway.

    Make those states primaries and his pop. vote erodes.

    The caucus states are well represenging Obama.


    Parent

    We can and WILL (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:29:45 AM EST
    calculate the popular vote accurately. We know exactly what the votes were in caucus states.

    Parent
    It is wrong (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:34:23 AM EST
    That is a fact.

    Parent
    I have been wondering about this (none / 0) (#60)
    by fuzzyone on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:39:59 AM EST
    can you point me to a link where I can see accurate caucus vote counts?

    Parent
    Nevermind (none / 0) (#45)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:32:43 AM EST
    The caucus vote totals are beneficial enough to Obama as it is.

    They are not being undermined within the context of your priorities.

    What is being added to the popular vote in those states is very advantageous to you.

    I say let it go or open that can of worms and take into account that caucusses have further de-legitimized your candidate.


    Parent

    I'd have to look (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:42:57 AM EST
    And see if caucusses deviated from popular votes in 1992.

    It would be an interesting study if caucusses have always shown a 10% deviation from popular primary votes.

    Or if this phenomenon is suddenly only coming about now.

    For whatever reason we just haven't uncovered yet.


    Parent

    The original point stands (none / 0) (#82)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:53:04 AM EST
    And Bill is right for the time being.

    Counting MI and FL and letting the rest of the votes play out, and things might change.

    Of course Dean and Obama want the Super D's to decide the election before any of that happens.


    Parent

    more like Abercrombie & Fitch :-) (5.00 / 0) (#121)
    by RalphB on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:51:01 PM EST


    Parent
    No MI and FL (none / 0) (#101)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:20:21 PM EST
    And it's a banana republic election.

    We're at an impasse.

    So there's no point in continuing this discussion.


    Parent

    Actually according to Jay Cost (none / 0) (#108)
    by Faust on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:31:38 PM EST
    Changing the caucus states into primaries MIGHT have had the effect of increasing his popular vote lead. He discusses that in his article on Hillary's moral claim to the nomination. His argument was based on how stable the demographics have been in terms of their decisions in every state.

    Parent
    I'm dunno. (none / 0) (#38)
    by sweetthings on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:30:01 AM EST
    We could actually calculate the popular vote back in 2000, because there was a unified voting process across the entire country.

    That doesn't exist in the primary. States vote across months, making the race very fluid. 30% of the states use caucuses. Some states have even stranger systems. Some people were told their vote wouldn't count. Some people didn't even have the option of voting for one of the candidates. There's simply no good way to calculate the popular vote in all this. That means that each side can (and will) spin it to their heart's content, but I'll wager it rules out the kind of outrage that we saw in 2000.

    Of course, I've been wrong before.

    Parent

    This is false (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:32:59 AM EST
    We can and WILL calculate the popular vote.

    Parent
    No, you can't (3.00 / 2) (#87)
    by rebrane on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:55:44 AM EST
    You can ESTIMATE it. Whether that's good enough is a matter of opinion.

    Parent
    I didn't say it can't be done. (none / 0) (#73)
    by sweetthings on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:46:11 AM EST
    I said there's no good way to do it. And there isn't. The MI issue alone prevents any count that would be convincing to anyone who didn't have an interest in the outcome. And MI isn't the only issue, not by a long shot.

    Everyone will be pouring over their calculators. And we'll see lots of different numbers, which will all play very well to their respective choirs. But I'll go on the record as predicting that none of them will be very convincing to the electorate at large.

    Parent

    The delegate count has (none / 0) (#133)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:19:53 PM EST
    always been what matters....

    Not until this cycle has anyone suggesting using the cumulative popular vote in the Primaries as a basis of deciding upon a nominee.

    Parent

    Yes, I mean with Supers. (none / 0) (#52)
    by sweetthings on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:35:15 AM EST
    It is impossible without them.

    But I don't think the Supers will split down the middle. They realize that we need a winner, and that winner needs to win by a large enough margin that FL and MI can be seated.

    So either Hillary will blow Obama as he self-destructs over the coming contests, in which case they will move in bulk to Clinton, or she won't, in which case they will move in bulk to Obama. Either way, I don't think we'll see things split down the middle.

    Parent

    We still have a few months to go (none / 0) (#88)
    by blogtopus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:58:10 AM EST
    Self Destruction can take a lot less time. And its obvious that Hillary has regained her footing on the state races. They are going to be neck-and-neck the next several weeks, unless another iceberg hits the good ship Obama.

    These things can turn on a dime, and they have. I think this Wright thing is the first real problem that Obama has had to deal with (the Rezko thing is wonky, and most red meaters won't go for that). His attempts to put it to bed thus far have been uninspiring.

    But we'll see. As Gore says, this whole thing should work itself out.

    Parent

    The nomination contest (none / 0) (#134)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:25:56 PM EST
    will end once a candidate gets to 2024.  

    If enough superdelegates declare before June, it will be over.....There is no reason the race must go to June.....

    Too much negative campaigning, and the superdelegates might decide to end it.

    Parent

    This will be resolved before the end of May (none / 0) (#28)
    by fladem on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:24:37 AM EST
    This is unlikely to go beyond May 20th (when Oregon and Kentucky vote).  In fact,  if Obama is able to limit the damage in PA and Indiana and win in North Carolina, I don't think it will go beyond May 6th.
    Here is why.  After North Carolina and Indiana, there will be 217 delegates left to be chosen.  If you assume Clinton wins 55% of the delegates in Pennsylvania (which would mean winning PA by 20 points), 55% of the delegates in Indiana and they split North Carolina here is what the pledged delegates will look like:

    Obama 1619, Clinton 1,464

    Obama will have a 155 delegate lead.  If you assume that 50% the Florida delegates are seated (which is, in my view,  the likely outcome) Clinton nets 19 delegates, leaving Obama with a lead of 136 delegate lead.  

    After Oregon and Kentucky vote there are are 86 delegates left.  If you assume Clinton gets 60% of the delegates in Kentucky and West Virginia and they split Oregon, here is what the  pledged delegates will look like:

    Obama 1676, Clinton 1536

    There is no way Clinton will be able to get within 100 delegates of Obama in the remaining contests.  Note the standard Dean is using: pledged delegates.  This is the standard that was used in the past, which is the standard that is being used here.  
    By mid-May either the math for Obama becomes overwhelming OR an Obama collapse will be obvious.
    Either way it will be over.

    Ifs and assertions (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:31:50 AM EST
    I think you are right. But that is just our opinions.

    I quibble with your assertion that "we looked at pledged delegates in the past." We NEVER did.

    Iowa was not reported Obama 16, Clinton 15.

    Never have we had such a close race. EVER.

    Parent

    The system is not designed (none / 0) (#69)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:43:56 AM EST
    to accommodate a close race. The people who designed this, if they're still alive, should be strung up. (hyperbole alert!)

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#124)
    by fladem on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:02:38 PM EST
    the proof that pledged delegates and not popular vote is the standard is that ANY state uses a caucus.  If popular vote where the measure, than choosing a caucus system would be to choose to reduce your influence, which no state would knowingly do.  

    Parent
    But the argument here is that (none / 0) (#48)
    by jes on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:33:26 AM EST
    Obama must not only be ahead in the pledged delegates, he must also be ahead by at least 50K in the popular vote.  Can you run those numbers?

    Parent
    Actually 500,000 (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:44:38 AM EST
    Hillary's Margin from FL and MI.

    Parent
    Only if their opponents took them off themselves (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by blogtopus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:09:37 PM EST
    Which is what Edwards, Obama etc did.

    They took a calculated risk, and they lost. Risk implies having a chance to lose. They risked this outcome when they tried to kiss up to Iowa.

    Come on, they're both lawyers. They also knew that by taking their names off, they would poison the well. That's about as disrespectful of voters as you can imagine, outside of outright theft.

    Basically they said if they can't win in Michigan (which they couldn't) then nobody would. BA. LO. NEY.

    Parent

    Can we PLEASE put this false (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by tree on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:13:41 PM EST
    talking point to bed now? It's getting really tiresome. There were 4 names on the Michigan ballot.
    The only reason Obama's name wasn't on it is because he made a strategic decision to remove it. No one forced him off it, no one purposely excluded him except his own campaign.

    Parent
    no, it's not (5.00 / 0) (#100)
    by irene adler on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:17:57 PM EST
    because he had the choice to be on the ballot. he chose not to be. many Obama supporters refuse to accept that he and he alone made that choice, but he did.

    everyone in MI who wanted to vote for Hillary did. those who wanted to vote for someone else voted uncommitted. since Obama is the only someone else in the race, he should be entitled to all the uncommitted delegates. at least that follows the choice made by MI's democratic primary voters.

    Parent

    more like 900K (none / 0) (#93)
    by nellre on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:07:06 PM EST
    remember, 3% margin of error.

    Obama will not have enough delegates to cinch the nom.
    The race is tied. Can anybody think of a fair way to break the tie?

    Parent

    If only (none / 0) (#58)
    by Radix on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:39:17 AM EST
    This was all planned ahead of time. Imagine the roar, from both sides, Clinton's and Obama's, if we end up with a unity ticket.  

    Enthusiasm (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Radix on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:44:13 AM EST
    Both sides get essentially what they want. Remember, the rethugs reworked the power structure of the VP, so now, the veep is a much more substantial power broker.

    Parent
    Perhaps... (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by Radix on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:03:13 PM EST
    you can use the constitution and cite were that is so?

    Parent
    You're right, sorta (none / 0) (#109)
    by Radix on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:33:54 PM EST
    The constitution does give specific duties to the VP; however, I'm not seeing any limiting language there either. The constitution, at least what you posted, doesn't limit the VP's role to only what you posted.

    Parent
    Again (5.00 / 0) (#119)
    by Radix on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:48:24 PM EST
    The Constitution doesn't limit the Vp's role to only those things which you listed. The portion you listed only says that the VP is the only granted those particular duties not that those are the only duties which the Veep can be tasked with.

    Parent
    the Constitution (none / 0) (#110)
    by Nasarius on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:35:05 PM EST
    Didn't create the Cabinet either. Are you going to whine about the power they're given?

    The President is well within his rights to delegate power within the executive branch. What's your problem with that?

    Parent

    I did say "If only". (none / 0) (#89)
    by Radix on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:02:06 PM EST
    I'm not certain that HRC couldn't sorta play the Chenney role. We have a carrot and stick approach here, Obama tries the carrot and if that doesn't work, he uses the stick, Hillary.

    Parent
    My guess? (none / 0) (#114)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:40:54 PM EST
    Outrage. If it's Clinton/Obama, Obama supporters outrage. If it's Obama/Clinton, Clinton supporters outrage. IMO, because of FL and MI, this is gonna end ugly.

    Parent
    I hope not. (none / 0) (#122)
    by Radix on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:54:06 PM EST


    Parent
    #2 as an option only applies if.... (none / 0) (#74)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:47:54 AM EST
    ...you really believe that Obama would offer the vice presidency. I doubt the party elders could force him to do that since they, for the most part, have created a situation in which the perception is that they will do his bidding, not vice versa.

    The superdelegates could (none / 0) (#135)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:27:35 PM EST
    condition their support on Hillary being VP.

    Parent
    Gore: No Need For "Party Elder" Intervention In Dem Race | 100 comments (100 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment