The Will Of The People Is Not In The Pledged Delegate Count (Part 2)

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:33:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By Big Tent Democrat

(Original Post here.)

Yesterday, Barack Obama won Wyoming by 2,000 votes of 8600 cast. He gained a 2 (and with the add on delegate to be added later likely 3) delegates to his pledged delegate lead. Last Tuesday, Hillary Clinton won Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island, while Barack Obama won Vermont. The difference in the popular vote that day was was 334,000 in favor of Hillary Clinton, as she garnered 2.84 million votes to Obama's 2.51 million. We are told that Hillary gained a net 4 delegates that night.

This is because Ohioans choose one pledged delegate for every 15,000 Ohioans voting, Texans choose one pledged delegate for every 22,373 persons voting, Rhode Islanders choose one pledged delegate for every 8800 persons voting and Vermonters choose one pledged delegate for every 10,066 persons voting. By contrast, Wyomingians choose one pledged delegate for every 725 persons voting (not counting the add on delegate.)

The Democratic nomination system is institutionalized vote dilution. It is undemocratic. It is a travesty. It is no way to pick a nominee. The will of the people is reflected in the POPULAR VOTE, not the pledged delegate count.

More . . .

I want to anticipate an argument here where people will analogize to the Electoral College. Well, let's play the Electoral College game, with the understanding that the Electoral College is winner take all.

So far, using Electoral College math, my back of the envelope has Hillary Clinton winning 14 states with 216 electoral votes. Barack Obama has won 25 states and DC with 196 electoral votes.

Outstanding are Florida (27), Pennsylvania (21), Michigan (17), Mississippi (6), North Carolina (15), Indiana (11), Kentucky (8), Oregon (7), West Virginia (5), Montana (3), and South Dakota (3). That is 123 electoral votes outstanding.

NOTE: I am missing one electoral vote in my count but for the life of me I can not find it.)

< Sunday Presidential Race Reading | Mississippi Will Be A Pyrrhic Victory For Obama >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Will Of The People Is Not In The Pledged Delegate Count (Part 2) | 67 comments (67 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Wasn't Alaska even worse? (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by reynwrap582 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:58:49 AM EST

I remember calculating it down to around 500 votes per delegate?

I should be doing homework right now. Stop enticing me with new blog posts! :p

puerto rico (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by deminma on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:22:57 AM EST

How many more people will vote now that PR has changed from a caucus to a primary? In both Washington State and Texas, at least 2 times as many people voted in the primary voted as opposed went to the caucus.

The point being how are you going to measure the will of the people in caucus states? Many people will be disenfranchised if you think we should try to use the poular vote counts that are being thrown around.

There is no doubbt that the system is broken which you have been clearly pointing out over the last three months. You new method will clearly wait the results to larger states that have primaries.

washington state (none / 0) (#4)
by deminma on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:32:39 AM EST

I just looked up the data

obama won the caucuses by 10,000 and he won
the beauty contest primary by 40,000 (and the % margin was much smaller).


Yep (none / 0) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:59:33 AM EST

And if you apportioned the delegates based on the primary numbers, Obama barely gains.


relative weighting (none / 0) (#13)
by deminma on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:09:25 AM EST

The popoular vote totals as promulgated by the press will probably have the gap being less than 200k when all is done. Given PR does not have any electoral votes, should they have that much weight on the nomination?


You tell me (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:12:21 AM EST

Should their delegates count? What about Guam?

There is your problem right there imo. This nomination system is a travesty.

This post does not even touch upon the problem WITHIN states! There is even further voter dilution there.


its a mess (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by deminma on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:22:51 AM EST

The democratic party came up with a way to weight the states, (they even give 30% bonus delegates for being later in the process ) I think the their system has major problems. You would think they would optimize it to win the general election. ie weigh swing states appropriately.

But since it doesn't - to delegitimize what they have created is looking for big trouble as you will have many people feeling that they were robbed.

The new system you are pushing has not been debated and is inappropriate to try to do in the middle of the current process.


We are past the point of (5.00 / 4) (#30)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:09:49 AM EST

a clean legitmate win for either candidate. A unity ticket is the only solution.


: Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by annabelly on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:36:18 AM EST

I have ben saying this since Valentine's day.

anti-intellectualism? (none / 0) (#62)
by SarahinCA on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:07:56 PM EST

How is it *ever* inappropriate to debate this travesty of a nomination process?


This isn't pushing a new system (none / 0) (#71)
by Manuel on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:22:12 PM EST

This is fighting the meme that the only thing the superdelegates must consider is the pledged delegate lead. That would compound the travesty. No rules are violated by pointing out other measures.


I predict, subject to change (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:58:51 AM EST

that 500,000 people will vote and that Clinton wins by 2-1. 335k to 165k.

That would be a 170k vote difference.


I figured out why (5.00 / 3) (#3)
by Josey on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:31:29 AM EST

some countries aren't interested in embracing U.S. "democratic" elections. They don't understand it. We don't even understand it.
Want to reduce terrorism? Fix our election process!
;>

Bullseye... (5.00 / 3) (#6)
by reynwrap582 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:44:02 AM EST

We need to spread democracy to the United States before we try to spread it to the rest of the world.


: Heh heh (none / 0) (#61)
by sara seattle on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:55:26 AM EST

Yes - the Bush spreading democracy - has not worked well so far

If you go by pure popular vote totals (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by JoeA on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:42:50 AM EST

then you punish the candidate who does well in caucus states, i.e. Obama. If Wyoming was a Primary instead of a Caucus, Obama would almost certainly have still won, albeit by a smaller percentage margin. But even if he won by 5% instead of by the blowout margins he registered in a caucus, he would have registered a much bigger popular vote swing in his favour.

I agree that the best way to do it would be to have every state run a primary, with no superdelegates, and pledged delegates allocated proportionally. Much fairer and more democratic.

However going by popular vote disenfranchises those states which have run caucuses and means changing the metrics mid stream to favour one candidate over the other.

Let's do the math (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:57:16 AM EST

IF 50% of Wyoming Dems had turned out, an outlandish firgure, then 25,000 Wyomingians would have voted.

Let's assume Obama win 53-47. HE would have gotten 13,000 votes. Clinton would have gotten 12,000 votes.

The popular vote margin would have been reduced by 1,000.

Your assumptions are quite bad.


Fair enough, in this instance (none / 0) (#41)
by JoeA on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:56:55 AM EST

I do still maintain that using Popular Vote as a metric penalises Obama in general, and specifically for him running a good race tailored to the rules in place. It also effectively bails out Hillary for running an incompetent campaign until the recent head knocking entry of Maggie Williams. If Hillary had kicked Solis-Doyle to the curb 6 months ago then I think this would be over by now and she would be the nominee. As it is I think her campaign has come good barring divine intervention.


Counting the vote penalizes Obama (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:00:04 AM EST

Indeed. Quite an argument you make there.


No, moving the goalposts because Hillary (none / 0) (#53)
by JoeA on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:21:01 AM EST

is losing under the current rules penalises Obama.

Different thing.


If Obama can win with pledged delegates (5.00 / 3) (#54)
by Democratic Cat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:25:44 AM EST

Then that's what will happen. But I don't think he can, so superdelegates come into play, and that's what this argument is about. It's not moving the goalposts. Under the rules, Superdelegates don't have any goalposts. They set their own.

It's also about more than superdelegates or this particular nomination cycle. The system is fundamentally undemocratic. Suppose that for some crazy reason the rule was that women get two votes for every man's vote. It's a bright line rule, everyone knows that to win you have to court women. Clinton would be trouncing him. Would it be democratic? No. Don't defend rules that are undemocratic.


: Precisely (5.00 / 2) (#56)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:31:25 AM EST

Um she is behnd under the pledged delegate (none / 0) (#55)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:31:06 AM EST

count but Obama does not have the delegates necessary to capture the nomination.

The Super delegates are in the current rules.


What current rules are those? (none / 0) (#72)
by Manuel on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:27:11 PM EST

There is no rule that says the pledged delegate leader should get the nomination. If there were such a rule, we wouldn't need/have superdelegates.


Two different things (none / 0) (#75)
by smb on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:41:31 AM EST

Obama suggesting that super delegates should vote for the leader in pledged delegates does nothing to change the rules. He is simply applying political pressure to the super delegates to either vote the way their constituents voted or vote their own will (and thus against their constituents, thats the pressure). Everything else being discussed here, all the outrage about undemocratic rules, disenfranchisement, etc.. All of it attempts to change the rules mid-game. If there was such outrage, where was it when they signed the pledge, where was it since 2004, etc... (cue crickets chirping) Right, there was no outrage until Hillary's dreams of political manifest destiny where abruptly altered. I can understand how she must feel, nobody likes to get beaten (as it stands now), but trying to change the rules of the game to make yourself the winner just shows how low some will stoop to win the game.

But what about all the injustice in our nomination process? Well, I truly hope everyone who is so outraged dedicates their time in each and every state to push for change so we can have a just system in the future. But for now, the rules are the rules...


: There will be a revote in FL and MI (none / 0) (#78)
by Manuel on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:43:25 PM EST

A revote will be within the rules. Part of the rules is that the DNC can change or suspend the rules. That is called justice. Think of it as instant replay.

Uh, not counting the popular vote (5.00 / 2) (#60)
by annabelly on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:48:16 AM EST

penalizes voters. I'll take one guy not getting every advantage despite gaming the system over millions of voters being discounted in that gaming. YMMV


You overestimate (5.00 / 2) (#66)
by Steve M on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:03:19 PM EST

the extent to which Obama's campaign has been "tailored to the rules."

Hillary's old ladies and blue-collar voters are simply less likely to attend a caucus format. Nothing about campaign style is going to change that.


: Ouch. (none / 0) (#68)
by oculus on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:15:33 PM EST

: Yeah, there's something about (none / 0) (#76)
by splashy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:26:13 AM EST

Having to work or take care of family and not wanting to be bullied that really keeps some people from caucusing.

edit (none / 0) (#42)
by JoeA on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:57:45 AM EST

I meant to say " her campaign has come good TOO LATE, barring divine intervention."


The problem (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by kenoshaMarge on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:19:56 AM EST

is that many, myself included, do not understand the primary election system very well. I'm learning though.

Many voters don't understand it at all and simply seem to think as some posters I read that winning a state is all that counts. In which case Obama is winning cause he's got more states. Okay, 1 state, 1 vote, right? No.

But with enough blowhards, like Mark Halperin on television programs like Charlie Rose, talking drivel then you get an ill-informed electorate that's all honked-off because they think they're getting screwed. And they are not only angry they are using the drivel they heard from Halperin as a reason for their anger.

And that's why it is so important that people like BTD keep giving us the facts as they are not as some pundidiot is proclaiming on the boobtube. (I know that word dates me but I find it exactly right in that it defines both kinds of boobs that infest my television.)

Proportional delegate awarding whacked as well (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by ineedalife on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:48:10 AM EST

The proportional system is based on last cycle's election thereby producing a candidate that might win 4 years ago but not now.

Both candidates have been burned by this but it is the party that suffers. They claim that they want to use the primary process to grow the party. But what kind of message is it? Welcome to the party where your vote doesn't count.

I am sure many Hispanics in TX may be double thinking their experience voting Dem right now.

Framing (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by ineedalife on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:59:44 AM EST

I think the whole point of the diary is to put the "pledged delegate" part of the contest into proper perspective. It is only a part of the overall equation precisely because it does not necessarily represent the will of the people. A vocal contingent of media and Obama supporters want to make the pledged delegate totals the only determinant of the election. People might get less exorcised if they understand what is going on.

Yes, the Democratic party is good at producing candidates that can rack up delegate totals in this arcane system. The Republican party chooses their nominee by a process that resembles the actual election they will compete in come November. Which party has the best track record in that election?

: The fact that Republicans tend to win (none / 0) (#57)
by RalphB on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:52:38 AM EST

using their system should be a reality check on the Democratic party.

Attacking HIllary Clinton, Bill Clinton, (5.00 / 1) (#70)
by andgarden on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:27:39 PM EST

and their supporters does not change the fact that caucuses are unfair.

So far Obama has both (none / 0) (#7)
by maritza on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:45:31 AM EST

the popular vote and the pledged delegates.

So far he has the "will of the people".

the will of *some* of the people... (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by Rainsong on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:38:58 AM EST

... its only some of the people, a huge number don't participate in primaries, and even less participate in caucuses.

Also its a political Party selection process, not written into the Constitutions or something. Party could pick candidates by throwing darts or the I-Ching if they wanted to.

In other countries the equivalent process sometimes called 'Party Pre-Selection' for candidates, but is always closed to Registered Party members. They may have Open discussion meetings around candidate selection time, to allow others to come along, listen/input to the discussion and debate, find out more info etc, maybe encouraged to join up for the campaign, but they dont get to vote in Party matters.

In Australia for example, that sort of thing woudl be enabling "branch-stacking" - ie the Opposition has "stacked" regional or state Party branches for takeovers, and is very much frowned upon and will get penalised heavily. Yet you go around penalising whole states, just because they moved their primary date? You might be right, other countries might think twice about adopting that sort of "democracy".

The way I read the DNC rules, is that the super-dels were to vote according to conscience, and if that conscience goes against the grain for some factions, then so be it. Them's the rules.

If you allow the people to vote as they wish, then so should the super-dels be allowed the same right. If they were just "rubber-stampers" then you don't need them. No need to force senior Party officials to support it, if they don't. Why have Party officials at all?

generally the candidate selection process has a clear front-runner by this stage in the calendar, and so most of the time, its a moot point, a non-issue. But this time, it may happen that they will have to weigh in, by the rules.

Unfortunate, whichever way they end up voting, both factions will probably see it as the other faction having "bullied" or strongarmed the super-dels. No-win situation.

Look at the bright side, its good training & professional development for all Democrats.

You never know, common sense may prevail :)


So far (none / 0) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:54:50 AM EST

With Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Puerto Rico on the horizon, it seems at least a 50 percent chance that Clinton will win the popular vote.


Obama may not agree to a Florida (none / 0) (#17)
by maritza on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:14:59 AM EST

re-do. He has no need to do that. Obama knows that he isn't going to win Florida any way against McCain.

Obama's pathway to victory isn't through Florida but wins in Colorado, Virginia, etc.

Even CNN said that.

Florida is important to Hillary but not to Obama.

Michigan is important to Obama and I think he can win there. Also, his name wasn't on the ballot there so a re-do there would be to his advantage.


: Maybe, maybe not (5.00 / 2) (#35)
by Lou Grinzo on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:32:35 AM EST

I'm not so sure that Obama can veto, in effect, a FL do-over.
It would be a PR nightmare, as Clinton and her supporters would be able to say, "He doesn't want to seat the delegates already chosen, and he doesn't even want to let them vote all over again. He calls himself a Democrat???" (And just to be clear, I would be one of the people raising that objection.)
I suspect that would look bad to a lot of SD's, not just the public in general.
I think the best he can do is hope a FL do-over doesn't happen, but be prepared to spend like there's no tomorrow on a short campaign there to minimize the damage.

Will of People (none / 0) (#12)
by Aussie Chris on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:08:21 AM EST

Yes, if all states had primaries, then one would expect Obama's delegate lead would decrease but his popular vote lead would increase. Presently, according to RCP (the best estimate), Obama leads in pledged delegates by 6% and in the popular vote by 2%. If the caucuses were primaries (or beggars were horses) one would expect the lead to be about 4% in both.

Why increase? (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:09:37 AM EST

I do not agree with that.

Indeed, I suspect his popular vote total might decrease as well.


Example: Washington State (none / 0) (#20)
by Aussie Chris on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:27:39 AM EST

In the WA Caucus Obama won by 10,000 votes, but he won by 30,000 votes in the primary.


That begs the question (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:08:46 AM EST

What would have been a popular vote result in other caucus states? Might Obama have LOST them in a primary?


That's alot of if's BTD. They weren't primaries (none / 0) (#38)
by JoeA on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:44:52 AM EST

they were caucuses. Hillary did not compete in them, and she was blown out. Deciding that the race is suddenly about the popular vote and that states that held caucuses don't count is not tenable.


You started the ifs not me (none / 0) (#43)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:58:01 AM EST

I take the popular vote as is. You want to project it out to a primary vote.


This is going back several days (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by JoeA on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:06:19 AM EST

and when I brought up projecting the popular vote from a caucus out to a primary, I believe I specifically said that doing so would not be fair to Clinton as the margins would almost certainly have been less pronounced in a Primary. Equally I also said by not projecting the vote out it would not be fair to Obama as it diminishes his results in caucus states.

I believe my position on this has remained pretty consistent. Pledged delegates, as you have persuasively argued are an imperfect metric of popular support.

However I am arguing that going with raw popular votes is not necessarily any fairer, and as this is a contest for delegates, pledged delegates should be the most important.

Obama has run an efficient and targetted campaign based on the rules in place and has successfully run up delegate totals and that is why he is where he is now. If the contest had been about popular votes then the campaign strategies would have been different and there would not be any caucuses.


: I think it is clearly fairer (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:08:09 AM EST

as the delegate allocation system is outrageous in the extreme.

I did not say they do not count by the way (none / 0) (#44)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:59:05 AM EST

I am counting them. For example, Obama got 5000 votes yesterday in Wyoming. And Clinton got 3000.

Please do not distort my comment.


This is bad math (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by Democratic Cat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:07:29 AM EST

If Obama wins caucuses by larger percentages than in primaries, but primary states have larger numbers of voters, then it is not correct to take 2% and 6% and simply average them to figure out the lead if the caucuses had been primaries. His lead would be much closer to 2%. And it could even be smaller than 2% since caucuses have a fundamentally different voter turnout dynamic than primaries.


Also (none / 0) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:10:29 AM EST

your PV calculations do not include Florida or Michigan.

Clinton will win the popular vote I think.


Yes (none / 0) (#21)
by Aussie Chris on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:36:00 AM EST

I agree that Clinton can possibly gain the popular vote lead after the re-run of Florida and Michigan including PA and Puerto Rico. It could be very close. That would certainly be a valid argument for the superdelegates to vote for her even though Obama still held the lead in delegates. Still, if he leads by 100 delegates and there are only 270 uncommitted superdelegates left (I don't include the 76 'add-on' which will go with their states), it is unlikely they could swing for Clinton. Still, there is a long way to go.


I've read that Clinton (none / 0) (#34)
by litigatormom on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:28:45 AM EST

does lead in popular votes if you include the MI and FLA results.

Re-votes in MI and FLA will not change that, I think. Obama will necessarily do better in MI (since he wasn't on the ballot before, and thus has no popular votes in his column), but Clinton's margins in FLA will increase, I suspect. Pennsylvania will add to her lead in popular votes.


Not going to happen. (none / 0) (#39)
by JoeA on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:48:22 AM EST

Michigan goes from Clinton with 55% of the vote and Obama with 0%, to Obama winning 55-45 probably. Obama will almost certainly narrow any gap in Florida.

I'm glad you can claim Hillary leads the popular vote due to Michigan with a straight face. It's easy to run up big numbers when you are the only major candidate on the ballot.


Keep the personal stuff out (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:56:45 AM EST

Make your substantive argument without insulting a fellow commenter.

I should delete your comment but I will let it stand with this admonition.


Fair enough. (none / 0) (#46)
by JoeA on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:01:07 AM EST

though I think my comment was pretty mild and you would have to have to be very sensitive to take it as an insult.

I meant only to say that I do not think claiming Michigan's popular vote for Clinton passes the laugh test.


We are a very sensitive site right now (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:07:22 AM EST

Just keep it out.


Point taken. [nt] (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by JoeA on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:10:33 AM EST

: Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:12:11 AM EST

Oh my (none / 0) (#67)
by Steve M on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:05:05 PM EST

Do you seriously think Obama has a prayer of winning Michigan by 10 points?


BTD, (none / 0) (#58)
by frankly0 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:09:28 AM EST

I don't know if you've seen this, but there's actually a new poll that just came out from Rasmussen that's quite on point with regard to a lot of these questions, and which should be incorporated into your arguments. It shows pretty clearly that most Democrats (and the American people) support the idea that the nomination should go to the winner of the popular vote rather than the winner of the pledged delegate count (among Democrats, its 59% to 25%. Indeed, even among Obama supporters, its 45% to 32%).

There are also some poll numbers in the article regarding the possibility of re-dos in FL and MI -- with 38% of Democrats supporting it, and 44% opposing. However, it's quite unclear from what I've read whether it means that these Democrats also think that we should just go with the results of the first primaries, or just not seat the delegates from FL and MI at all. My guess is that that question really wasn't effectively addressed in the poll.

"Rioting" at Denver (none / 0) (#63)
by BDB on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:24:04 PM EST

While there has been some talk among Obama people about violence at Denver if he's not the nominee, may I suggest the people who should really throw a fit in Denver is the delegation from California. And Texas. And Ohio. And probably every other big state, regardless of who its people voted for. Because this is ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.

Missing in all of this..... (none / 0) (#64)
by Chango on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:28:43 PM EST

....is the fact that Obama leads in the popular vote, as well as the delegates.

: He Does Now (5.00 / 2) (#65)
by BDB on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:41:58 PM EST

But that hasn't always been true. And, I suspect, that the Obama campaign isn't sure it will continue to be true or else they wouldn't be pushing pledged delegates so hard.

x (none / 0) (#73)
by CognitiveDissonance on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:34:42 PM EST

I would also make the point that it seems to be up to states whether they run primaries or caucuses. Whether the DNC has the power to change that, I don't know. But I doubt the Clintons had much say in it.

: DNC (none / 0) (#74)
by cal1942 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:11:54 PM EST

has no say in the method used by states.
In reality there is no national party, only state parties. You can only join your state's party.
The DNC is responsible for the convention and running the presidential campaign.