home

The Popular Vote And The Will Of the People: It's Not An Electability Argument

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:42:30 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Many do not accept that the popular vote in the Democratic nomination is the fairest representation of the will of the electorate in the Democratic contest. It is their right of course to feel that way. I disagree with them.

But I do object to what I have seen seeping into the coverage, especially on the Obama News Network (NBC), that the vote in places like Guam and Puerto Rico do not count because they do not vote in the Presidential Election in November. This utterly misconstrues the point. Oh and it is bigoted to boot. The latest was Jon Alter:

[Clinton] could then proclaim that with the help of Puerto Rican voters who cannot vote in a general election, she is the popular vote winner.

(Emphasis supplied.) What Alter and the Obama News Network do not understand is that the popular vote argument is NOT an electability argument. The electorate (the People) defined by the Democratic Party for choosing its nominee included Americans Abroad (and whether they get to vote in November or not depends on various state laws), Guam, and Puerto Rico as well as the 50 (well 48 as of now) states. For purposes of deciding who the Democratic nominee, the Democratic Party said that these were the People.

Of course the method by which the Democratic Party chooses its nominee is by delegates. For better or worse, we are stuck with the travesty of a system that is in place now. but that system includes Super Delegates.

It is clear that neither candidate will win enough elected delegates to secure the nomination. As we have been saying for some time now, the Super Delegates will decide who the Democratic nominee will be. There have been many arguments made that the Super Delegates must respect the result of the pledged delegate race. There is no rule to that effect. It is not a legal or rules based argument. It is a moral argument. Each super delegate, exercising his or her independent judgment, is free to choose any candidate they want, including themselves presumably, or no candidate at all. So the arguments to the Super Delegates are moral in nature, not rules based.

The popular vote argument is also a moral argument to the Super Delegates. It argues that the People (the electorate defined by the Democratic Party as having a vote in the Democratic nomination contest) express their will in the popular vote as the pledged delegate system does not reflect their votes accurately. This is undeniably true.

Is the popular vote count accurate? Accurate enough? We can argue about that. But what can not be argued is that the popular vote in Puerto Rico, Americans Abroad and Guam is NOT part of the popular vote of The People (as chosen by the Democratic Party to have a say in the nomination of the Democratic candidate for President.)

Unless of course you want to argue that American citizens in Puerto Rico count for something less than other American citizens. Now I expect that the Obama News Network and other figures in the Media will have no qualms expressing such bigotry. They have not been shy to demonstrate their sexism.

But I would hope that Democrats and progressives would not make such a bigoted argument. But my hopes have been dashed before.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Contempt For The Voters And Their Votes | The Most Inclusive Popular Vote Total >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Popular Vote And The Will Of the People: It's Not An Electability Argument | 204 comments (204 topical)
    It doesn't matter (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:45:29 AM EST
    The only thing that matters to these people is "Make her stop."  They will use any argument at all in aid of that goal.
    In 2000 People Were P'O'd About Gore Not (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:29:57 PM EST
    winning....'HE GOT THE POPULAR VOTE' 'WE NEED TO GET RID OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE'  'HE SHOULD WIN BECAUSE HE GOT THE POPULAR VOTE"

    For Hillary..."The popular vote isn't what should count".  Anyone for a big plate of hypocrisy?

    Parent

    Clearly stated. Good job. (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by oculus on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:47:12 AM EST
    [Please do more posts like this: with you doing the writing.]

    Cynicism pretending to be (5.00 / 9) (#4)
    by madamab on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:53:10 AM EST
    idealism.

    Yup, that's about right. His "smart" (pundit and "Creative Class") supporters believe that Obama is cynical, like them; whereas the "idealistic" supporters believe he is all about change and hope and beautiful, unifying rainbows and unicorns.

    That's the beauty of a blank slate candidacy. All things to all people.

    Appropos of the word of the day: (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by oculus on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:57:11 AM EST
    This week's theme: eponyms.

    tartuffe (tahr-TOOF) noun

       A hypocrite who feigns virtue, especially in religious matters.

    [After the main character in Tartuffe, a play by Molière, pen name of
    Jean-Baptiste Poquelin (1622-1673). As if to prove themselves, the religious
    authorities in Paris had the play banned soon after it was introduced.]

      "Tony Blair is like Harold Wilson, an empty vessel whose strength
       derives from his emptiness. (Religion is so often a substitute
       for depth.) Because he is a Tartuffe who does not really believe
       in anything, he is brilliant at seizing advantage; when he can't
       manipulate events, he surfs over them."
       A.N. Wilson; Further Trials of Teflon Tony; The Evening Standard
       (London, UK); May 19, 2003.




    Parent
    I'll be blogging tartuffe to death (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:09:33 AM EST


    Parent
    The Democratic Party Now Depicted As The (5.00 / 12) (#5)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:53:49 AM EST
    Party of Exclusion. Any voter or group of voters who do not achieve the desired outcome should be excluded. Great for the party image. No?

     

    I was just thinking this (5.00 / 8) (#13)
    by madamab on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:03:06 AM EST
    last night.

    Republicans have been branding Democrats as elitists for many years now, but we had not earned the label as a party.

    How about now?

    Parent

    The NEW Democratic Party Has Not Only Earned (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:07:58 AM EST
    that label but embraced it proudly strutting it out for all to see.

     

    Parent

    The most horrifying moment for me (5.00 / 12) (#28)
    by Serene1 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:14:27 AM EST
    this campaign was seeing Democrats chant rulz rulz rulz on TV as if their life depended on it.

    Parent
    The new Democratic Party (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by BarnBabe on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:49:13 AM EST
    will find out that it can not hijack the old Democratic Party and expect votes. We all pushed so hard for the 2006 revolution. And it was close. Now, we have a split party and yet we all have the same basic agenda. Why is there always someone who just has to be above someone else. As Hillary & Obama are close on the issues, the new and old Dems are close on the issues. All comes down to control and power. The fear that Hillary will not be controlled.

    Parent
    If we're going to start talking about who (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by vicndabx on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:54:04 AM EST
    counts and when, one could argue states with considerably less democrats than republicans that noneless help choose the nominee don't count either.  I.e. all those red-states that really aren't going to be in play come November don't matter either.  A slippery slope indeed.

    That's my problem with Schaller, really (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Eleanor A on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:00:14 AM EST
    And with his argument the Dems should spend zero dollars and effort in states that aren't going to go blue for the Presidency (many states, like even Alabama, have majority-run Dem legislatures, and are blue at the state level, which makes one wonder what the problem is with the national brand identity...)

    Whose party is this, anyway?  Last I heard, nearly 40% of the AAs in the country live in the South.  Should the party dismiss their concerns out of hand?

    Parent

    Kerry didn't even try in the South (none / 0) (#90)
    by Josey on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:46:31 AM EST
    but the Obamacrat Party will spend zillions this time selling a nominee associated with anti-America characters and a pastor-mentor-counselor ranting against white people, America, Catholics, Jews....
    Yeah - Obama will definitely win the south!
    [bang head!]


    Parent
    I don't think advocating playing to your (none / 0) (#91)
    by vicndabx on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:46:44 AM EST
    strengths = dismissing constituent concerns.  I think it reflects a reality based on cold hard numbers.  If anything, the state and local representatives are the ones best positioned to address local concerns.  We can and should spend money in a state helping to get those down ticket elected w/o pretending the majority in a state like your candidate for president.  In addition, we are starting to see more dems that although they have a "D" after their name, are really republican-lite.  Not that there's anything wrong w/that - they too are playing to their strengths based on their constituents.

    Parent
    I've gone over this before (none / 0) (#131)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:08:14 PM EST
    The Democratic party doesn't realize it but it is a North Eastern Ivy League Brand. At the national level the Party is a regional identity. Kerry, Dukakis etc.  If you have a plumby accent you are automatically veiwed as leadership material.  You need an Ivy league degree. If you have a southern accent you are an uncouth illiterate outsider. Public university nuh uh. Californian candidates don't get much of a look in either--too casual.

    Trouble is we only win when we run a southerner or borderer.

    obama might win, but his victory depends on the collapse of GOP credibility nationwide--especially in their Rocky West and Southern heartland.

    Parent

    Also we don't run generals! (none / 0) (#134)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:09:59 PM EST
    Clark was viewed in a hyper suspect way in 2004.

    he'd have probably beaten Bush, but he was an outsider southern type.

    of course the southerner is the default type that wins the Presidency.

    Parent

    Gee, did President Grant (none / 0) (#144)
    by zfran on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:14:52 PM EST
    not count then?

    Parent
    I thought we were supposed (none / 0) (#145)
    by zfran on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:15:50 PM EST
    to run the best and most qualified?

    Parent
    he was a Republican. (none / 0) (#190)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:13:14 PM EST


    Parent
    I'm not sure (none / 0) (#191)
    by Eleanor A on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:13:22 PM EST
    I think it's that simple.  Trouble is, by the time a person accumulates enough experience to run for the Presidency, s/he has a long voting record reflecting the values of the folks in his/her state.  More urban states tend to be more liberal on issues like gun control and abortion.

    The Republicans demonize us EVERY time on these social issues, and it's high time we stopped letting them.  A lot of the problem, IMO, is they outwork us 2 to 1 on the ground game - the GOP has put a lot of work into its talk-radio voter outrage generating tactics, encouraging its supporters to buy up newspaper chains, etc.

    This all really has turned into a culture war, and having Obama supporters calling those who don't agree with them ignorant, foolish racists is NOT helping.

    I suspect we could turn it around, but at this point I'm really worried that quite a few Northern Dems think Southerners are so far beneath them they wouldn't even try.  I think it's going to take a thorough debunking of the Western strategy - which we may see this fall - for them to realize we have to stand together or we'll fall apart.

    Parent

    But Obama is not southern, or nor'eastern (none / 0) (#140)
    by zfran on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:13:23 PM EST
    but has a southern drawl (much like GWB) when speaking to "the flock." Just preachy, or elite enough to think people don't know the truth?


    Parent
    Wow, some people have just gone over the (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:55:12 AM EST
    flippin edge now.  I visited Puerto Rico with my grandma Lorraine ten years ago.  My grandmother was in cancer remission and during that period decided she needed to see the world and I wanted to see it with her when I could.  The tourist areas of Puerto Rico were gorgeous but as always I explore and when I went outside of the tourist zone I discovered that I wasn't all that wanted by the population.  I got the feeling that Puerto Ricans felt used and unappreciated by the 50 states, and to them I was a representative of that.  It was a while ago, perhaps things have changed and improved but I can't imagine that happening under the Bush administration.  Talking smack about how Puerto Rico doesn't count will surely help the situation too!

    Not only for Puerto Ricans (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by A little night musing on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:34:13 AM EST
    I've said this before, and I feel it's important. I get the clear impression that all the Latinos in my heavily-Latino neighborhood are watching how PR and its primary are being treated. It's kind of a surrogate for treatment of Latinos in general, or the closest thing to it.

    Dissing the PR primary is definitely not the way to go, unless Obama and his surrogates want to throw the Latino voters under the bus (again?).

    Parent

    This is what I don't get about (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by nycstray on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:47:03 AM EST
    Obama/supporters. PR is about PR and also about more than PR. There's the big picture called the GE looming out there and I'm sitting there watching all the different demographics in my Brooklyn 'hood getting thrown under the bus. And believe me, there aren't enough latte liberals and AA's to make up for it.

    Parent
    This treatment of women etc. is indefensible! (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Ellie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:32:40 PM EST
    The fauxgressive contempt towards women (f-cking wh0res) and any groups not immediately useful politically is just heinous.

    It's the political version of the same people who are dying to dismantle Social Security because the impediment to doing is the only obstacle to winning big at online poker.

    Maybe even ... One. Million. Dollars! [/Dr. Evil]

    I don't get it, but then I also never got the "logic" behind shredding hard-earned rights if one didn't happen to be using them at that exact second.


    Parent

    Other Ramifications as well (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:43:50 AM EST
    I think the dissing the vote in Puerto Rico by Obamacons and NBC will have a ripple effect among Latinos who do get to vote in the Presidential Election. To me, aside from its obvious prejudicial nature, is yet another mistake the Obama campaign & his supporters make. They are taking far too many otherwise pro-Dem voter groups for granted, and in the process they are redefining what it means to be a Dem -- and not in a good way. Latinos are now approximately 22% of our population.  It is my understanding that Latinos have a generally favorable view of McCain, and any Democrat who treats them with disrespect does so at his peril.  In short, there are 2 downsides to the Alter etc. attitude -- bad political strategy and, to me, prejudice.  To see MSNBC pundits laughing on camera when the Puerto Rican popular vote is mentioned is truly disturbing. We've lived under Bush-Cheney rules for so long that I fear there is no longer any moral compass to our public conversations.  

    Parent
    The real travesty here... (none / 0) (#146)
    by Y Knot on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:17:23 PM EST
    ...is not that people are saying (correctly) that their votes won't count in a general election.  I think the real travesty is that we HAVEN'T appreciated them.   I mean, honestly, how many of us ever even think about Puerto Rico?

    But now, there's a primary where their votes matter, and suddenly it's a travesty that someone says their voice is less important?  Why haven't we allow them to join the union?  (Which, I'll admit right now, I'm only assuming they want.)  That last one isn't a rhetorical by the way, I really don't know.

    If we really cared about their voices, we'd be clamoring to let them be heard in November... not getting all indignant because someone pointed out the cold, hard truth that they won't be.

    Parent

    FYI (none / 0) (#200)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:36:26 PM EST
    The folks in PR are strongly split about whether they want to become a state or not.  THey've been battling over it for years, and I think the last time there was a referendum there, it lost pretty solidly.  I actually don't think it's not that we don't "let them" become a state, it's that they haven't decided that they want to.

    Parent
    I was waiting for them to come (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Serene1 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:56:31 AM EST
    up with this argument.

    Now we can safely argue back that the awarding of delegates and caucuses voting are equally nonsensical just like puerto rico voting since both  have no role to play in the GE in terms of deciding the actual electability of the candidate.

    How can someone wait for members (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:02:41 AM EST
    of the Democratic party to come up with this argument?  I know that I tend to be overly optimistic at times but the day I wait for the Democratic party to come up with this "f"ing argument is the day that the Democratic party needs to check itself into the Betty!

    Parent
    I don't think the Betty (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by madamab on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:04:01 AM EST
    treats Kool-Aid addiction.

    Sigh.

    Parent

    Let's Tick Off Another Group Of Voters (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:04:15 AM EST
    Let's just pretend that there are NO Puerto Ricans living in the U.S. who can vote in the GE and continue to marginalize their relatives and friends who live in Puerto Rico. A great strategy for the GE.

    Okay, she's the popular vote winner (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Seth90212 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:06:02 AM EST
    So what? Where is she going to find the delegates to secure this nomination? There aren't that many supers left on the table. Besides, Obama picks up about 8 supers for every 1 she gets. He chased her down from over 100 down to now 30 or so up. There are only 200 supers left. You really expect Hillary to corral all the remaining supers because she's the popular vote "winner?" Or do you expect those who have solemnly declared for Obama to abandon him for her? The few delegates switching sides have been from her to him. One of her supers did so today. So what exactly is Hillary's path?

    That's fine (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by cawaltz on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:08:32 AM EST
    That's all we're asking. Let HER make her argument without demonizing her. Count the votes. It's really that simple.

    Parent
    The Obamans don't want to. (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by madamab on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:20:49 AM EST
    The figures are in dispute and could very well amount to a disadvantage for their candidate.

    This idea is very scary to them. The thought that their candidate might lose has caused them to scream WWTSBQ for months, hurl nasty invective at her supporters, and accuse Hillary herself of every dubious motivation in the book, while claiming Obama is a felicitous combination of both Jesus and whatever pop/rock star is in vogue this month.

    We have all known since Super Tuesday that neither candidate would win without the SuperDelegates. Winning the popular vote is an excellent metric on which the SuperDelegates could base their calculations as to who is more likely to beat John McCain in the fall.

    The Obamans are afraid that their fave can't make his case to the SuperD's.

    That's what all the fuss is about. Everything else is just sound and fury.

    Parent

    I know (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by cawaltz on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:29:06 AM EST
    and the rest of the world knows. They are fooling no one but themselves.

    If Obama can't make HIS case to the Democratic faithful how in the world does he make his case to the general population come time for the GE is the question I have?

    The simple fact is that part of the pushback from Clinton supporters is because they feel it is to the party's detriment that we have a strong and viable candidate that doesn't have to be carried over the finish line, but can make it on his/her own.

    It's absolutely maddening that he is being treated with kid gloves intead of being told "you're a big boy, make your case and don't screw it up because if you do the position is hers."

    Parent

    So how did these wily Obama (none / 0) (#60)
    by Seth90212 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:34:38 AM EST
    people prevent Hillary from winning the pop vote? Furthermore, how did they prevent SD's from considering pop vote in their assesments?

    Can't make his case to the SD's? Have you been following the SD movement since Super Tuesday?

    Parent

    They haven't yet (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by cawaltz on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:47:24 AM EST
    Last I heard we have 3 more primaries/caucuses. The reason the "popular vote doesn't matter" argument is being floated is because there is a good chance that Puerto Rico WILL put her in the lead.

    If he is able to make the case to SuperD's then why worry and why not do as BTD has said and settle down and let HER make her argument and count the votes as they stand.

    The Obama cam doesn't look strong when they ridicule and refuse. They look like petulant little kids who are afraid their cooke might be awarded to someone else.

    Parent

    Golly gee willikers! (none / 0) (#82)
    by madamab on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:44:20 AM EST
    So Obama has 2209 delegates!

    AND the rest of the primaries have been held as well!

    Oh wait....

    LOL!

    Parent

    Your opinion would be of interest (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:08:38 AM EST
    if you were a Super Delegate.

    Parent
    I expect many of them to endorse her (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Eleanor A on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:21:11 AM EST
    Because the tiny number of folks participating in caucuses that went for Obama is not representative of Dems at large in many states.

    Many of the SDs will not want to be associated with Obama's brand of politics.  Certainly some headcounting is going on behind the scenes, and my guess is it has a lot to do with why Hillary's still in this.

    If Obama's the anointed one, how come ALL the remaining SDs haven't come out for him?  It's a few different reasons, but mostly because they're accountable to voters - which Howard Dean and Donna Brazile are not.  

    Parent

    They should have stampeded his (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:24:51 AM EST
    HQ by now.  it's an uncanny sort of silence.

    Parent
    Well one SD switched from Clinton (none / 0) (#98)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:48:15 AM EST
    to Obama today Dennis Cardoze CA-18.  So he must be one to whom popular vote argument is not valid.  Also Congressman Jim Costa (CA-20) endorsed Obama today.  Obama also picked up 2 NH Edwards delegates.

    Maybe not a stampede, but not exactly a silence either.

     

    Parent

    And yesterday (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:58:11 AM EST
    one superdelegate switched from Obama to Clinton from Guam.

    Parent
    Nope. She had never endorsed Obama (none / 0) (#138)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:13:08 PM EST
    and was never in his SuperD column.  She had stated some vague notion of supporting the winner of the Guam caucus.  The delegate count was tied; he won the popular vote by 7 (a virtual tie). She chose Clinton.

    Parent
    She said (none / 0) (#143)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:14:38 PM EST
    that she was going to go with the winner of the caucus. Did Obama lose the caucus after all?

    Parent
    Was she ever a Super who was (none / 0) (#160)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:38:55 PM EST
    listed as Obama's that had to be subtracted from his column?  No.  

    Fact is the day of the primary there was discussion on this very site about where her vote would go.  I think Cream City made the point that the results were a tie so her vote could to either.

    I thought her vote would go to Obama, but I was trying to "read tea leaves" and was wrong.


    Parent

    Do you really want me to list (none / 0) (#163)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:50:02 PM EST
    the many SuperDs who have switched from Obama to Clinton besides the one from CA that just switched today?

    The only one who you can come up with really didn't "switch."  She was undeclared and some guessed, wrongly,  she would chose Obama.

    How about
    Don Payne NJ
    Joe Andrew
    David Scott GA
    Dana Redd NJ
    Jennifer McClellan VA
    George McGovern
    Bill Richardson

    Parent

    Errors (5.00 / 0) (#185)
    by jfung79 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:48:03 PM EST
    George McGovern is not a superdelegate.
    Bill Richardson never endorsed Hillary.

    Parent
    Thank you. I stand corrected. (none / 0) (#188)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:58:59 PM EST
    There are other Supers that have switched but in my haste to respond I listed incorrectly.  

    Though the reaction to Richardson (Judas, etc.) makes one think the Clinton camp thought he was "in the bag." Nevertheless, he was not the actual SD "switch" I was talking about.  

    **Of course, if someone insists the Guam SD "switched," then Richardson would be fair.

    Parent

    Wow (none / 0) (#177)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:29:27 PM EST
    you are forgetting that Obama threatened Scott with a primary opponent. Right now he is destroying the candidacy of Barrow who endorsed him.

    Parent
    Whoops! While I was commenting above (none / 0) (#170)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:05:09 PM EST
    Obama picked up another SuperD - Oregon DNC member Jenny Greenleaf.  Wanted to make sure my facts were accurate.

    Parent
    Your gloating (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by blogtopus on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:09:54 PM EST
    will serve you nothing as Obama dives into what might be the biggest drubbing of a political candidate since McGovern.

    Oh, did I say McGovern? Sorry!

    Parent

    Not gloating. Correcting. (none / 0) (#175)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:22:14 PM EST


    Parent
    Though on further review (none / 0) (#192)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:13:54 PM EST
    perhaps I shouldn't have added the "Whoops another one just endorsed"  comment.

     My rule on commenting (and I'm new at this, not young, just new at this) is not to say anything online I wouldn't say to the person's face.

    I've certainly read worse comments here - but if I had it to do all over again I wouldn't have added the "whoops."  

    And I would have made sure my SuperD list was 100% correct.

    Parent

    Thanks Indi (none / 0) (#194)
    by blogtopus on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:17:57 PM EST
    I appreciate the clarification. In return, I'm sorry for the 'sorry!' addition.

    Parent
    If they had all come out for him (none / 0) (#65)
    by Seth90212 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:37:55 AM EST
    you'd be here screaming conspiracy and sexism. Carter, Gore, Pelosi and Brazile haven't come out. But do you have any doubt as to their preferred candidate? They will all come out in due time. Meantime, they want to give Hillary an opportunity to make a graceful exist. They do not want to humiliate her.

    Parent
    Just deal with it. (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by madamab on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:42:51 AM EST
    The nominee won't be decided until after the last votes are counted. She won't quit. She won't hand it to Obama on a silver platter.

    Just. Deal. With. It.

    Parent

    They don't want to humiliate her? Have you been (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by leis on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:55:12 AM EST
    watching the same primary I have?

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#151)
    by cawaltz on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:24:01 PM EST
    Hillary's sensibilites are why they are decrying her "evil". They are attempting to save her from herself. Who would have ever have guessed?

    Parent
    Heh. (none / 0) (#156)
    by Eleanor A on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:29:38 PM EST
    I live in Nashville and as far as Gore goes, as a matter of fact, I do have a doubt.  Which is beside the point.

    I think that's a pretty weak argument.  If your candidate is as strong as you claim, the SDs would see that he is inevitable, and all of them would be rushing to jump on his bandwagon to enjoy the fruits of his fundraising machine.  

    The fact of the matter is that they're all waiting to see what the voters are going to do.  I stand by my argument:  Since the participants in caucuses are a tiny fraction of Democratic voters,  it's easy to see that they likely do not reflect the will of the electorate in most cases.  And that's not even including SDs' Republican constituents, who will be using Barack Obama's voting record, ill-chosen personal associates, and admitted drug use to tar and feather every Democrat as far as the eye can see into the forseeable future.

    Hey, Obama's free to sink like a lead balloon if he likes, but I suspect that more than a few elected representatives won't want to join him in going down with the ship.  

    Parent

    Better question is (5.00 / 0) (#162)
    by Seth90212 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:49:46 PM EST
    why have the CA supers not stampeded to Hillary? She won the state convincingly. An even better question is: how did she go from 100 up to 30 down?

    Maybe you think Hillary is so weak that Obama should just roll her. I think she is a formidable candidate who began overwhelming advantages in her favor. The Obama victory is actually one of the biggest upsets in American political history.


    Parent

    Not sure you can (none / 0) (#189)
    by Eleanor A on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:05:42 PM EST
    extrapolate the whole country from California's numbers (CA being a more urban state than most of the South - WV, AR, TN, for example.  For the record, this site claims Obama has 25, HRC 33, with 13 uncommitted...if the undecideds break for HRC, which they may do - they're either House members in nearly split districts or DNC members - that'd be a nearly 2 to 1 advantage for Hillary.  So I know not what your point might be.)

    As far as Obama gaining the SD lead, I think there are many plausible explanations, given Obama's caucus wins in small states having been over-weighted, his free pass from the press lending him a faux air of invulnerability, etc.

    Also, looking at the list of folks who haven't made endorsements, most of them are either DNC Reps (who one might assume could endorse Obama without fear if they so chose), or members of the House.

    What IS holding them back, if it's not fear of being held somehow accountable?  It'll be interesting to find out.

    Parent

    Well when they do, they can be counted (none / 0) (#179)
    by Ellie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:34:06 PM EST
    If they haven't, or if they don't, they can't.

    It just begs the question: if everyone wanted this to be over weeks ago, why isn't it?

    If Obama's a surefire winner without the unneeded voters his campaign assure have been replaced with new and better voters, why not make it official and move on?

    Parent

    Someone needs to apply some duct tape (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by cawaltz on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:06:56 AM EST
    to Obama surrogates mouths. I said it in the last thread and I'll say it again they seem intent on offending a demographic a day. When they aren't calling Clinton supporters low information and uneducated, they are arguing that WV and KY are racist. They are insisting that MI and Floridians don't count. They talk about a new coalition that doesn't need white working class or Hispanics. Everytime they open their mouths they insult another demographic. (Congratulations Puerto Ricans, it appears you are the latest. Don't feel too bad.)

    I don't think Obama is a bad candidate. I DO think that ALOT of Obama's supporters though are an argument against him because they do not seem to understand that in order to garner votes you need to be inclusive, not dismissive. Their strategy to alienate is not a good one that would mean victory in a GE.

    The Obama (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:14:25 AM EST
    campaign isn't worried. After all, once the unity pony jumps over the rainbow all those racist, low information, hispanic, women and white working class voters will magically jump on his back, right?

    Parent
    You know what I'd like to (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by madamab on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:26:07 AM EST
    say to that?

    "Iron your own d**n shirt.

    Sweetie."

    Parent

    It's interesting (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:23:49 AM EST
    that he seems to want every real battle ground state to be disenfranchised or insulted.

    His candidacy seems counterintuitive to me.

    Parent

    I blame Obama (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:35:07 AM EST
    He has got to show leadership at some point.  It is absolutely needed for the GE.  The more he allows people to get thrown under the bus, the more ammo he gives the Repubs.  If he were to speak out about these statements this would all end.  Obama has managed to slap down liberal groups, why not MSNBC for friggin sakes?  Obama saying 'every vote counts' 'every voice should be heard' 'we are going to be in every state until the last primary has been held'  Wouldn't it be great if Obama spoke out about these comments?  I would be impressed if he reached out to PR, MT and SD.  I would think he was preparing for the GE if he were in the remaining states rather than ignoring them.

    Count everyone's vote is a great GE strategy.  Stop allowing the media and surrogates to throw voters under the bus and show some backbone.  sigh

    Parent

    It's not just MSNBC (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by cawaltz on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:42:13 AM EST
    It's ALOT of his surrogates. I'm trying to think of the last day I haven't seen something not cringeworthy coming from people supporting him. Many of them are extremely disrespectful, and even worse don't seem to be aware of the fact they come off that way.

    If you want to convince people to play on your team you don't call them dumb or racist or say they don't matter. It's not good politics.

    Parent

    Contempt for voters? Well, Obama is now coming to (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by SunnyLC on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:09:13 AM EST
    NM probably to try to offset his awful comment about the Bataan Death March..

    "Obama to Visit Site of Bataan Memorial Death March on Memorial Day...To Repair Dumb Comment Damage? (Or...To Straighten Out Foreign Policy Mix-up with Bill Richardson?)"

    http://insightanalytical.wordpress.com

    With links to some videos, too....Will follow up on this for the local flavor when this happens...

    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Steve M on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:18:53 AM EST
    Just remember, when Hillary brought up Zimbabwe, it was the Most Offensive Analogy Ever.

    Parent
    It feels like (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:22:22 AM EST
    a banana republic to me.  I'm used to smooth elections coming from the Uk.  This sort of rancour in the party means that we have huge trouble.

    Swing voters may see this mess and decide the Dems are incapable of governing efficiently.

    Parent

    What's sad is that (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by madamab on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:24:22 AM EST
    we are a lot better at governing, but much, much worse at campaigning.

    I thought Obama had the campaigning thing down, but he has managed to piss off millions of core Democratic voters in the process.

    Sigh.

    Parent

    Governing (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:55:21 AM EST
    I have a very queasy feeling that Obama will not be good at governing.  He can't ever seem to decide what he thinks, why and stick to it.  Other than what benefits him at the moment.  To me, this does not make for someone who is good at governing.  I also think that to govern effectively, you have to respect others with differing opinions, so you make them feel heard, even if your ultimate decision is not what they want.  The Obama camp seems to deal with contrary opinions with disrespect and ad hominem attacks.

    Parent
    I'd think twice (none / 0) (#122)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:01:34 PM EST
    about being in his cabinet if I were a top flight Democrat.  He strikes me as a guy who will be happy to see folk fall on their sword for the greater good.

    OTOH he might be a great boss. who knows?

    Parent

    Obama knows what he's doing (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Josey on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:58:27 AM EST
    I used to think he was insensitive and unaware his actions and messages had pissed off large chunks of the Dem Party.
    But now I believe it's all part of his #1 job that the elite Washington establishment gave him to do: Stop Hillary!


    Parent
    I don't know how true the (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Serene1 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:31:19 AM EST
    delegate intimidation stories were but mydd had a detailed post on Texas delegate selection which used unfair tactics to favor one candidate.

    If that be the case then how reliable is this delegate and caucus metric. Then isn't popular vote or the electoral map vote the better and more fairer metric since it would be more closer to the will of the people (democracy) and more closer to determining the final electability of the candidate (GE).

    Parent

    I wonder (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:10:44 AM EST
    how this kind of thing plays with the hispanic voters in general? I also wonder if this is the kind of thing, like the hillary vp item, that is put out there to depress the voters.

    How is this playing in PR? It seems to me it's handing another club for Hillary to beat Obama over the head with. She can tell Puerto Ricans that their vote IS important while the others downgrade it.

    PR is not Mexico (none / 0) (#165)
    by Seth90212 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:57:04 PM EST
    Don't pigeonhole all Hispanics. If Tito Trinidad ran for office in PR he'd get 99% of the vote. Tito is black and could pass for Obama's brother. It's nuts to think that Clinton will blow out Obama in PR. In fact, right now I'd say he has to be the favorite there.

    Parent
    Hm. You're another one in favor of (none / 0) (#198)
    by Eleanor A on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:29:33 PM EST
    the "all Hillary voters are anti-AA racists" meme, apparently...or so one might infer, by your insistence that a black candidate CAN win in PR!! (?)

    Interesting that you're also calling Obama a shoo-in there, since there's been no polling done since April (at which point Hillary led by 13 points...)

    Parent

    No truer words (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Kathy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:11:11 AM EST
    But I would hope that Democrats and progressives would not makes such a bigoted argument. But my hopes have been dashed before.

    How often have we seen the so-called progressives taking up the petard of the right?  Same tactics, same smears, same bullying, egotistical posturing.  

    This is why I think there is no chance Obama will win "back" Clinton's base.  He does not think he needs to.  He assumes they will come round on their own-as do the progressive blogs who call for unity, yet stand idly by why women (not just Clinton) are all smeared by the worst, most sexist language.  Then you have dems like Ed Koch and Geraldine Ferraro hinting they won't vote for Obama--canaries in the coal mine.

    This rift in the party will be felt for generations.

    I just hope saner minds prevail (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Serene1 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:18:58 AM EST
    among the Democrats and they don't, as has been their wont lately, go on TV and diss Puerto Rico and the popular vote count.

    Parent
    sexist (none / 0) (#126)
    by cleek on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:06:01 PM EST
    could you pretty please, just for me, list all the times Hillary has stood up and demanded that people stop their racists attacks on Obama ? that would be great.

    thanks in advance.

    Parent

    which racist attacks? (none / 0) (#142)
    by cawaltz on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:14:05 PM EST
    Ferraro stepped down when Hillary sought to distance herself from her remark. Other than that I can't think of any other remarks unless you are going t count the fact they gave LBJ credit for civil rights(which he was partially responsible for BTW). So share with us the remarks coming from her camp that are based on race.

    Parent
    camp? (none / 0) (#161)
    by cleek on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:41:06 PM EST
    no, sorry. leave the goalposts where they are, please. the OP is talking about "progressives" in general, not things from the campaigns themselves.

    here, let me help:

    did Hillary denounce the dozens of people from WV and KY who, on television in front of the whole world, said they wouldn't vote for Obama because he was black ?

    or, did she denounce the tens of thousands of white people in those states who admitted in exit polling that race was a factor in their votes ?

    when did she stand up and speak out against the guilt-by-association-twice-removed tactics used to tar one black man with the activities of another black man ?

    when you post your results, links would be helpful.

    thanks.

    Parent

    Sad (none / 0) (#199)
    by Eleanor A on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:32:54 PM EST
    You are walking into such a minefield, you have no idea.  By insisting the Clintons are racists, you folks will have cried wolf to such a degree that nobody will even listen when the Republicans - who are virulent, vicious actual racists - start up their shifty/lazy/druggy Mandingo-style attacks on Obama.

    I'm not in favor of GOP tactics - far from it - but you folks will have made it far, far easier for them to get away with this stuff in the general election.

    (Don't believe me?  Do a quick Youtube search for "Harold at the Playboy Party".  It'll serve a preview for you for what's coming to a national television network near you very soon.)

    Parent

    Feinstein is promoting Obama/Hillary (none / 0) (#129)
    by Josey on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:07:04 PM EST
    The Dem Party needs Obama the Rockstar & Fundraiser at the top of the ticket and all the Hillary supporters will fall in line - right?
    ugh

    Parent
    Kos made this argument yesterday (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Manuel on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:16:54 AM EST
    in his post about reforming the system.

    As long as Puerto Ricans are citizens, can join the armed forces, and die for the country they should have a voice in chosing the Democratic Presidential candidate.

    Isnt't this a basic Democratic value?  What do people think this party stands for anymore?

    I'll pretend that I don't (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:20:55 AM EST
    understand what Alter is implying, and say, yes I agree with him, it's hideous that Puerto Ricans can not vote in the general election for their own head of state (the president).

    At least they're allowed to vote in the primary, so this miniscule leverage that they do have should count. But saying that their votes shouldn't count even in that context is an utter travesty -- one worthy of a Keithy special comment, I'm sure!! ;-).

    Alter was always a rabid and insane Clinton hater.  In the 90's I thought he was a Republican, he hated the Clintons so badly.  He would get this sneer on his face whenever he talked about them. Coupled with that toupe he used to wear he looked pretty dastardly.  Now, he's gone away from bad toupes, and I used to think also away with bad attitudes, but I guess Clinton changed all that.  She truly is the change candidate.

    Er, about that toupee? (none / 0) (#201)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:46:35 PM EST
    I know you don't know this, but the reason Alter was wearing a toupee was because he lost all his hair from chemotherapy from I believe a very bad lymphoma. (Worth thinking about this possibility any time you see someone with really bad hair, btw.)

    Parent
    I'm going to bet (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by magisterludi on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:24:35 AM EST
    that about 70% of the American people would be very surprised to learn how little regard the DNC holds the popular vote. To remind voters that their vote is even more meaningless just doesn't seem to make good political sense, now does it?

    The entire problem with the popular vote argument (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:27:10 AM EST
    is that it is entirely fungible.  

    Clinton supporters define as one thing.  Obama supporters define it as another.

    Which states count?  How do you count caucuses accurately?  Should caucus counts be expanded to give caucus states a more equitable voice in the process?  

    I'm not looking for answers to these questions.  I am pointing out that if there can be no agreed upong popular vote count then the popular vote is meaningless.

    And so far there is little evidence to suggest that SDs are buying into the popular vote argument.  And it seems exceedingly unlikely that the SDs will be swayed enough to swing the nomination to Hillary.

    Both sides can get outraged by the other side's definition of what the popular vote count is.  But  that outrage and 4 dollars will buy you a latte.

    I define it like this (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:29:53 AM EST
    The more corrupted it gets the better Obama does.

    Parent
    Let's see: (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by madamab on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:34:17 AM EST
    Caucuses=undemocratic: Obama wins.
    States=disenfranchised: Obama wins.
    Turnout=low: Obama wins.

    I'd say you're right on target there.

    Parent

    On the flip side (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:39:03 AM EST
    The more people who vote  -- AND are counted -- the better Clinton seems to do.

    Parent
    Like Oregon and Wisconsin (none / 0) (#127)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:06:04 PM EST
    and North Carolina?  

    Parent
    There were definitely some states (none / 0) (#153)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:26:56 PM EST
    Where everyone was given a chance to vote and Obama wins.

    Parent
    Thank you Edgar08 (none / 0) (#184)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:47:15 PM EST
    you put a smile on my face.  I AGREE with you that it is time to abandon the caucus.

    Do you know - Are there good reasons (costs, etc.) for states to choose the caucus over a primary?

    I just don't think that Obama should be criticized for winning states by the rules that were in place at the time.  Or that he should be characterized as a an "illegitmate candidate" because he got delegates from caucuses.

    And I also note that Bill Clinton had no problem with caucuses during his 8 years.  He certainly made no effort to change the system, that I can find.

    Parent

    the more pedantic (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:41:24 AM EST
    and exclusive it got in the various states, the more he benefitted.

    Parent
    He's a byproduct of a system (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:42:35 AM EST
    Not of votes.

    And even the Obama blogs agree the system is trash.

    So go figure that one out.


    Parent

    gaming systems is his forte. (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:54:33 AM EST
    maybe that's a good thing. Idunno yet though.

    Parent
    Open primaries (none / 0) (#187)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:50:21 PM EST
    are exclusive?  I thought the knock on him was that he couldn't appeal to those exclusive "closed" primaries where only Dems vote.

    Parent
    You don't even bother (none / 0) (#55)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:32:12 AM EST
    to make sense anymore, do you?

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:37:56 AM EST
    If you can figure it out, it's not that difficult.

    In formats that limit voter participation Obama does better than Clinton.

    In formats that represent our best understanding of what Democracy should be, Clinton doesn't always win, but she does do better.

    And in those formats, when she's not doing better, she's winning.

    Again, what I've always said, ain't caucusses great.

    Not only do they limit voter participation, but then when someone wants to consider a popular vote tally at the end of the process, the fact that voter participation was limitted by caucusses also functions as a reason why we can't count the popular vote.

    I think that's funny.  Don't you think that's funny?

    Parent

    What I find funny (none / 0) (#83)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:44:47 AM EST
    is your bizarre belief that the Obama campaign somehow created the Democratic Party nomination process.  

    Obama didn't invent the caucus.  But he did realize that they do, in fact, count.  That's something that Hillary apparently did NOT realize until she lost them all.

    You talk about considering the popular vote but what you really mean is you want the wholly UNDEMOCRATIC superdelegates to consider the popular vote so that they can thwart the actual system in place.  

    Parent

    I never said he created it (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:45:27 AM EST
    I said he wouldn't have won without it.


    Parent
    he was bright enough (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:53:33 AM EST
    to figure out the loop holes and he cleverly aligned his support around it.

    How he's able to get the nomination after she wiped the floor with the equivalent of the Electoral college is worthy of a PhD thesis.

    Parent

    If anyone's interested (none / 0) (#119)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:00:32 PM EST
    The book almost writes itself.

    The first chapter focusses on the fights between the Dean wing and the Clinton wing of the party.

    One chapter on caucusses.  With subchapters providing testimony from Clinton supporters about how they were treated at Caucusses.

    Another chapter on Florida.

    Another champter on Michigan.

    You don't need to be a conspiracy theorists.

    Nor do you need to even be that bright to exploit all this and situate oneself on the receiving end of this story.

    Just in my opinion.

    In any case, we've had 8 years of a president who values "gaming systems" more important than good government.

    Bush was "good" at that too!

    Parent

    Disenfranchising and finding (none / 0) (#128)
    by zfran on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:06:57 PM EST
    ways to "scare" people from caucus voting is not being bright..it's being down and dirty and, altho' politics by its very nature is dirty, it is, in these cases we've heard about, unamerican!!

    Parent
    The SuperDelegates (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by madamab on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:47:17 AM EST
    ARE PART OF the "actual system in place." They are not "thwarting the actual system in place."

    Good grief.

    Parent

    Right (1.00 / 1) (#102)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:51:49 AM EST
    The "roolz", as so many of you like to elegantly call the, deign that certain voters behind vastly more voting rights than others.  This is a wholly undemocratic institution.  Yet I don't hear a word from the various warriors of democracy here about them.

    Instead you embrace them because they are a path to an end.

    The actual "system" says that delegates count, the same delegates you said were meaningless.

    Parent

    I wish someone would list (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by hairspray on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:32:39 AM EST
    carefully why Hillary is so reviled that her candidacy is dismissed.  In the Herald Tribune yesterday (I am in Italy this week) someone wrote that Hillary is a 'flawed' candidate and Barack is honest and trustworthy.  This, without any supporting documentation.  It simply boggles my mind.  The IHT by the way has been trumpeting the Obama win all week.  They simply do not even talk about Clinton or address any of the issues of the vote and electability numbers at this point. Yesterday's headline was Ovama rises and Hillary fades.

    A friend of mine (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by madamab on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:37:23 AM EST
    who is very interested in the primaries and likes all three candidates a fair amount, was not aware that Hillary won Kentucky. Nor of the disproportionate size of her win. Nor of the fact that the Edwards endorsement didn't magically cause all the working-class voters to swoon for Obama.

    Oy.

    Parent

    The only reasonable cause... (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by dianem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:17:33 PM EST
    ...I've ever seen is her vote for giving Bush power in Iraq and her refusal to back down off of it. That is quoted by nearly everybody when you ask why they hate Clinton. It makes no sense to me, since the left has forgiven a lot of Dems who made that vote, including Kerry, and Clinton explained why she voted that way. Other reasons are all more vague, and often unreasonable - she is a "triangulator", arrogant, selfish, race-baiting (a lot of people bought Obama's campaigns attack on this one - Axelrod's Army of Astroturfers earned their pay), she is a "panderer".  Then there are the non-reason reasons: they just don't like her, don't trust her, don't want another Clinton in the white house, don't like her laugh.  

    Parent
    Dislike (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:35:17 PM EST
    I think you are right that the Iraq war authorization is the "objective" reason given for disliking Hillary.  But I think without that vote, there would always be something else; the pundits and the Obama campaign were more than happy to paint her as petty; & I think her criticizing Obama on his "associates" during the debates fed into that mantra. But her change in focus to challenging Obama purely on policy, with an even stronger emphasis on what she stands for since her win in PA seems to me to have helped her win over voters. At the same time, I believe she has become a leader; I found the speech she gave in Boca Raton FL earlier this week about the importance of voting truly inspirational, challenging us all to think about what democracy means.  

    Parent
    You both have hit some of the issues (none / 0) (#208)
    by hairspray on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:47:03 AM EST
    but what I am not clear about is why some insider Democrats are hostile to Clinton.  The NYT likes to say they play rough, and that might be insider stuff, but lots of insiders like the job Bill did and still support them.  People like Kerry, Kennedy, Daschle etc. puzzle me.  What is that issue?  Does anyone know?  As for the stuff that goes around the obama blogs, that to me is just recycled right wing stuff.  The NYT hated Clinton almost from 1992 on.  What was that about?  they are still screaming about any little slip of the tongue from Clinton.  Spiteful!

    Parent
    Interestingly (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Steve M on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:38:27 AM EST
    The GOP has delegates from Puerto Rico.  You know, that party that hates Latinos and wants to ship them all back to Mexico.  And yet, I don't recall anyone on their side saying "how dare we let Puerto Rico have a say in the nomination!"

    Someday I hope for Democrats to get over the arrogance that says our party is the natural home for every minority group in existence, no matter what we say or do.  I suspect it will take some sort of wake-up call.

    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:48:14 AM EST
    that wake up call will happen in Nov if Obama's the nominee. I can see lots of minorities leaving the party and voting for McCain.

    And as far as AA's go, I think this is the last election we can expect to get 90% of their vote. What I see happening is that Obama loses the general election, blames democrats who didn't vote for him (I don't think they are racist, just that they don't see him as qualified or accomplished) and decide to bolt. If Hillary gets the nomination, she won't get 90% of the Aa's either. I think that McCain could probably get lots of AA votes simply based on the fact that he is really reaching out to those voters. I mean, how many GOP candidates would go to a memorial for MLK? He's the only one I can think of since maybe Eisenhower to actually try that kind of outreach. And while I think it might be detrimental to the party in the short run, it certainly would be good for the party and AA's in the long run. In fact, it seems to me, that wealthy AA's really have more of a natural home in the GOP anyway.

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Steve M on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:53:01 AM EST
    Outreach?  More like trying to make up for VOTING AGAINST THE MLK HOLIDAY in Congress!

    Mind you, many Democrats were far too busy trying to smear the Clintons as racist to focus on reminding voters of that interesting factoid about McCain.

    Parent

    Oh (none / 0) (#121)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:01:30 PM EST
    he's trying to do more than that. Since I live in GA with a lot of AA's you should see how the GOP is doing things. They are appealing to the culturally conservative group of AA's with gay marriage etc. Kind of like Obama has done with his gospel tour.

    LOL! I do get your point. However, what Republican has done even that much recently? Most of them would proudly proclaim that they voted against the MLK Holiday.

    Parent

    I live in GA as well (5.00 / 0) (#150)
    by Claw on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:22:34 PM EST
    And Obama's success has done nothing but make the GDP (Georgia Democratic Party) stronger.  They've registered tons of new voters, raised quite a bit of money, which is kind of unheard of down here, and they're scaring the bejesus out of the repubs.  Whatever you think of Obama or his candidacy, he's done a lot of good for the "don't count" states.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#154)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:28:12 PM EST
    I haven't seen that. He's doing really poorly down here electorally isn't he though? Do you think people like Barrow will rescind their endorsement of Obama?

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#164)
    by Claw on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:55:08 PM EST
    The prospect of Obama becoming nominee has inspired a LOT of people to give to the GDP (they can't commit or campaign until we have a nominee, but people are free to let 'em know why they're donating).  The great thing about this is that the GDP gets to spread the money around and help our hilariously underfunded candidates.  The reality is that we must start winning before 2012...when the districts are re-drawn.  If we don't GA is screwed.
    Because of the influx of money and voters, McCain will probably have to spend much more money than he want to in GA.  This will help in the swing states.
    I don't have any direct information about Barrow, but he can rely on Chatham county to offset hard feelings about his edorsement (I haven't seen any).    

    Parent
    Are you (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:03:16 PM EST
    aware that Barrow has a primary challenger? It's likely that he won't get the Dem nomination and his challenger will lose against the GOP. Obama has made this all about racial politics not party building is the message I'm getting. McCain is NOT going to have to spend money in GA. You are being foolish there. Obama is polling at 35% and is unlikely to pass 40% in the general election.

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#207)
    by Claw on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:21:00 PM EST
    McCain will have to spend money in GA because he still has quite a problem with the nut job southern conservative vote he needs to win.  Large turnout will help us down ticket in November and it's good to remember that we're still in the midst of a close primary race. McCain should be at about 80-20.  I'm not sure how you're forecasting the unlikeliness of Obama passing 40...the GOP is apathetic, the dems energized.  

    Parent
    Uh - voting against a civil rights bill (none / 0) (#117)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:00:14 PM EST
    isn't exactly outreach.  Then the Senate failed to overide Bush's veto by 1 vote.  

    Parent
    PR wasn't pivotal for the Republicans (none / 0) (#77)
    by s5 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:42:25 AM EST
    And it hasn't been for the Democrats either. And it definitely feels strange for a territory with no electoral college rights to be in the position of deciding the nominee for everyone else. But to me, that's an argument for admitting PR into the union, not for subtracting their votes from the nomination.

    Parent
    Puerto Rico is not a state because (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by leis on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:06:01 PM EST
    Puerto Ricans have voted against statehood on three separate occasions. It is not a matter of making them a state, they have rejected statehood.

    Parent
    The fact that they (none / 0) (#130)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:07:30 PM EST
    have no electoral college rights is the FLAW.  The flaw ISN'T that they have the RIGHT to participate in the primary.

    How would you feel if you had no participatory right in choosing your head of state.

    Parent

    "who cannot vote in a general election" (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by blogtopus on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:41:51 AM EST
    This from a supporter of the candidate who is leading because he has an a55load of delegates from red states that won't turn blue in the primary???

    Exactly! (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Serene1 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:44:53 AM EST


    Parent
    recent polls sugges otherwise... (none / 0) (#136)
    by independent thinker on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:11:19 PM EST
    Note, with the exception of New Mexico, these results are outside the margin of error. I am especially interested in New Mexico and Virginia and Colorado. These ARE "red" states that Obama can win. Also interesting are his advantages in Pennsylvania, California and Ohio.
    POLL: SurveyUSA OH, VA, PA, CA, NM
    SurveyUSA

    New Mexico
    McCain 44, Obama 44
    Pennsylvania
    Obama 48, McCain 40
    California
    Obama 49, McCain 41
    Virginia
    Obama 49, McCain 42
    Ohio
    Obama 48, McCain 39

    POLL: Rasmussen Colorado
    Rasmussen Reports
    Colorado
    Pres: Obama 48, McCain 42

    Parent

    I think the reference was to (none / 0) (#139)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:13:13 PM EST
    Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Alaska et al.

    Parent
    MS, AL, GA (none / 0) (#141)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:13:40 PM EST
    and so on.

    Parent
    Hi Big Tent D! (none / 0) (#155)
    by independent thinker on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:29:13 PM EST
    True, Obama is not going to win every "red" state he got in the primary season, but I believe several are in play as the poll numbers suggest. Also, the polling suggests that in a GE matchup with McCain, Obama does well in states like Ohio where Clinton performed well in the primary.

    Look, I believe Hillary Clinton would be a strong candidate against McCain, but I also believe Obama is strong too. It seems to me that people (from both camps) tend to dismiss all evidence that is favorable to the candidate they are not supporting and overstate the evidence that favors their chosen candidate.

    Parent

    And yet (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Steve M on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:42:47 AM EST
    I search in vain for anyplace BTD claimed that Obama said such a thing.

    Wrong to blame Armando (none / 0) (#96)
    by SpinDoctor on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:47:50 AM EST
    But have you read the comments?

    Parent
    Do some of you read what Armando writes? (5.00 / 0) (#85)
    by SpinDoctor on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:45:10 AM EST
    The desire to blame Obama for everything has reached pathological proportions.  So many of you are now attacking Obama for disenfranchising Puerto Rico voters, when neither he nor anyone in his campaign have said any sort of thing.  Obama has already been to Puerto Rico and is intending on going back before the primary.  Moreoever, he won the Guam and Americans Abroad delegates so it defies logic some of the inane arguments being made to continue to demonize Obama.

    So it is abundandtly clear, I vehemently disagree with Alter about Puerto Rico.  The votes from Puerto Rico count, as do the votes in caucus and "red" states and attempting to diminish their importance is undemocratic.  But please, take a step back and think before you reflexively attack Obama for every news story you disagre with.

    Obama is the leader (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by cawaltz on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:54:24 AM EST
    He needs to tell his surrogates to SHUT UP. He needs to tell Michigan and Florida they matter. He needs to go to WV and KY and instead of pretending they are all racist LISTEN TO THEM. He needs to say that he has no plans for some "new" coalition, that each and every voter is important no matter wht their demographic. He needs to tell his supporters to settle down and let Hillry continue for as long as she is able until one of them reaches the magic number nd if SHE is the winner that HE will do everthing in his powr to hel her get into office.

    When he does those things, he might just learn that he has earned the rspect of the half of the electorate that his surrogates have worked hard at alienating on his behalf.

    Silence is assent.  

    Parent

    Nah (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:57:23 AM EST
    the Appalachian problem as outlined by DHinMI is the officially sanctioned strategy--they want a an upper middle class party aligned with black voters. All the talking points come from Axelrod and Brazile.

    It's a top down operation and they have run all the numbers and have calculated they can win this way.

    Parent

    Come on now (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by SpinDoctor on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:04:44 PM EST
    You expect him to tell NBC and Jonathan Alter to "shut up"?  Come on, you cannot be serious.  If you are, you are holding Obama to a preposterous standard which, conveniently for you, allows you to be perpetually disappointed in him.

    If Obama, the "media darling" had so much control, he would have told the media to "shut up" when the Reverend Wright story broke.  If Obama has so much control, he would have told the media to "shut up" when they focused on his wife's comments about being proud of him.  If Obama has so much control over the media, he would have told them to stop focusing on Rezko and Ayers.  

    Seriously, step back and think about what you are suggesting and the unreasonable standard you are holding Obama to. Unless and until Obama suggests that Puerto Rico does not count (i.e. like how many Clinton supporters suggest that caucus states and red states should be disregarded), then perhaps we can keep our powder dry, set aside these strawmen  and focus on McCain?

    Parent

    this has nothing to do with Obama (none / 0) (#137)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:12:06 PM EST
    Spin Doctor is correct imo.

    Parent
    We'll have to disagree (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by cawaltz on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:21:28 PM EST
    From where I'm sitting he needs to make it clear that their opinions are not his. I will not be surprised that the majority believe they ARE his opinions because he has said nothing to show otherwise.

    In politics, perception is reality. Obama's base is making easy pickins' for the GOP.

    You're entitled to feel different, of course ;)

    Parent

    Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:47:09 AM EST
    "THe fact is you haven't produced ONE INSTANCE of Obama saying he doesn't  think Puerto Rico should count."

    This is true.

    (snort) (none / 0) (#152)
    by katiebird on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:26:28 PM EST
    (giggling)

    Parent
    Bravo (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Faust on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:52:45 AM EST
    Your best post on this subject to date imo.

    The PR discussion is hilarious. (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by wurman on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:56:21 AM EST
    Back in the day, before AK & HI entered the union, the GOoPerz consistently resisted the efforts for statehood.

    Similarly, why doesn't Washington, DC, have a representative & two senators?  After decades of posturing, they get 3 electoral votes, as if . . . .

    Why can't Guam, American Samoa & all the Pacific Trust Territories get representation?

    Why won't both houses of congress give the people of Puerto Rico the opportunity for a referendum & either let them join the union or let them create an effective method of representation?

    Wingnutz, that's why.  The arguments against HI in the olden days was the concern by Sen. Taft & a lot of miscegenation-believing deep South senators & represenatives that the islands would elect the very people they did--persons with odd skin colors & unusual eyes.  There was also a fear that both AK & HI would join the union with some very socialistic, perhaps even communistic, ideas in tow.

    The Democratic Party opened its doors to these non-represented "citizens" of the USA (our colonialism is so outre) in an effort to begin the processes that lead to the franchise.  Each new congress sees bills entered to give the "colonies" their place & the bills die in committee.  Not this biennium, friends.

    True archconservatives & their media henchthugs have no desire for expanding the electorate, ever, in any way.  The more people who vote, the less likely the GOoPerz will win.  'Twas ever thus.

    There is no far left (none / 0) (#133)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:09:48 PM EST
    there is no far right.  There is only solidarity in wingnuttery.

    Parent
    One more time (none / 0) (#202)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:54:40 PM EST
    PR has had several referendums on statehood and it continues to lose.  The majority there do not want statehood.

    Parent
    My post doesn't commed either statehood or . .. (none / 0) (#206)
    by wurman on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:55:59 PM EST
    . . . representation and merely mentions them.  I also did not mention independence, which is a small minority view within PR.

    The 3 plebiscites were non-binding & informational & resulted in approximately "tie votes," which resolved very little.  I don't have an opinion on this.

    PR, as well as other territories, has some unusual characteristics in its status; e.g., the Commonwealth has its own Olympic team.

    My point was that the US is still a colonial power, even in the 21st century, & that the federal government follows a routine policy of not extending the franchise to the colonies.

    The GOoPerz resist any representation for PR because of their opinion(s) that the voters would probably be in favor of Democratic Party politics.  It is possible to have representation without becoming a state.  I do have strong opinions on this & think that some form of genuine representation is reasonable, the right thing to do & consistent with the founding principles of the USA.

    U.S. territories include:

    American Samoa
    Guam
    Northern Mariana Islands
    Puerto Rico
    Swains Island
    U.S. Virgin Islands

    Parent

    Are you serious?? (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Nos on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:26:44 PM EST
    How can anyone suggest, with a straight face, that all of the sudden, the agreed upon rules of a primary should be changed??  

    So let me get this straight, it's ok to agree that Michigan and Florida should be sanctioned 100% of their delegates (something I wrote my congressman about, expressing my digust with such a harsh sanction in 2007), but... wait... no, it's not ok because now one candidate realizes they made a mistake in their indifference and agreeing that the votes don't count??  

    Are you serious??

    The "popular vote", which is really an undetermined measurement (due to the cacuses), is NOT the way a primary candidate is chosen.  If the system needs to change, advocate  for a change in rules for the next round of national primaries, not during the current one.  That's what "fair" means.

    If we can just changes the rules because we feel this way or that way after agreeing upon what the standards are, why have primaries at all?

    Why not just have blog polls??

    Well, that's not exactly right... (1.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Tom Hilton on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:16:29 AM EST
    Many do not accept that the popular vote in the Democratic nomination is the fairest representation of the will of the electorate in the Democratic contest.
    But which 'popular vote'?  The one the Clinton campaign touts as giving her the majority, which counts the votes of most white Michiganders while not counting most of the African-American votes?  Or any of the dozens of other permutations, each of which is flawed in some way or another?  If 'popular vote' were a clearly-defined metric, sure, it would be a useful way to look at the race, but it isn't, so it isn't.  

    So you stopped reading I see (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:18:08 AM EST

    From my post:

    Is the popular vote count accurate? Accurate enough? We can argue about that. But what can not be argued is that the popular vote in Puerto Rico, Americans Abroad and Guam is NOT part of the popular vote of The People (as chosen by the Democratic Party to have a say in the nomination of the Democratic candidate for President.)


    Parent
    Puerto Rico, Guam, whatever (3.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Tom Hilton on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:26:08 AM EST
    Include them--why the hell not.  Who cares?  The point is that the 'popular vote' is fatally flawed as a metric because it's subject to manipulation and cherrypicking.  

    In the end, it's the delegates (regular and super) that matter.  All this popular vote talk is just so much weeny-whipping.  

    Parent

    Aw, what's the matter? (4.00 / 4) (#49)
    by madamab on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:28:33 AM EST
    Afraid your fave will lose the popular vote count?

    Parent
    My 'fave'? (1.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Tom Hilton on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:36:45 AM EST
    Um, you mean the candidate I voted for?  

    Anyway, Obama isn't losing the popular vote now--unless, of course, you choose to count most of the white votes in Michigan while not counting most of the African-American votes.  Which is morally indefensible on its face, and is also the particular skewed metric being pushed by the Clinton campaign.  Now maybe you happen to like that version because it's the only one that puts Clinton ahead; fine.  That just illustrates the impossibility of coming up with an agreed 'popular vote' metric.  

    But none of that really matters, because for better or worse, we have a system in which the nominee is chosen by delegates.  Anything else is purely academic.  

    Parent

    Heh (3.66 / 3) (#74)
    by Steve M on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:41:40 AM EST
    The fact that you shamelessly push this "counting the white votes but not the black votes" argument is really indicative of the tone of the Obama campaign.  The race-baiting starts at the top, you see.  Now they all figure it's fair game to deploy this sort of argument.

    Hillary doesn't want to count the black votes in Michigan, huh.  Just like she didn't cry over Katrina, I suppose?  Keep it up.

    Parent

    She's doesn't want to count the Liberian vote (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:50:47 AM EST
    Shame on her.

    That is a very new angle on the Mighigan scrap.
    I'd be happy enough to give Obama the uncommitted vote in Michigan.  even though he decided he'd pnader to Iowa by removing his name from the Michigan ballot.

    Parent

    Yeah (1.00 / 1) (#89)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:46:14 AM EST
    What's with all this talk of racism and race-baiting.  Pure nonsense.

    Now sexism, on the other hand, is the reason why Hillary lost.

    Parent

    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Steve M on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:51:21 AM EST
    Answer me two questions.

    1. You may disagree with the metric that assigns Hillary all her popular votes from Michigan while awarding Obama none of the "uncommitted" votes.  But do you think it is RACIST to use that metric?

    2. Do you think it is race-baiting to characterize that metric as "counting the white votes but not the black votes"?

    We'll set aside the idiotic and offensive attempt to blow off the complaints about sexism in this campaign by suggesting it is all about making an excuse for Hillary's loss.  Just answer those two questions, if you can.

    Parent
    Well I am not (none / 0) (#116)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:59:32 AM EST
    a person who looks for bigotry in the actions of others.  I don't think that the Clinton campaign is racist.

    I don't believe that they are willfully trying to suppress AA voting in Michigan.  

    I believe that it is needless and arguably race-baiting to make the argument that Michigan is about race.

    I believe that Hillary's continual claim that she does better with white working class people was arguably race-baiting as well.

    I believe that the majority of the claims of sexism are faux outrage and that many people here wish to claim that sexism is the reason why Hillary is losing.  

    Parent

    Don't be silly (none / 0) (#171)
    by Tom Hilton on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:08:19 PM EST
    You may disagree with the metric that assigns Hillary all her popular votes from Michigan while awarding Obama none of the "uncommitted" votes.  But do you think it is RACIST to use that metric?

    Did I say it was racist?  Absolutely not.  
    Do you think it is race-baiting to characterize that metric as "counting the white votes but not the black votes"?

    Of course it isn't 'race-baiting' to observe that the particular skewed scheme the Clinton campaign is pushing has a disparate impact on African-American voters.  I haven't called anyone 'racist'; that's your 'contribution' to the discussion.  

    Look: the Clinton campaign is saying every vote should be counted, except for the votes that shouldn't be counted.  In this case, the former happen to be mostly white votes, while the latter happen to be mostly African-American votes--not because of deliberate racism, but simply because that's the way it shakes out.  IMO, however, that disparate impact makes it morally indefensible to take that position.  

    Parent

    What is this not counting the black vote (none / 0) (#105)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:53:04 AM EST
    in MI argument?  I've never heard it before and I don't get it.  I know all about the MI vote and how to seat the delegates.  But what does that have to do with black/white votes?  Doesn't make sense to this Obama supporter.

    Parent
    They are cmplaining because (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by cawaltz on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:59:31 AM EST
    Obama can't get the votes that were unassigned because Obama took his name off the ballot. Alot of AAs vote uncommitted and he won't credit for them. Of course, it was HIS fault that he won't getcredit for them.

    However, one of the first symptoms of CDS is the person afflicted insists "It's all Clintons Fault.(IACF)"

    Parent

    Thank you for explaining that to me. (none / 0) (#157)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:32:19 PM EST
    Still sounds silly to make it a racial argument.  And I support Obama and believe that he should get the uncom. votes, but arguing against that is NOT racist or trying to disenfranchise AAs.

    And, for the record,  the mess is MI is not Clinton's fault though it isn't Obama's either.


    Parent

    In the big scheme of things (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by cawaltz on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:35:58 PM EST
    whose fault it is, matters less than fixing it. :)

    The uncommitted can be seated at the convention and I don't doubt that they will go heavily, if not all, to Obama.

    Parent

    We agree. It needs to be (none / 0) (#181)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:35:55 PM EST
    fixed ASAP so that we can win in November.

    Parent
    100% inaccurate. (none / 0) (#72)
    by madamab on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:40:03 AM EST
    But I suspect you know that.

    The SD's will now decide the nominee. You're afraid Obama won't be able to make his case.

    That's all this is.

    Parent

    i'd simplify the argument. (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:20:41 AM EST
    She won the Electoral College equivalent hands down.  big  states, battle ground states and the Dem heartland in New England.

    that's her best argument.  

    Parent

    Which is relevant how? (none / 0) (#53)
    by Tom Hilton on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:30:01 AM EST
    If these were winner-take-all primaries, that would be relevant; they aren't, so it isn't.  

    I understand that Clinton supporters are desperately casting about for some metric (any metric) that would give her a plausible argument to use with the remaining superdelegates.  Fine, whatever; they can try what they like, but it doesn't seem to be working.  As others have noted, the superdelegates are breaking mostly for Obama.  

    Parent

    Then stop dissin' the voters (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:45:26 AM EST
    I understand Obama supporters can't let go of the primary.  Get over it already and move on.  Stop dissing the voters. If you've 'won' why does Obama keep allowing the voters to be dismissed?  Do you think Obama is going to gain votes or lose votes based on allowing PR to be dismissed?  If he fights for those votes it shows he's willing to fight for all votes.  Stop allowing the different demographics to be smeared and get a backbone.  The bigotry has got to stop.

    Pivot to the GE Obama supporters and stop sniping at Clinton and her supporters.  Pivot already, this is tiresome.

    Parent

    That takes two (1.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Tom Hilton on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:00:43 PM EST
    Pivot to the GE Obama supporters and stop sniping at Clinton and her supporters.  Pivot already, this is tiresome.

    Obama already has; hence his focus on McCain.  (Clinton, not so much; whatever.)

    And I've been focusing on McCain since the day it became obvious he was the nominee.  If you check out the group blog I write for (If I Ran the Zoo), you'll see a whole lot of posts about McCain and not so many about the primaries.  In fact, you'll find some harsh criticism of TalkLeft there for focussing almost exclusively on the primaries rather than the general.  So you don't need to tell me to 'pivot'.  

    But as long as the Clinton campaign is making arguments designed to undermine the legitimacy of the nomination, and as long as Clinton supporters are also pushing those arguments, somebody has to answer them.  It isn't my primary focus, and I'd rather be slamming McCain, but I'll do it if I have to.  

    How about not making those arguments in the first place, and we can all focus on McCain?  Deal?

    Parent

    This is true (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by blogtopus on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:45:29 AM EST
    The Super Dels are breaking for Obama, but it definitely isn't because they think he's the one who has a better chance of winning. That chance belongs to the person with the strongest electoral college argument, Hillary.

    The Super Dels have some other aspect in mind, but it isn't the electoral argument, that's for sure.

    Parent

    Um, the vote held on Election Day (none / 0) (#40)
    by Eleanor A on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:22:37 AM EST
    Unless you want to start decertifying elections all across the country, which is a slippery slope, friend.

    Parent
    can this get any more embarrassing (1.00 / 0) (#123)
    by DandyTIger on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:04:41 PM EST
    First grandma and typical white people under the bus, then blue collar workers as well as of course women, and now latinos (esp. in PR). What is wrong with dems and dem leaning MSN folks. Are they really that stupid. Oh wait. Of course they are.

    Probably said before (none / 0) (#12)
    by Lil on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:02:57 AM EST
    but I've missed it. Why does Puerto Rico vote in the primary and not the GE? Earnest question.

    Educated guess (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by A little night musing on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:38:02 AM EST
    I'm guessing it's because of the Electoral College. According to the Constitution, the EC is who actually elect the President, and the EC only contains representatives based on Congressional (House + Senate, right?) representation. So since PR is not a state, no representation in the EC. But Puerto Ricans living in one of the 50 states are represented via that state.

    Just my guess; someone tell me if I'm wrong!

    Parent

    Exactly right (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Llelldorin on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:10:54 PM EST
    Precisely right. From a technical standpoint, the United States is just that—a union of semi-independent states that share sovereignty with the federal government in Washington. Territories governed by the United States (Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Washington D.C., and the US Virgin Islands) are not member states of that Union, and so have no political representation in Washington.

    That system is, of course, extremely unfair to people living in the territories. We've semi-normalized the status of Washington D.C. itself with the 23rd amendment, which gives the district 3 electors, but it remains without votes in the Congress. The other territories have no representation at all in the US government.

    From what I can remember, Puerto Rico's internal politics are roughly evenly split between proponents of full independence and statehood; since neither side can get a majority the current "commonwealth" status persists. (If I remember coorectly, PR commercial interests love Commonweath status, since it places them within the US for trade purposes but doesn't give them a full state government taxing them.)

    Parent

    The Popular Vote Doesn't Matter (none / 0) (#16)
    by wtfwtf on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:05:25 AM EST
    According to the facts of the rules the popular vote doesn't matter directly because it decides nothing.  This election comes down to the superdelegates so why does there need to be one way to count the popular vote anyways? (well, because people want to   make certain claims whether completely accurate or not)  

    List out the different alternative ways to count the popular and what the outcomes are, hand it to the superdelegates and tell them to make a god-damn decision already.

    The question is (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:08:04 AM EST
    does it matter to the Super Delegates.

    You seemed not to have read my post at all.

    Parent

    How closely split are the superdels? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:18:46 AM EST
    if seating Florida and Michigan is seem as a threat to obama's chances?

    My God the party bigwigs don't really like him do they?

    Why isn't Puerto Rico a state, anyway? (none / 0) (#50)
    by s5 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:28:44 AM EST
    I know this is probably a big, thorny question, but it really doesn't make sense, and this primary is illustrating why.

    I think both sides of the argument make a decent case: Why should Puerto Rico get to pick a nominee that they won't be able to vote for? Maybe Puerto Rico's choice for president is the wrong choice for winning the states that actually do participate in the electoral college (no idea if this is valid; saying this just for the sake of argument). On the other hand, why shouldn't they have the right to participate in the process as defined by the party? Both sides make a good case, and the solution, from what I can see, is to end this weird half way situation and just make them a state.

    I really don't know much about Puerto Rico and its politics, but I guess we're seeing one of the benefits of the extended primary. Everyone who's been paying attention has been learning a bit more about the country we live in. I definitely feel much more interested in the Puerto Rico statehood issue as their primary approach.

    Didn't hear the Obama cmp arguing (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by cawaltz on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:32:25 AM EST
    Guam didn't count or subtracting THEIR delegates(Not that I'd want them to). What is totally absurd is the cherrypickig being done by TEAM Obama as to who 'really counts'.

    Parent
    Guam was tiny, and a tie (none / 0) (#66)
    by s5 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:37:56 AM EST
    Go ahead, subtract Guam. My point remains the same. Why isn't Puerto Rico a state? The millions of people who live there really should have the right to choose their president in the only election process that matters in a constitutional sense.

    Parent
    The argument is a day late and a (none / 0) (#120)
    by cawaltz on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:01:15 PM EST
    dollar short. You don't get to pick when and where votes matter to game the system for your candidate.

    Thanks for making the point though.

    Parent

    Because voters in PR (none / 0) (#203)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:02:12 PM EST
    have three times rejected statehood in referendums.


    Parent
    Cherry picking? (none / 0) (#168)
    by independent thinker on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:01:39 PM EST
    The same can be said for the Clinton campaign's "popular vote" arguement. Yes, she might lead the popular vote (barely) with FL and MI--IF, and this is a big if--IF we don't count several caucus states at all. To me, this goes completely against the popular vote arguement. Yes, yes, yes, I understand that some caucus states didn't report actual voter totals and this makes tallying their popular vote thorny, but if Clinton's arguement is that the popular vote matters so much and that she might have a narrow popular vote lead when all the voting is done (but ONLY if we ignor the thousands upon thousands of people who participated is those caucus states), then where is the claim of moral high ground? Gone. Then it becomes just another skewed metric to hang one's claim to the nomination on.

    But all this is just distraction. Should we change to a straight popular vote for future Democratic presidential primaries? That is certainly open to debate. But that is not what everyone agree to before this whole thing got started. It is delegates that matters bacause that is what everyone agreed to for THIS nomination.

    Parent

    on the eve of the NH primary (none / 0) (#62)
    by Josey on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:35:30 AM EST
    and Obama was leading in NH polls, Alter was on Charlie Rose singing Obama's praises, basically claiming he had won the nomination and assuring viewers Obama is a Centrist.

    So District of Columbia counts for popular vote (none / 0) (#118)
    by carmel on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:00:14 PM EST
    but Puerto Rico does not, is that what MSNBC is saying now? So Obama is now deciding whose votes matter and whose votes don't matter? What if Obama decided that the General Election should only include Oregon, Vermont and South Carolina? Not to be silly, but Obama's history of winning elections seems to be predicated on "gaming" the system rather than winning the most votes. If superdelegates don't care about the popular vote, then what does matter to them? Does the fact that Obama needs to "win over" numerous groups at this point mean anything, versus Hillary who is rock solid with all of those groups. Every vote should count as long as we still have a democracy and it should be important to the superdelegates.

    On the popular vote. (none / 0) (#149)
    by RickTaylor on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:21:44 PM EST
    "Many do not accept that the popular vote in the Democratic nomination is the fairest representation of the will of the electorate in the Democratic contest."

    In assessing a statement like this, it's important to be clear what one means by the "popular vote." If it means, what the the results would have been had all the states and territories had voted under similar conditions with the nominees free to campaign and understanding the conditions, then I'd agree. I also think it's past time we ended the electoral college as well.

    The trouble is that since we haven't held such an election, it's extremely difficult to know what the results would have been. How would the popular vote have turned out in the caucus states had they held primaries instead of caucuses? What would the results have been in Michigan if all the nominees had been on the ballot?

    Of course one can make good faith efforts to estimate what the popular vote would have been, had we held such an election. But politics being what it is, what would most likely happen is both sides would compute the popular vote in the way most beneficial to themselves, both declaring victory (which is precisely what is happening now).

    I will also note I think its dishonest to do as some have done, which is on the one hand to argue the over-riding merit of the popular vote because it reflects the will of the electorate, and on the other hand compute the "popular vote" by discounting caucus states and ignoring any voters who would have supported Obama in Michigan. The whole appeal of the popular vote argument is that we want to find the will of the electorate. If one then says, well, it's just too bad if states are excluded or Clinton is awarded hundreds of thousands of votes to zero, then the "popular vote' becomes just another metric no more indicative of the will of the people than the pledged delegate count.

    Want to win back the White House, or not? (none / 0) (#166)
    by BrianMcBoston on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:57:36 PM EST
    Any of these mathematician pundits want to talk about the Electoral College and how exactly Obama wins in Nov?  We're about to nominate a sure loser.  This is a business decision - do we want to win or lose?  Do we want McCain or a Dem in the White House?  Let's not get too wrapped up in purism to be pragmatic and wise enough to do what we need to do to win.  It's like Ralph Nader costing Dems the election in 2000.  It's foolish.  They party should get control of this and put up a winner, Hillary.  The race is a tie to be decided by superdels.  I now regret voting for Obama.  He can't win Ohio, PA, FL!!!!!!  Red alert!!!!!  That's 70 electorals, folks.  Add in MI and NJ and that's 30+ more.  Obama's made his case to these voters repeatedly and with 3, 4 and even 8 times the media Hillary had.  They know what he's selling and they didn't buy it.  And, his "swing states of IA, WI and CO total about 27 electorals!!!!  Not enough!!!!!  And VA?? No, sorry not counting on that one.  That's one of the most reliably Republican States.  The only reason Webb won is because Allen shot himself in the foot every time he opened his mouth!!!!!
    Sure...here's recent poll data... (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by independent thinker on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:09:11 PM EST
    that refutes your claim and suggest Obama CAN win.
    POLL: SurveyUSA OH, VA, PA, CA, NM
    SurveyUSA
    New Mexico
    McCain 44, Obama 44
    Pennsylvania
    Obama 48, McCain 40
    California
    Obama 49, McCain 41
    Virginia
    Obama 49, McCain 42
    Ohio
    Obama 48, McCain 39

    POLL: Rasmussen Colorado
    Rasmussen Reports
    Colorado
    Pres: Obama 48, McCain 42

    The notion that a candidate cannot win a state in the GE because a rival won it in a primary doesn't work. There are numerous cases of past presidents winning states in a GE that a rival won in the primary. And the numbers above suggest the same is true for Obama.

    Parent

    Thank you (none / 0) (#176)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:27:08 PM EST
    You beat me to it.

    Parent
    According to SUSA (none / 0) (#196)
    by riddlerandy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:24:51 PM EST
    Obama is ahead of McCain by 9 points in Ohio, 8 points in Pennsylvania, 7 points in VA, and 6 points in Colorado.  Accordingly, the factual premise of your argument is completely false.  

    Parent
    When Obama claims he's won... (none / 0) (#174)
    by OrangeFur on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:12:31 PM EST
    X contests as opposed to Y for Clinton, and when the press said he won 11 contests in a row, didn't they all count Democrats Abroad, the Virgin Islands, etc.? Now Puerto Rico doesn't count? I wonder what the difference is?

    This myth that Obama doesn't want PR... (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by independent thinker on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:30:30 PM EST
    to count is just that...a myth. In fact, check this out:
    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/puerto-rico-gov.html

    Doesn't sound like Obama is dissing PR to me...

    Parent

    You lay the argument out fairly here (none / 0) (#182)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:36:29 PM EST
    Too many discussions about this on the blogs and in the media don't make these distinctions clearly and end up arguing straw men on all sides, with more and more vitriol as each side assumes the other's incomprehensible arguments must be being made in  bad faith.

    Not that that has much effect, I see (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:48:55 PM EST
    now that I've read some of the comments on this thread.

    Parent
    Alter's math... (none / 0) (#183)
    by oldpro on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:39:30 PM EST
    Here's my favorite nonsensical
    Alter statement in the current column:

     "If the Democratic National Committee completes its expected settlement on May 31, Florida and Michigan will each get half of their votes counted. Translated to popular votes, that would subtract about 325,000 votes from Hillary, putting Obama back into the lead."

    Get half their votes counted?  Um, noooo...all the votes are counted.  But they may only be given half-weight when apportioning delegates.

    All the votes have been counted and certified by the Secretaries of State in MI and FLA.

    Vote count is over in states which have voted.

    The other question is (none / 0) (#193)
    by blogtopus on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:15:07 PM EST
    Why are we punishing voters for what their candidates do instead of punishing the candidates for what they decide?

    In other words, Barack Obama and Edwards took their names off the ballot to deliberately disenfranchise their voters and therefore invalidate the results of that contest.

    Why aren't they being punished for this gross poisoning of democratic values?

    Let the delegates come to the convention and make their decision there; don't just arbitrarily apply votes / delegates based on who claims them. Reality Based Community, anyone?

    And come up with rules for the next time a candidate wants to cynically poison the well for all the other candidates. If you want to pee in the punchbowl, you'll have to suffer the consequences. So far, Obama has not suffered anything, and is looking to be rewarded for it in the form of unearned 'uncommitted' delegates. What a crock.

    Sorry, I disagree with your premise (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by independent thinker on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:07:41 PM EST
    Barack Obama and other candidates had their names removed because they felt that it was in the spirit of the pledge agreed upon to "not participate" in the un-sanctioned MI primary. He did not remove his name for malicious gain. That is just rediculous. Now, one might argue that later on, when it because obvious that this nomination process was going to be long and close, that the candidates' actions in regard to what to do about the status of MI were not the best. THAT at least is an honest point of view. But to claim that Obama had his name removed way back then, BEFORE the primary season had even begun is absurd.

    Parent
    Good points all BTD (none / 0) (#195)
    by riddlerandy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:21:00 PM EST
    I hope this means that others here will not confuse those two issues by arguing that under some formula Hillary got the most votes and therefore is more electable.  

    As to Puerto Rico, the Dem rules provide the people of PR participate in its primary and that elect delegates, end of story.  Their votes, like those cast at other Dem-sanctioned primaries and caucuses that followed the rules, must count.  

    As you point out, however, until the system if reformed, it's the delegates that count.  

    The Popular Vote And The Will Of the People: It's Not An Electability Argument | 204 comments (204 topical)