Hillary/Sinbad '08
Posted by at March 8, 2008 07:09 PMA Democrat just won the Congressional seat held by the former ReThug SPEAKER of the House. And yet Turkana couldn't resist a dig at Obama. Pathetic.
Posted by gay veteran at March 8, 2008 07:14 PMOr is it Sinbad/Hillary '08?
Posted by at March 8, 2008 07:15 PMgay vet,
i made no dig at obama. i made a dig at his more dishonest supporters.
Posted by Turkana at March 8, 2008 07:15 PManonymous-
i know who you are. most people can probably figure it out. because you're very smart. as always.
Posted by Turkana at March 8, 2008 07:17 PMTurkana, the Democrats just won a major victory against the ReThugs and yet you couldn't resist insulting Obama supporters. F*** you.
Posted by gay veteran at March 8, 2008 07:18 PMi've been compling this throughout the day. sorry if it offends. good news, bad news, honest news.
Posted by Turkana at March 8, 2008 07:26 PMTurkana--What I love about you is that you acknowledge the math. THE math, to quote our good friend Karl. You just don't accept it. A long journey begins with the first step. You'll come around. Come to the light.
Posted by nerdoff at March 8, 2008 07:27 PMnerdoff,
you don't acknowledge the existence of superdelegates. the convention will.
Posted by Turkana at March 8, 2008 07:30 PMSomeone please tell me I’m naïve. I must be because I believe the following. One of the Democratic candidates should immediately “go positive” on her/his opponent. The candidate’s argument would be slightly modified but the supporting evidence would remain the same. The argument would become something like “my opponent would make a great president. If she/he is nominated, I will do everything in my power to make sure he/she becomes president. In fact, I think my opponent is so worthy that if I win the nomination, I may choose her/him as my running mate. However, I would make a far better president, and here’s why..” The supporting evidence would remain the same. “I have more experience and experience equals better judgment. Therefore, I'm better prepared to be president.” Or “My opponent claims better judgment based on more experience. This is not always the case, and her vote on the war is an example. I bring a cleaner slate, have longer been more resolutely against this war, and am less enmeshed in old politics. Therefore, I'm better prepared to be president.” On and on. One candidate “going positive” would force the hand of the other to then “go positive.” Each candidate continues to argue for his/her strengths against the opponent’s weaknesses. However, the danger of alienating large portions of the other’s supporters would be greatly reduced. Competition continue in an atmosphere that supports coalition building. If the victor then chooses the runner up as VP, she/he will not have made an argument that then needs to be refuted, thereby avoiding discrediting his/her self with the choice. Furthermore, the press would be prevented from continuing this ridiculous assertion that the Democrats are hurt by having both of their superior candidates remain on the front page while McCain will have trouble getting any attention at all. Again, I’m sure I must be naïve because I believe this is true. Help me, please.
Posted by worriedmind at March 8, 2008 07:33 PMAll of what BTD says is certainly true. But if you override the pledged delegate total with super delegates Al Sharpton (and many others) will lead an Afro American exodus from the Democratic Party.
There really are no rules. The reality is that the Democrats nominate Barack Obama or they can kiss good bye to the Afro American vote.
It has never happened before, but this time around Afro American voters have the Democratic Leadership (and Leadership Council) by the balls. The question that remains is whether the Nancy Pelosis of the world would rather lose without us than win with us.
Posted by kaleidescope at March 8, 2008 07:36 PMturkana: "Clearly, they [Obama supporters] care more about the absurdly arbitrary delegate allocation system than about the expressed will of the people."
Until you can sort out the number of Republicans who voted in Texas on Rush's marching orders (sorry, exit polls from people crossing primaries to make mischief are notoriously inaccurate) then the will of the people must include the will of several hundred thousand Republicans who voted to, as Limbaugh called for them to do, "bloody Obama." The caucus process may very well have more accurately reflected Texas Democrats than the heavily infiltrated primary.
And again, rules are rules. The Texas election is a primary/caucus process. That is the will of the people in Texas, has been for 20 years. There is nothing in the Texas rules that says that the caucus must be identical with the primary results. In fact, by having the two different processes, it suggests that the intent of the Texas dual system was just the opposite. Otherwise, why have two separate processes to come to the same result?
But thanks, Turkana, for saying that the will of the people of the Democratic Party in Texas is not the will of the people.
By the way, the way you win the nomination is to win the most delegates. If it's absurd to you then start working to change the system. A candidate should go into each state with an idea how their delegate allocation system works and a plan to win those delegates. What's absurd is to spend a hundred million dollars on a campaign and not understand how delegates are awarded and not have a plan to win them.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at March 8, 2008 07:36 PMworriedmind,
unfortunately, negative campaigning works. in the blogoshere, only clinton gets called on it, but they both do it, and they both do it effectively. if it didn't work, they wouldn't do it.
Posted by Turkana at March 8, 2008 07:37 PMThe Obama Math. If you are on the outside, not in the swirl, it's just ridiculous.
All the headlines slammed that Hillary won Texas. She did, by 100,000 votes. Yet it's all Obama really won Texas.
I'm week and on liquids, but this just seems the height of absurdity.
The convention is brokered. We have a so-so tie in an incredibly lousy system to determine the will of the people. One of the candidates will lose.
The fight is then on. I really don't want to hear another fucking word, both of the candidates are centrists, the fight isn't about them. Not this time.
Go reality society. Accept the reality, the convention is brokered.
Posted by paradox at March 8, 2008 07:40 PMA little weak, yes, but saying Fuck you to Turkana isn't cool at all.
We are civilized American liberals here. We can't be that way 100% of the time, of course not, but we can try.
I'm no saint, but come on.
Posted by paradox at March 8, 2008 07:44 PMCongratulations Bill Foster and the Democratic Party! That is great news.
Does he have to run again in Nov.?
i made no dig at obama. i made a dig at his more dishonest supporters.
You didn't actually congratulate Obama for his Wyoming victory either Turkana.
But that's OK... Hillary is taking credit for winning MI and FL.
Posted by Seven of Six at March 8, 2008 07:45 PMA little weak, yes, but saying Fuck you to Turkana isn't cool at all.
And paradox is right... that ain't cool!
Posted by Seven of Six at March 8, 2008 07:51 PMkaleidescope, Al Sharpton? Why not go all the way and invoke Farrakhan?
In point of fact, the announced superdelegates are close to even, and most party officials keep calling for the race to be over before the convention (hint: Hillary can't win without a fight at the convention; hint: if the race is over before the convention Hillary loses). A very large portion of the superdelegates are elected officials who want a presence at the top of the ticket. Obama can win in places where Clinton can't. The latest example is Bill Foster, whose win today was in large part aided by Obama's endorsement and advertisement. A win in Hastert's old district is a pretty strong endorsement for Obama.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at March 8, 2008 07:52 PMI'm week and on liquids,
Paradox, I hope that you are OK, sorry to hear that you are ill....
there has not been too much "civilized" for a while or "reality based" around here.
Objectivity and civil discourse has been lacking - isn't it a pity, isn't it a shame.
Posted by Anjha at March 8, 2008 07:57 PMunfortunately, negative campaigning works
Yes, it worked just great.
Both candidates lost their large leads over McCain.
Posted by Anjha at March 8, 2008 07:59 PMparadox, hope you feel better. Politics in the flu season must be horrible. Or is it the opposite? Flue in the political season.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at March 8, 2008 08:01 PMI understand Hillary's appeal, I really do. She's Norman Bates' mother. She's up there in that drafty old house screaming "Norman, I want you to deal with that boy Obama. NORMAN! NORMAN! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORMAN!"
Posted by nerdoff at March 8, 2008 08:01 PMShame on you nerdoff!
Posted by Seven of Six at March 8, 2008 08:03 PMAnon, I hear Sinbad has already chosen Sheryl Crow as his running mate.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at March 8, 2008 08:04 PMObama with the higher final delegate total, won Texas. The CNN call on the election was premature, and in point of fact, inaccurate. I was present at one of those precinct caucuses, and we elected more delegates than the Clinton faction. By the rules that govern our primary the winner was Obama.
Get well wishes for paradox. I went through a bout with flu this week. Hope you feel better tomorrow.
Posted by Copeland at March 8, 2008 08:06 PMDoes he have to run again in Nov.?
I found an answer to my question.
Yes, Foster does have to face Olberweis in Nov. again.
Here's something I've mentioned more than once...Steve, are you paying attention?
"It's clear that for either Sen. Barack Obama or Sen. Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic presidential nomination, they'll have to win the majority of superdelegates at the convention. But what if the superdelegates split right down the middle like Democrats across the nation?
Talk of a joint ticket -- Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama -- might be an elegant solution to the problem. But what if Clinton wins the popular vote and Obama wins the majority of delegates? What if the next two months of campaigning turns so ugly they can't stand each other? Would either candidate willingly step aside to take the number two spot?
The answer might be for someone else entirely to step into the race at the convention. The most likely candidate would be Al Gore."
h/t politicalwire and PI
Here you go folks...get happy...your savior may be coming back.
Posted by peter at March 8, 2008 08:24 PMWhat an SNL opening....Hillary ous!
Posted by peter at March 8, 2008 08:36 PMIt seems rather clear to me that Hillary won the Texas primary and that Obama will win the Texas caucuses. (All of the caucus results are not yet in.)
So to me it seems to be a split.
I just hope that whoever wins the popular and the delagates come convention time wins the super's. I believe that if the super's overturn the popular and delagate winner that candidate's supporters will be pissed.
BTW this is a cool site to track the supers.
And I hope that everyone will join me in calling for the impeachment of Steve King. At minimum a censure. This guy is a complete idiot and his ignorance here proves that he should not be allowed to be in public office.
The story is rather tame as compared to the video of his remarks. Really, he is a dumb ass.
Kudos Turkana...keep fighting the good fight....
I can't believe I'm "paraphrasing" Tucker Carlson:
"They gotta believe that Obama will win...since his only victory was Alan Keyes....I can beat Alan Keyes....Hillary is looking formidable..."
Posted by PaulieB at March 8, 2008 08:55 PMHey Turkana, how many dittoheads do you think crossed over and voted for Hillary like their god Rush told them to? Why were the Texas caucauses skewered in FAVOR of Obama...get with the facts dude.
Posted by athensboy at March 8, 2008 08:55 PMObama is not going to be the nominee. The Math Club is in denial.
Hilarious SNL skit tonight with Obama calling Clinton at 3:00 a.m. to ask her what to do!
bob,
in many states, according to exit polls, clinton has actually beaten obama among democrats. i would love if they were all closed, but they aren't. again- the rules are what they are, until the dnc decides to do something about them.
kaleidoscope,
i'm sure the party leaders will not respond to threats. if that's how sharpton and others want to get their way, they will be welcome to leave the party. more reasonable people will remain.
7o6,
i didn't congratulate clinton on ohio and texas, either. i just reported that she won. i'm an equal opportunity meanie.
athensboy,
figure out how many limbaugh crossovers voted in texas, then figure out how many obamacans have voted in other states, then get back to me.
Posted by Turkana at March 8, 2008 10:13 PMShorter Turkana: Caucuses don't count because Clinton doesn't win those!
Silly season continues unabated at The Left Coaster... shall we discuss Hillary Clinton's extensive foreign policy experience now?
The "expressed will of the people?" That's not what a primary is for, that's what a general election is for! The purpose of a primary is to find the candidate most capable of winning the general. A general election is supposed to be democratic, a primary is supposed to be strategic.
Those "arbitrary" delegate allocation rules? Not arbitrary at all - they were designed for strategic reasons. You can debate whether they're good strategy if you want, but to argue that they're not "expressing the will of the people" is just silly. They weren't supposed to! They're supposed to pick a winner!
If you think the superdelegates should base their decisions on public opinion polls, instead of on the delegate count, fine. That makes sense to me. But the poll that's relevant is: who gets more electors in the electoral college, when paired against McCain?
capj,
of course i didn't say anything of the kind, but nice straw.
josh,
according to the surveyusa electoral map, both candidates beat mccain, and the margin between them is but a handful of electors. i would prefer the superdelegates go with whoever has the most popular votes, although that's hard to calculate. even so, i think it would be closest to fair. but we'll see how the rest of the primaries work out.
Posted by Turkana at March 8, 2008 10:38 PMTurkana, you know that actual people show up to caucus, right? They may not be popular according to CNN, but when you figure the rough number of people who showed up to caucus and Obama's winning margin, Clinton's popular vote "win" is a close approximation to zero, if that.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at March 8, 2008 10:49 PMI know how much you all love math:
Over 1 million participants times a 12 point margin for Obama means at least 120,000 more votes for him than Clinton in the caucus, which means Obama won the popular vote as well as a majority of delegates.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at March 8, 2008 10:55 PM(((paradox)))
Posted by Sharkbabe at March 8, 2008 11:01 PMum, capj-
you do know that the caucus allowed double votes- people who had already voted, right? and you do know that caucus delegates aren't allocated strictly proportionally to the popular vote, right?
Posted by Turkana at March 8, 2008 11:01 PMTexas lets everyone vote twice! Cool and stupid at the same time, but if you really want to count the raw votes instead of delegates, it would seem to be pretty rude to ignore more than a million people who went to the effort to caucus. The delegate translation errors, if anything, would tend to work against the candidate with disproportionate turnout, so it's pretty safe to say that Obama got more raw votes in Texas.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at March 8, 2008 11:13 PMcapj,
keep telling yourself that. turnout for the primary was much higher, and there is no measure at all for how many people double-voted, in the caucuses. i'm guessing the vast majority. doesn't make sense that people would take the time to caucus without having first made the lesser effort to walk into a voting booth. we do know how many people voted in the primary, though.
Posted by Turkana at March 8, 2008 11:24 PMEveryone at the caucus double-voted since you have to vote in the primary to be eligible to caucus - everyone gets two votes! If you want to know who got more of those votes, you have to add them all up. Unless, of course, caucuses don't count...
The Texas Democratic Party would be the ones to know how many showed up to caucus, BTW...
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at March 8, 2008 11:33 PMI like Hillary, but I'm supporting Obama. According to the bloggers on this site, that makes me a dishonest person who hates democracy. I come here for news and insightful opinion, not insults. As a result, I no longer consider The Left Coaster a site that holds any value for me.
Posted by buddhistMonkey at March 8, 2008 11:59 PMOkay, we want to get down to brass tacks on the Texas primary and caucus? Great.
First, there is NO statewide primary. There are dozens and dozens of local primaries governed by local parties and local rules, not the state party. All of those votes would, I think, be considered part of the popular vote.
Then, there's the caucus, which although held locally is governed by the state party, so it theoretically has more broadly applied rules. Note that in a caucus, people vote there, too. Do they vote "twice?" Well, the caucus participants must supposedly vote in a local primary first prior to voting in the caucus, but that's the compromise worked out in Texas. Note that anyone who voted in a Democratic primary in Texas is eligible to participate in the caucus, so there's no bar to participation for Hillary voters. Anyway, they vote in the caucus, too, which, I think, also ought to count as part of the popular vote in Texas because that's their system.
Two-thirds of the Texas Democratic pledged delegates are won through the primaries, and one-third through the caucus.
Now, maybe you don't think that's fair, that there's two votes. But nothing stopped Hillary's voters from coming out for the caucus. Moreover, you want to go with just one man, one vote, as measured by the primaries in Texas? So be it. Then let's use that standard as justification for who gets the nomination through all the contests. Right now, Obama leads in that by more than a half-million votes nationwide. Is that really the standard you want to use, Hillary supporters? Because that's not what the HRC campaign is saying these days.
Anyway, by my book, Obama won the delegate count and the popular vote in Texas. He did not win the primaries there, but he won the caucuses. Once again, a well-spun "victory is mine" round of cheerleading from HRC's campaign fooled the media. In fact, she lost Texas. Face the facts. W00t!
Posted by Brian Bell at March 9, 2008 03:46 AMDemocrat Wins Seat Once Held by G.O.P. Speaker
By MONICA DAVEY, New York Times
CHICAGO — Stunning many who considered the district west of Chicago reliably Republican territory, Bill Foster, a physicist and Democrat, won a special election on Saturday to fill the Congressional seat that J. Dennis Hastert, the former speaker of the House, held for two decades.
Mr. Foster’s success deeply disappointed Republicans, in part for its broader implications: the victory in this early race may buoy Democrats as they look ahead to a string of Republican retirements this fall.
Mr. Hastert was one of the best-known Republican members of Congress and he was elected from what was once a Republican stronghold...
The election here was expensive, bitter and, with its rash of television commercials, impossible to ignore. The national political parties clearly saw it as a critical one.
By last week, the National Republican Congressional Committee had poured $1.2 million into this race; the Democratic Congressional Committee had given more than $620,000....
So the Democrat won despite being outspent 2:1, despite the district being a ReThug district, despite the full efforts of the ReThug party to hold onto the seat of the former ReThug Speaker of the House.
Everyone was celebrating......well, maybe not Oberweis and the ReThugs. And along comes Turkana to take a dump in the punchbowl. Turkana reported the Democratic victory but was then simply unable to resist the impulse to immediately take a gratuitous swipe at Obama supporters. (btw, just love the use of the phrase "some" Obama supporters, a perfect way to smear ALL Obama supporters)
And to anyone offended by my language, you can clutch your pearls, sniff in your lace hankie, and head on over to the fainting couch because the ReThugs are going to be 100 times worse.
Posted by gay veteran at March 9, 2008 05:49 AMTo Turkana, 'Big Tent', et al.
I would encourage you to read the original Kos diary (http://granny-doc.dailykos.com) that folks are referring to as an example of Obama "winning Texas". I too think that may be a stretch; however, he IS likely to beat her by 4 delegates to the national convention when the caucus results are fully counted.
Granny's post was directed at her perception of media bias in reporting particularly at CNN. It has some powerful arguments if you take time to read them instead of reacting viscerally.
In addition, the caucus is the ONLY state-wide vote in Texas. Finally, the argument that popular vote in an indirect, representative system is somehow superior to delegate totals doesn't hold water in the context of the national convention nomination process.
I do agree that the validity of the nomination process would be enhanced by the nominee getting a plurality of the delegates and the popular vote. So far, that would be.... OBAMA.
Posted by tfitznc at March 9, 2008 07:21 AMTurkana,
You're just wrong headed on this one. Yes, there are two votes in the bizarre Taxas two-step. Yes, according to reported totals, Hillary won in the easy vote by the population at large who cast a ballot in the popular election. It's certainly true that not every voter who has time to vote in a general election has the opportunity to return in the evening and vote again in a caucus.
That privelege belongs to those interested enough to go the extra step. The same ones who will AGAIN go through the extra effort to support their candidate, with money and time and energy to work for and support their chosen candidate. To assign greater value to casual voters, rather than ENERGIZED voters who go the extra mile is VERY short sighted and mistaken. Obama won the Texas, two-step election by the excitement of his supporters. They are the very ones who will make a difference in the general election. Please don't join Mark Penn in denigrating grass roots enthusiasm for votes that really count. I want to win this election!
Posted by DeminNewJ at March 9, 2008 07:48 AMpeople shouldn't have to take an extra step to participate in democracy. in fact, it should be as easy as is possible, which is why i like vote-by-mail. if everyone who caucused already voted, then yes, the texas caucuses are not a measure of the popular vote. they're a measure of the people who voted twice. in most states, caucuses are indeed relevant. in texas, they're just part of a bizarre system that does not reflect the popular vote. one person, one vote- get it?
as for granny doc's diary, no- i won't waste my time. but big tent was referring to a much earlier rec list diary that also celebrated obama's "victory" in texas.
but back to my original point- if double-voting, and the absurd texas system, in general, is irrelevant, and all that matters is who gets the most delegates, than all that matters in denver is who gets over the top- no matter what part of the absurd system they use to get there. and i expect no whining, from whichever side comes in second.
Posted by Turkana at March 9, 2008 08:18 AMI certainly won't defend the Texas system, but there's nothing undemocratic about having two votes per person since everyone has the same votes.
Turkana, don't you think it's a little duplicitous to crow about Clinton's popular vote in the Texas primary and then say it's fine for Clinton to go against the overall popular vote to get the nomination? Don't you think we should follow the will of the voters by your own measure?
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at March 9, 2008 08:41 AMTurkana: "in many states, according to exit polls, clinton has actually beaten obama among democrats. i would love if they were all closed, but they aren't. again- the rules are what they are, until the dnc decides to do something about them."
Don't confuse the argument. I would like closed primaries, too. First, if exit polls are the basis for the argument here, then I think Obama gets another couple of delegates from New Hampshire. And delegate polls, which showed Obama getting an edge over Clinton in Republican crossovers last Tuesday, can't be taken at face value when the numbers are swelled by Rushies voting to bloody Obama.
That is, there is a substantive difference between a Republican or independent crossing to the Democratic primary as an individual because he likes the candidate Obama, and a groups of Republicans called to vote for Clinton to bloody Obama.
Having said that, I am not arguing the totals. I haven't seen any evidence of election fraud. Clinton won those two primaries under rules where Republicans can vote for her. Congratulations. Add the delegates she won to her totals.
But Texas has the peculiar dual system, and they've had it that way for twenty years. Before H. Clinton or Obama were a twinkle in the eye of the Texas voters. Texans did not create this system so that they would produce identical results. To argue that the primary part is the will of the "people" (meaning the votes Democrats and all those Rushies) and that the caucuses aren't is absurd. If you want to argue that somehoe someone twenty years ago devised this system to help Obama scam the system, I'm willing to be entertained, but I don't think you can.
And to say that somehow the Obama supporters are crass to celebrate when he gets delegates is, well, an unequal application of umbrage. You can go to TalkLeft every day and read Clinton supporters try to justify Clinton getting delegates from primaries that Clinton agreed wouldn't count prior to the primary season.
Meanwhile, since Bill Foster is now an elected member of Congress, I guess you can count him as another superdelegate for Obama.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at March 9, 2008 08:54 AMIt would appear that the Clintons think they are going to get the party out of the impossible bind it's now in by having a Hillary/Obama ticket. She (and Bill, I think) are mentioning this way too much for it to be meaningless banter. This makes it seem like everything will be "OK" in the end, and gives them a happy ending to the (currently) bad story.
This is not going to happen. Indeed, it's hard to imagine who would agree to be the "VP" in Clinton II (the "Hillary" Years).
Delegate numbers-crunching seems meaningless now, because the l'affaire Tuesday entrenched Hillary into staying in the race until the convention, no matter how many Super-Ds come out against her before Denver. She's defended her ramparts; she'll never drop out now, nor will Obama, the leader in delegates from Day One.
So there's no way out of a huge split descending on Denver--we're already split. People have to start understanding that, it's the legacy of last Tuesday. The question is what will the candidates do during these next five months of this "dual candidacy"---destroy each other or double team on McOld?
And what will the GOoP media's "orders" be during the five month Dem battle? Hopeless Ineffective Dysfunctional Dems v. Strong Victorious Maverick McOldians? Most likely. The Dem brand needs to be tarnished and smeared with as much shit as the stinking Repub model---that's the job of the corporate press, and they love it.
Posted by euzoius at March 9, 2008 09:17 AMcapj,
i've said many times that i would love for the superdelegates to support whoever wins the overall popular vote. the measure of that is imperfect, but it's as close as we'll get to the popular will. but yes- as i've said over and over and over, that's what i'd like to see.
Posted by Turkana at March 9, 2008 09:21 AMbob,
whatever some commenters might say, i think most fair-minded people would like to see re-votes. a case can be made for seating florida, although i thin that would be problematic, but michigan, in particular, needs a re-vote. but i've also been clear and consistent in calling for re-votes in both states.
Posted by Turkana at March 9, 2008 09:25 AMTurkana, which total of popular votes are you using?
A strict vote for vote in caucus states undervalues those states' populations. A nice way to create another advantage to Clinton. Unfortunately, it's a rule that doesn't exist.
Do you count the popular vote in Michigan and Florida? The folks at TalkLeft do. So even going with the popular vote, you won't satisfy Clinton supporters without breaking party rules. Going to trot out another "will of the people" argument? Because from here you only seem to be hearing the will of the people supporting one candidate.
To presume to impose another "moral" political stricture, that superdelegates must vote with a jerryrigged "popular vote" that undervalues caucus states and may or may not count primaries that do or don't count seems like another attempt to juggle the rules in order to create another advantage for Clinton.
The rules say that the candidate with the most delegates gets the nomination. Obama will have the most pledged delegates coming out of the primaries. Each superdelegate is given his vote to vote for the best interests of the party. I would bet that Bill Foster thinks that Barack Obama looks pretty good for the party right about now. So do a lot of elected officials around the country. Projected now, Obama would win or keep the race close in a lot of red and maroon states. Clinton would lose those miserably. If you are a Democrat running in a red state, do you want someone at the top of your ticket that will lose by thirty percent?
No, the superdelegates will vote for whoever is the best for the party and for their own self-interests. A goodly portion of Clinton's superdelegates are in her camp because they thought she was going to win this race in a walk, and others are beholden to her in one way or another. Same goes for Obama's supporters. A lot will follow the will of the voters in their districts or states.
Clinton cannot win the nomination without a convention fight (no, all superdelegates will not heed your version of the moral position and fall in line). The DNC and all its spokespeople are telling the world they don't want a floor fight. The Math People and the people who listen to party officials understand what the message means: Clinton will not win and that she should concede soon for the good of the Party.
There is a hidden battle now going on between the old pro-Clinton DLC and the DNC, although it's not so simple to allot all DLC or DNC people on one side or another. Terry McAuliffe's lack of leadership pretty much sabotaged the DNC during the Clinton years and many within the DNC now fear a Clinton purge will return the Party to those days. I don't think that Dean necessarily favors Obama over Clinton for that reason, or that he favored anyone at the start of the primary season. I think he takes the very moral position that what's best for the party is what's best for its members, and what's best for the country.
Having Clinton desperately attack her opponent for all the months between now and the convention only to lose the nomination isn't for the best of the party.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at March 9, 2008 09:27 AMTurkana, the obvious solution for Michigan and Florida would be revotes. That won't happen. There will be some kind of either caucus, firehouse caucus or mail-in vote.
The ultimate rule for the nomination is getting the most delegates.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at March 9, 2008 09:31 AMTurkana, I'm glad you think Hillary Clinton ought to bow out gracefully and not "whine" if Barack Obama wins the popular vote. Since she has no intention of doing that, however, there's really no basis to attack Obama supporters for fighting back.
I think the popular vote is a horrible measure of support. For one thing, several caucus states don't even report popular vote so are excluded from the calculation. Even without that glaring problem, using the popular vote would be monumental hypocrisy for the Party. Democrats rightfully argue about inefficient voting machines being used in Democratic strongholds skewing the results, but the caucus vs primary situation is an order of magnitude worse. That's why we have delegates which proportionately represent Democrats based on how many people vote Democratic for president.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at March 9, 2008 09:39 AMcapj,
you're absurdly wrong. delegates are in no way proportional to the number of votes. let's talk after obama wins big in the mississippi popular vote, yet comes out only even or behind in delegates. can't wait to watch the reaction to that one...
Posted by Turkana at March 9, 2008 09:58 AMbob,
you're right that the only measure is who gets the most delegates- pledged and super, total. should clinton win big in pa, and in re-votes in fl and mi, we will see what happens. whatever happens, i won't be whining. my top three choices are long gone, anyway.
Posted by Turkana at March 9, 2008 10:00 AMTurkana, delegates are assigned to states and districts in proportion to how they voted Democratic for president in previous general elections.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at March 9, 2008 10:02 AMThe popular vote includes a large number of Republicans that voted for Hillary just to mess things up. The delegate count is the only true representation of "the will of the (Democratic) public."
Posted by Chango at March 9, 2008 10:04 AMchango,
indies and repugs, overall, are favoring obama. and no, it is not clear they will remain democratic, in november.
capj,
even the thresholds for allocation of delegates is absurd. in california, for example, a candidate can win 59% in a district and only split the district's delegates. the allocation system is wholly arbitrary, and in no way reflective of the popular will.
Posted by Turkana at March 9, 2008 10:11 AMeven the thresholds for allocation of delegates is absurd. in california, for example, a candidate can win 59% in a district and only split the district's delegates. the allocation system is wholly arbitrary, and in no way reflective of the popular will.
"Arbitrary" is not at all a good word to describe the process and it is the same process in California as everywhere else. The number of delegates assigned to each candidate from a district are rounded, sometimes up and sometimes down. If there are four delegates in a district, you need to get to 62.5% to round up to 3-1 instead of down to 2-2. If you have a district with an odd number of delegates, 51% is enough to get one more delegate than the other candidate. Districts get between 3 and 8 delegates depending on how strongly they vote Democratic for president.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at March 9, 2008 11:19 AM