Did You Really Think A Populist Wouldn't Endorse the Popular Vote Winner?

by: grannyhelen

Wed May 14, 2008 at 22:56


"The reason I am here tonight," Edwards declared, "is the voters have made their choice and so have I."

snip

"When this nomination battle is over, and it will be over soon, brothers and sisters," Edwards said, "we must come together as Democrats and in the fall stand up for what matters in America and make America what it needs to be."

link: http://blog.washingtonpost.com...

John Edwards, throughout this primary season, has first and foremost been a populist. Sometimes that means standing in front of folks, meeting their gaze with a clear-eyed vision of what needs to be done to help people in this country and abroad. Sometimes it means talking and leading.

And sometimes it means listening.

John Edwards has done a lot of listening these past few months, and that led him to where he was tonight, under the glare of white lights in front of news cameras, the subject of countless pundits making countless predictions and counter-predictions.

grannyhelen :: Did You Really Think A Populist Wouldn't Endorse the Popular Vote Winner?
Sometimes you have to talk, and sometimes you have to listen.

Edwards had always insisted that he wasn't endorsing so that the process could play out, so that voters could make up their own minds. That process is nearing an end. The people have spoken. And the only way that Hillary Clinton could pull out the nomination right now is to take it to the convention, attempt to sway the super delegates and try to seat folks in Michigan and Florida based on a flawed primary process in both of those states. Arguing coulda, shoulda, woulda's on the convention floor wouldn't aid the cause of electing a Democratic President in November.

Edwards had a choice to make: allow things to go all the way to the convention, where Very Important People could talk, and argue, and talk some more.

Or listen to the millions and millions of people who stood in line on election day, waiting for the few minutes they had in the privacy of a small voting booth to make their voices heard.

What would a populist do? The choice is obvious: listen to the people.

I love Hillary Clinton. I've defended her many times from attacks that I felt were unfair and unwarranted. I love the fact that she fought, and fought, and continues to fight until the very last primary.

But this isn't about Hillary. It isn't about John. And it isn't about Barack.

It's about all of us, collectively, trying to build a better country. That can't be done without the will of the majority of the people. And at this point they have spoken.

John heard them, weighed their voices against his own private thoughts and made his decision accordingly.

It's what a populist does.

Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Did You Really Think A Populist Wouldn't Endorse the Popular Vote Winner? | 14 comments
Agree GH (0.00 / 0)
It's always been about the issues, not the candidates.  As the primary season winds down, I hope the DNC will put together a great platform, with Edwards' ideas (and ours) all over it.  
I like Edwards, but (0.00 / 0)
if he were concerned about the popular vote count, he would wait for the remaining contests to be over.  A populist just stands by and lets people vote.  If Obama had popular legitimacy, he wouldn't need Edwards.  If he were truly concerned about the popular vote and listening to the people, he would have thrown his considerable influence into the mix much earlier - not to endorse, but to fix the Florida and Michigan mess.  

Edwards sees, like most people, that the WV defeat and the remaining contests are unlikely to change the superdelegate momentum for Obama, but only undermine his credibility among Clinton supporters.  Because superdelegate momentum is against Clinton, the remaining contests can only split the party.  This may have been true for some time, but it was undeniable after NC and ID.

Edwards conducted himself with integrity.  He didn't try to throw the contest early.  When he did weigh in, he didn't savage Clinton.  He is concerned about the party, though, not the voter.

Obama isn't a man of the people, and a pretty speech from Edwards can't make him one.  The superdelegates chose him in an unfortunately undemocratic process, and we all will have to live with that, one way or another.

Huh? (0.00 / 0)
The superdelegates chose him in an unfortunately undemocratic process, and we all will have to live with that

Last I looked, Obama is winning by pledged delegates, which is the metric according to the Democratic Party for choosing a nominee.  What is happening so far with superdelegates is that they are not overturning that outcome.  I think that is quite different from saying the superdelegates chose him in an undemocratic process.

There is no candidate in my lifetime (I am 62) who got a nomination by going out to more states and working harder for it.  (I also think there is no nomination runner up who worked harder than Hillary Clinton, at least not in my lifetime.  She was very ill-advised in her campaign, I agree with whoever called it campaign management malpractice).

[ Parent ]
Undemocratic process/superdelegates (4.00 / 1)
Caucuses are undemocratic.  Conducting a general election without a secret ballot and by requiring people to attend a meeting with limited space for several hours would be unconstitutional, because it is a mockery of popular democracy.

Excluding two states, no matter what the circumstances and who is to blame, is undemocratic.  (It would also be undemocratic to include their flawed totals).

The pledged delegate system, whether they are the metric or not, does not reflect the popular vote totals, and are not democratic.  

The superdelegates are determining the race. You can argue that if they go with the popular vote count, they aren't adding an additional undemocratic layer to the system.  But the system is undemocratic enough before they weigh in that they can't correct it.

It is an undemocratic system, and moreso this year than others.  I don't even see an argument on that point.

[ Parent ]
Stealing bases in baseball.. (0.00 / 0)
...is unsportsmanlike... I mean, not having to earn those bases with a hit it very rude and unfair.

Yet, that's how the game has been played since Alexander Cartwright wrote out his Knickerbocker rules in 1845...

Back then, the batter could call his own pitch...  Pitchers threw underhand, and the curveball was illegal 'cos it was considered "deceptive"...

But, they still could steal bases...  And, while I'm sure a lot of people complained about it, that's how the game was played back then and today.

Caucuses have been around since before we were born.  They are cheap and effective party building apparatuses.  They give lesser known candidates a real chance, where primaries are the domain of the celebrity.  I can make lots of positive cases for caucuses, but it doesn't matter.

Whether you like or hate them, caucuses are part of the game.  Hillary certainly knew how to play them.  Her husband ROCKED in caucus states!  So, ignorance is no excuse.

They count... just like stolen bases... and if you don't like it, then you really should find a political form of softball instead.  The nominee has been chosen the same way forever.  Complaining about it in the middle of a game you are losing is ridiculous and unsportsmanlike.

Take the loss with dignity and pride.  Better luck next time!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
I appreciate your lession in baseball history (0.00 / 0)
but you're not following.  A couple points:

1.  The entry talks about the "popular vote" and Edwards "populism."

I consider that the point is invalid, because the system does not reflect the popular vote.  It is anti-democratic.

It may have other benefits and values.  For example, the superdelegate system may be designed to favor stability over populism.  The caucus system may save money and perform a party building function.  But it isn't democratic.

Hence, trying to figure the popular vote metric out of the system is useless.  Edwards shouldn't get "populist" points if he's not reacting to a definable popular majority.  This argument goes for Hillary and her supporters, who are making the same argument elsewhere.

2.  This this isn't baseball.  If I play baseball, I consent to the rules.  After all, it's my choice to play.  If I'm playing with some close friends, we can make up our own rules if we don't like them.  However, in this case we have a system in which we are as voters obligated to play, and in which our lives and future are at stake.  Arbitrary results are an injustice, and have consequences.  Sports analogies are not appropriate, for Hillary, me, you, or the rest of the party.

3.  Doesn't it bother you, just a bit, that the entire system is an arbitrary media dog and pony show that doesn't even reflect a clear or consistent set of values?  If you're not going to complain about that now, how will it change?

[ Parent ]
I have no issue with caucuses... (0.00 / 0)
...none at all. In fact, I wish we had more of them.  There are a great many benefits to caucuses in regards to party building and government.  I didn't know too much about caucuses until this year, and the more I learned about them, the more I liked them!  The popular vote argument can be dismissed by allowing absentee balloting.  MI used to let people caucus over the Internet before they switched to a primary this year.  So, you aren't going to find a sympathetic ear here.  

Personally, if you care enough about democracy, you'll make the effort to caucus.  If not, then you're really not committed to the process, and those that are should have a greater share of the process!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
Caucuses (0.00 / 0)
may have benefits, but they aren't democratic.

I would expect someone who had an interest in politics to understand what is generally meant by democracy - things like the secret ballot, minimal barriers to participation, etc.

You don't value democracy, particularly.  The future of the country is a game to you, and any arbitrary rules set by the leadership are fine.  I'm glad we're clear on that.

Take care.

[ Parent ]
If you mean democratic by... (0.00 / 0)
...rule of the mob, then, yes, I don't agree with you... This country is a republic, not a true democracy, and it's probably good that way.  After all a 50% + 1 majority disenfranchises the 49% out there, as we've seen over the last eight years.

Caucuses are hardly undemocratic.  Any member can participate and vote in them.  More importantly, it gives voice to the average voter, who can state his or her case to the rest of the attendees.  Where else do you have such direct democracy, where each individual voter gets their say in an open forum to  convince others of their beliefs?  THAT is the kind of people-powered democracy that makes caucuses MORE democratic.  It empowers the individual much more so than a check box on a ballot.

And if you don't want to participate, you are free to vote and leave.  As I said earlier, as long as caucuses allow you to drop off or mail in your vote at a convenient time and place, there really are no greater barriers to voting than in a primary.  Many caucuses DO allow this activity.  I think all caucuses should.  Then, you get the best of both worlds.

But, I still think that Hillary supporters would complain, because people passionate about politics would still have a voice in the process.  They never complained when Bill won all those caucus states in 1992 against the party's wishes... But, now... politically empowering citizens is a bad thing.  

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
Briefly (0.00 / 0)
You should really hang out on freerepublic.  There, you can talk all day long about the fictional "rule of the mob" how we're a "Republic, not a democracy" and how only the people who really really care should have a stake in the system.  All this is Republican code for: some people count more than others.  Someone who would actually argue that the most corporate and special interest capitve administration history is somehow "rule of the mob" is seriously off in his perspective.

Either you believe in lowering barriers to participation, or you're against the fundamental principle of inclusion. Period.  It has nothing to do with Hillary/Obama.  Your view of the political process is directly antithetical to Democratic party values.  

[ Parent ]
Oh, bull! (0.00 / 0)
Superdelegates are antithetical to Democratic party values.  Caucuses are not.  That's the way things have been done for generations.  It is cheap and, in some states, the ONLY way to get things done.  If you are in a state like Wyoming, and the legislature says, toughski, the taxpayers aren't paying for it, what are you going to do?

No one is excluded in a caucus.  If you want to go, they'll let you in!  I have already offered ways of making it more democratic.  MI had firehouse caucuses for years.  They were open all day, and you came in and dropped in your secret ballot and left.  You could even vote on the Internet!  Talk about reducing barriers!  A lot of other caucus states have similar programs.  I'm not arguing that current caucuses are perfect, but I do think they have their merits.

Primaries have their own problems, too, BTW...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
Caucus systems (0.00 / 0)
If you're talking about a polling place where you can drop off a ballot all day, or mail it in, you're talking about a virtual primary system.

In my state, we were required to stay at least a half hour.  Filing in and signing in was a slow process in itself.  There was probably an hour of reading rules and making announcements that had nothing to do with the business at hand.  I was elected a delegate, and I had to select an alternate delegate.

There is no rule stating that I, as a delegate, had to remain faithful to the choice of those who elected me.

Then, at the next level, the delegates were herded into a room and the alternates into another.  If a delegate and her designated alternate both failed to show, that delegate seat was lost, and couldn't be replaced by another Obama or Clinton alternate.  In this particular case, this resulted in Obama losing a net of about five delegates, so the delegate mix changed on level two.  This was literally an all day process, with the preliminaries taking about three hours.

Perhaps other states do a better job - but a better job by any democratic definition means "more like a primary."  There is no guarantee that the delegates will respect the choice of the individuals who showed up at the caucus.  For that reason alone, it is an undemocratic, elitist, corrupt system.

As to whether my observations are "bullshit" - you have expressed an anti-democratic philosophy in your posts.  

[ Parent ]
Oh, yeah, the delegate thing is crap... (0.00 / 0)
...where you have different levels of conventions and the number of delegates appointed to whomever can switch all the way up to the state conventions... That's just crazy!

We used to have a rule that bound pledged delegates, but then they changed that at the same time they put in superdelegates.  Both were horrid moves, and it prevented Gary Hart from winning the nomination in 1984.  He probably wouldn't have won in the general, but he sure would have done better than Mondale.

See, we don't totally disagree on everything! :-)  

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
More people have voted for Obama than Hillary (0.00 / 0)
and she's not likely to catch up.  

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!
[ Parent ]
Did You Really Think A Populist Wouldn't Endorse the Popular Vote Winner? | 14 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox