The Popular Vote Is Meaningless (4.00 / 2)

If the candidates were going to be judged on popular vote, they both would have focused more on big urban areas instead of on winning delegates.  It is ridiculous to try to change the rules at this stage of the game.

---

by: Whoppo @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:43:05 PM CDT

Not to mention (4.00 / 1)

the fact that if it was agreed upon by all relevant parties that popular vote should determine the nominee, that would have been the case.  But they didn't - they agreed, as has traditionally been the case, that whoever has 50%+1 of overall delegates is the nominee.  Simply because the outcome of the initial agreement was not favorable to the Clinton campaign does not render that agreement void, as they voiced no concern as they acceded to it at the beginning of the primary season.

---

by: expatriatedjerseyan @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:47:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If the metric is delegates (0.00 / 0)

and the popular vote is used as an argument to sway the undecided supers, then what's the problem?  That's an approach that decides the nomination based on who has the most delegates.

That being said, I really hope that Obama finishes this stupid election in IN and NC.

---

by: Valatan @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 13:11:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't see the problem either way (0.00 / 0)

He's going to have the most delegates, and (almost) undeniably the most votes.  I say almost because you never know, and there will probably be some doubters from the Clinton camp.  So really, I don't think the distinction will matter that much, in terms of deciding the nominee/persuading the supers.

That said, I'm right with you.  It would be a perfect moment for her concession, since she won't want to go out on a victory, as she'll probably get in Kentucky, West Virginia and Puerto Rico.  If she's not out on May 13, we'll have to wait until June 3, which I think is the final date, with South Dakota and Montana?  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

---

by: expatriatedjerseyan @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 13:40:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not so sure (0.00 / 0)

Clinton has some big states (theoretically) coming still, including Guam, Puerto Rico, West Virginia, and Kentucky. If (and this is a big if) she can hold down losses to insignificant levels in her two remaining bad states, NC and OR, she may just be able to get that 160k back. In that case, she would pretty fairly be able to claim more people have voted for her than Obama. Obviously, he would have a strong claim to that title too, but it not be an ironclad claim. And she would undeniably be able to say that, as voters have learned more about the candidates, she has done better: If all goes perfectly for her from here on out, he won't have won a big victory since, what, Vermont?

Now this scenario requires an almost miraculous comeback in NC and OR. If she loses either by 10 points or more I think she's sunk. But stranger things have already happened in this race and she's now got the bucks to do it: There are no major media markets left in this race, other than the part of Indiana that is covered by Chicago.

---

by: ColoDem @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:38:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

If not meaningless, at least not what everyone agreed to... (4.00 / 2)

A commenter on MyDD responded to Jerome's popular vote post by pointing out that Obama would obviously have spent more that 2 days in California if the popular vote count would play a role in determining the nomination.

Bower's used to argue, as seen in the post he linked to about his early PA prediction, that the Super Delegates should ideally follow the popular vote count winner.  So, I wouldn't argue that the popular vote is meaningless.

But if the popular vote ends up being a tie, while the Pledged Delegate count winner is clear, I guess I have no problem agreeing with Bowers.  It is now all about the delegates.  That was the unambiguous rule at the start of the nomination fight.

John McCain says overturn the law that legalized abortion

---

by: alcatholic @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:58:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Your last sentence is critical (0.00 / 0)

Not to get too far detached from the matter at hand, but I think a futures contract is a terrific analogy.

For example, today is April 24th - if I sign a contract with you agreeing to buy a bushel of wheat for $100, to be delivered one month from today, on May 24th, I have to pay $100 for that bushel no matter what, even if a contract for one month further in the future - a bushel of wheat delivered on June 24th - would be priced at $90 at the time of the physical transaction.

The essence of the matter is this - in both the rules of the nomination and the rules of the wheat contract, the terms have been agreed to in advance, and are applicable regardless of future circumstances.  To break them on accord of unforeseen (and unfavorable) changes to those circumstances is highly questionable.

---

by: expatriatedjerseyan @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 13:09:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But the original deal is that the supers do whatever they want (0.00 / 0)

so it's time for the two campaigns to make the most compelling arguments possible, and aim them at the supers.  Clearly,  popular vote/delegate count split (if clearly demonstrable) could be a big part of such an argument.

Clinton's strategy all along as been to smother the other campaigns by using early victories and super endorsements.  She didn't win decisively enough early, nor gain enough super endorsements to get the knockout, and now she's behind.

---

by: Valatan @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 13:14:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think we're trying to argue over what principal we believe in... (0.00 / 0)

In terms of democratic values and principals, putting aside rules for a minute, Bowers has always argued that the national popular vote count would be the ideal metric for Super Delegates to follow.

It now looks like the popular vote count will be inconclusive, so we are revisiting the metrics that super delegates should use to best keep our democratic values in tact.

I think Bower's is now arguing that in terms of democratic values, even though he uses the language of the rules of a convention fight, we want Super Delegates to follow the pledged count leader.  Also, given an inconclusive, but perhaps slightly Clinton favoring national popular vote count, it is still in keeping with our democratic values for Democrats to end the nomination based solely on the CF line, however technical that may sound at first hearing.

John McCain says overturn the law that legalized abortion

---

by: alcatholic @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 13:25:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

fair enough (0.00 / 0)

I think it all comes down to which popular vote metrics are split and how they are split.  I hope that Obama can make this an academic point, but if not, and Clinton only needs only the Florida results to claim a reasonable popular vote win, then I can't really be all that pissed about the supers swinging the election to her.  

I just don't like this talk of 'both campaigns agreed to X beforehand,' leading to a natural conclusion regarding how the supers should decide.  Because no one argued against the notion that the supers should do whatever the hell they want (thinking that their actions would essentially be irrelevant anyway).  

---

by: Valatan @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 14:01:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bowers did argue that supers should follow national popular vote count... (0.00 / 0)

At least at Open Left from what I recall there has always been a clear argument that while the rules allow X, democratic values call for Y.  Wouldn't you agree?

I agree with you in that I don't agree with anyone who is arguing that "the rules/both campaigns agreed that X must happen" with regards to Supers.  I think we've been nuanced, and still are, in understanding what the rules allow and what we/democratic values call for with regards to the supers.

I think the talk about "rules agreed to beforehand" is referring not to how supers should vote, but how we should weigh the "popular vote" in a democratic sense.  And I think a compelling case is being made that the popular vote, being this close, is inconclusive.  And it is inconclusive because the difference between the two candidates is within a margin where the net results is determined by the rules and campaign strategies responding to those rules, i.e. more states would have chosen to host primaries, Obama would have spent more than 2 days in California, etc.

John McCain says overturn the law that legalized abortion

---

by: alcatholic @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 14:20:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Regarding your last sentence (0.00 / 0)

The popular vote is meaningless because it is impossible to determine what that is. The primary/caucus system was not designed to measure that to any great degree. So there cannot be a tie. Clinton will have her tally, and Obama will have his.

It is not only now all about the delegates... it always has been about the delegates.

This is just a goal post moving distraction created by the Clintons, that we and the media are all forced to deal with.

Slacking toward the apocalypse

---

by: roberto @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 14:38:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're right based upon the rules... (0.00 / 0)

Based upon the rules, you are absolutely right.  And I like your logic, because my favorite blogger right now, The Field's Al Giordano, would totally make that argument.  So I have no quibbles with you, man!

The only thing I would say is that, while I wasn't explicit in that comment, I tried to spell out in others that I am referring to Bowers original arguments about democratic values not the rules of the nomination.  So, I would rephrase it as, "when it comes to what best reflects our democratic values, it is now all about the delegates.  And there is the added, non-values based benefit that that was also the unambiguous rule at the start of the nomination fight."

But you do make the good point that it was always going to be tricky to figure out the popular vote count.  I think Bowers saw that from the beginning and always accepted that the Pledged Delegate count was the only reasonable, if also imperfect, proxy for the popular will.

In this case, it is clear that the popular vote count will be not only in dispute, but inconclusive no matter which camp you believe.  The margin will be too small too separate the popular vote count from the effect the rules had on that count, e.g. more states likely switching to primaries, Obama spending only 2 days in CA, etc.

John McCain says overturn the law that legalized abortion

---

by: alcatholic @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 15:00:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not to mention (4.00 / 2)

...that, if the popular vote were the ultimate standard, no state would've held a caucus, since a caucus tends to have lower turnout and would thereby diminish the state's influence in the nomination process.  This is another way in which it is unfair to change the rules in the middle of the stream.

In fact, in all these discussions of what principles we should be advancing in our arguments about the nomination fight, "it is unfair to change the rules in the middle of the game" should be numero uno, if you ask me.  I understand that, according to the rules, the superdelegates can vote for whomever they want, so arguing that they should vote for the popular vote winner doesn't violate the rules.  But it does violate a fundamental fairness principle.  

---

by: ankylosaurus @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 13:53:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fine (0.00 / 0)

then the argument is that the campaigns should make the best arguments they can toward the superdelegates, and the supers' decisions shoudl have nothing to do with the primary and caucus results.  

Because that's how the system was set up in December 2007.  And arguing about what principles they should use to vote would be fundamentally unfair and changing dynamics midstream.

---

by: Valatan @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 14:04:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The margin of error (0.00 / 0)

Is the determining factor, I believe.

It is doubtful that either candidate will be far ahead, and again, I think that Obama will be ahead in most counts.

It is very possible, that North Carolina alone MIGHT give back to Obama the 200,000 that Clinton picked up last night.

Then it's a matter if Indiana is a Missouri or Ohio type state.

As you say however, given the fact that you can't even really estimate popular votes for a lot of the caucus states - and thus those states are under-represented - if there isn't a clear leader, outside the margin of error of various counts - how in any way could this be determinative for an electability argument?

A much better electability argument, sad to say, is to claim that Obama can't - is unable - to win Clinton's base. But that Clinton is able to win Obama's base.

Demographically, Clinton's base can - somewhat better - identify with McCain.  And thus you will get more of a peel off of Clinton voters to Obama.

While Obama's base, has very little identification with McCain.  They are much more likely to identify with Clinton, over McCain.

To be cynical about it - where else are Obama's base going to go?  To MCCAIN???

Not going to happen.

There is some validity to this argument.  It is overridden, in my view, that any democrat can win, in this year where Republicans are completely invalidated.  And there are other arguments that a lot of white men WILL prefer to vote for Obama, rather than Hillary Clinton.  Not to mention Clinton's high negatives.

But a lot of these arguments are shooting in the dark, right?  How does anyone even pretend to know those type of arguments, when no one has consistently predicted contests, and who would win what, through this entire process?

But total vote count?  In the end, it looks like it will either favor Obama, or be a wash.

---

by: JC @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:47:21 PM CDT

The thing is (4.00 / 1)

if either candidate was so bad ass that only they could beat John McCain, primaries and caucuses probably would have long since been decided.  It is impossible at this juncture to categorically say that one candidate is more able to beat John McCain (though I myself would lean slightly to Obama in this matter).  It appears Obama will win the popular vote (not that I think this metric matters hugely - see above), but it will be close.  

The bottom line is that all things being as equal as they are, shouldn't we defer to the most popular Democrat, even if they are more popular only by a small margin? Isn't that we tried to fight for in 2000 - the rightful place of the victor, even if victorious by a small margin, against an externally imposed will?

Unless you truly believe that Clinton is so incredibly better than Obama, and so much better equipped to beat McCain, you couldn't really argue against Obama as the nominee based on the existing status of the metrics, and I'd be hard pressed to agree that she should be the nominee if she doesn't have the most delegates (even if those claims were true, because they simply cannot be proven to be so).

---

by: expatriatedjerseyan @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:55:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The electability argument is demographics equals destiny (0.00 / 0)

Not about how great one candidate or the other is.

 

John Judis makes a clear statement of the case here. 

 

Ironically, Obama may now simply be seen as "too liberal" - which of course, isn't what we progressives think, but nevertheless, he is being pigeonholed as such, by the MSM and their character assassinations, based on the guilt by associations. 

---

by: JC @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 13:03:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't buy the argument (0.00 / 0)

I understand the idea that demographics equals destiny, but there is no conclusive proof as of yet that Clinton votes would actually desert Obama in the general for McCain.  

He also rails on the "McGovern coalition," which, as far as I can tell, is the fairly to very liberal, African Americans, young people, the educated, and upper income voters.  No Democrat is going to win without those groups, and indeed every Democrat who has won has won with them, and every Democrat who has lost has lost with them.  I'm not sure I'm convinced.

---

by: expatriatedjerseyan @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 13:46:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm not necessarily convince either (0.00 / 0)

After all, I can't see "Feminists for Hillary!" going for McCain.

I suppose the point is - as you say, the McGovern coalition is necessary for a democrat to win.

But it is not sufficient to win.

Hence, the electability argument - can Obama expand beyond that base, and convince them to vote for him?

I still think yes.  But clearly, the answer is "not a majority" in the Rust Belt states.  But again, you can't say that they will vote for McCain instead.  The best determinative I suppose are straight up polls between Clinton/McCain, Obama/McCain.

And even polls, this far out, are pretty meaningless.

---

by: JC @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 14:04:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

the real question: who doesn't show up in November (0.00 / 0)

The greater danger for each candidate is who doesn't show up in November.

Hillary Clinton has brought large numbers of women, esp. single women, into this process who historically have had a very, very low turnout in other elelctions.  I think the vast maojrity of those women won't for McCain....but the vast majority of them will not bother to vote if she is not the nominee.  

Some Reagan style Democrats....the ones Chirs so disdains may indeed vote for McCain....but I think the women who won't be there are more important.

In the case of who will vote for McCain over Obama, in that case the independents and the liberal Republicans that Barack Obama was appealling to are not going to be there for him in Nov. because the Republicans have gotten the very best nominee in that case as possible.  McCain appeals to the very demographic Obama thought he needed to expand and change the map...His map espanding and changing possibilites have been severely curtailed because of McCain, Rev Wright and his small town comments.

He has benefitted not only from 85+ plus support  in the African American community(this percentage is the one Democrats get from that communinty in a general election), but a significantly increased turnout amongst those voters.  I think the percentage of the vote Hillary Clinton would get from that communiity would stay the same. They are a very devoted Demcoratic party constituency.  However the increased turnout numbers for one of their own will not materialize.  It will probably return to the fair to okay turnout that has been traditional in the African American community. Usually this has been enough to win in all the non Southern States.

Therefore I think she is in stronger position post nomination than he is.  Large bases of needed support will not vote for McCain they will stay home.

He loses Florida and Ohio, she wins Flroida and Ohio....He doesn't have enough other states to make up their loss.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 14:25:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There's no way (0.00 / 0)

you can state that categorically she will win Florida and Ohio and he will lose them.

I think you also vastly underestimate the importance of African Americans to the Democratic Party.  African American Democrats are about 12% of the U.S. population, and assuming a roughly 50-50 split of Democrats and Republicans (for the sake of simple math), that means that 24% of Democratic votes in a general election come from African American Democrats.  Even if a quarter, much less half of those votes don't show up for a general election in which Hillary is the nominee, she can get all the Reagan Democrats she wants (and I don't think she will, that's another argument), but she will not win.  If she contentiously defeats Obama for the nomination, she is going to have serious problems with large and loyal segments of the Democratic base.  Arguments of desertion cut both ways.

---

by: expatriatedjerseyan @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 14:44:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I have never seen this 24% figure before (0.00 / 0)

I am sure there is historical data...post it or you're just talking.  

You are wrongly assuming that they all only vote Democratic and that 100% if them vote which is of course nonsense.  The traditonal numbers are that they are somewhere around 10-14% of the Democratic vote.

But secondly the African American vote is still predominatly in states Democrats don't win in November....the South, texas, etc.  They do not have the electoral impact needed for a presidential election.

If they maintain their historical, not increased voting patterns she is okay because of her increased support in other groups.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 15:27:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So here are some figures (0.00 / 0)

A study done by the U.S. Census Bureau of the 2004 election found that approximately 14,016,000 African Americans voted in the 2004 presidential election.  Assuming that approximately 90% of them voted Democratic, and divided into John Kerry's overall vote total of 59,028,111, African Americans constituted 21.37% of the Democratic electorate in 2004.  So I was pretty damn close, much more so than 10-14%.

http://www.census.gov/prod/200...

Here's a list of potentially important states with significant African American populations, from the 2000 census:

Ohio, 12.16%
Michigan, 14.92%
Pennsylvania, 10.71%
Maryland, 29.02%
Louisiana, 32.94%
North Carolina, 22.02%
Florida, 15.66%
Missouri, 11.76%

That's a lot of electoral impact right there.  Don't be so sure that Clinton is just doing to do awesome no matter what.  Voter desertion is a double edged sword, and if it is perceived that Clinton stole the nomination, she is going to be in serious trouble in the above mentioned states.  Her problem is not African Americans voting for McCain, her problem is that they simply don't show up, and I think there's much more a chance of that than you grant them credit.

---

by: expatriatedjerseyan @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 16:02:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

2004 exit polls (0.00 / 0)

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/20...

The total vote was 127 million.  African Americans despit being 12-13% of the populace, traditionally vote below that percentage.  They were 11% of the total, and voted for Kerry at 88%...or 20% of the vote.

However White Women were 41% of the vote......and those women are supporting her big  and they vote equal to or more than percentage in the population.  I think there are lots more white women than African Americans....Also I think from my experience yesterday that Black women would be easily reconciled to having the first women run and win the presidency.  So returning to historical patterns I think she will be fine.  

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 16:34:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Clinton and Obama need close to a majority of Independents (0.00 / 0)

Obama has lost some of his Independent appeal as the campaign has gotten uglier, but Clinton never had that appeal and McCain will have an easier time against her than Obama when it comes to Independent credentials.

The Independents will decide the election. Even if every last Democrat voted for Hillary she would still need some sizable percentage of Independents to win.  The problem is that she is the most likely candidate to draw out disaffected wingnuts who hate McCain and that coupled with fact that she will not carry all of Obama's supporters puts her in a more distinct disadvantage since Obama still likely has some appeal to disaffected GOP'ers.  I think African-Americans will take a Clinton superdelegate coup as a major slap in the face.  African American turnout could end up at is lowest point in a generation.

I think once she lost her inevitability, she lost any chance at winning the general.  She has seriously damaged Obama, but he still holds the better set of cards to win in November.

---

by: Ricky @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 15:19:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Must win Ohio and Florida (0.00 / 0)

That's part of the old politics. Obama is building a new coalition. His path to victory in the general includes bringing new sates into play including western/south western states, mountain states, Virginia, N. Carolina, etc.

Here is a list:

Washington, Oregon,, California, Nevada, Colorado, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Virgina, Maryland, Delaware, Washington DC, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Maine.  

Slacking toward the apocalypse

---

by: roberto @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 16:14:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

They would be making those associations and assasinations (0.00 / 0)

if Lieberman was the nominee.  HOw about we just effing fight back or try to defend our principles, rather than worrying about what the MSM would do.

---

by: Valatan @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 14:05:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Actually a lot of Obama's support is from Independents (0.00 / 0)

The way it looks to me is that Clinton supporters who refuse to vote for Obama are either spoilsports or racists.  She has way underperformed amongst independents and is strongest with Democrats, so the only reason for her base voters, ie Democrats, to vote for McCain is out of spite or racial motivation.  Obama actually has the pulse of the group most likely to move to McCain, the anti-partisan independents.  Clinton is anathama to this group who view her, rightly or wrongly, as partisan politics personified.

In the early nationwide polling when Obama had big leads on McCain and Hillary was no better than neck-and-neck, he pulled in not only most Democrats but a sizable majority of Independents, while Hillary got most Democrats and didn't ever poll a majority of Independents. His advantages as a GE candidate at that stage were more than evident. I am not sure what the breakdowns in national polling look like now, but Hillary still seems to do no better than break even, while Obama now has dropped down to the same level. Did the partisan nature of the campaign kill off the Obama-leaning Independent or did it just polarize some Democrats into saying they will vote for McCain rather than Obama?

---

by: Ricky @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 13:58:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Great couple of points (0.00 / 0)

a. Good electability argument for Obama - would be interesting to see polls on independents, and McCain/Obama matchups, versus Clinton/McCain matchups..

b. I also am concerned about, what the campaign has done to the Obama-leaning Independent.

---

by: JC @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 14:07:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

November (0.00 / 0)

Pardon me from mentioning it, but isn't the race about who voters think is the best next President, and who, you know, just might be able to win in November?

---

by: S1 @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:50:18 PM CDT

Crazy Idea (4.00 / 1)

To end this sooner and with less backlash, couldn't Obama agree to a new primary in both states?

What I mean is, if he ran a normal primary, the results would end up about the same as they were in OH and PA and probably better for Obama at least in MI.  Certainly the numbers would be better than the ones Hillary currently counts.  By doing this and cementing the final numbers, couldn't he kill off Hillary's final arguments for being in the race?  Or am I missing something in terms of the poll numbers....

---

by: quixote27 @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:53:57 PM CDT

Voting in Florida and Michigan (0.00 / 0)

Both parties rejected plans for revotes or new votes in Florida and Michigan. Senator Clinton rejected plans that would involve a caucus while Senator Obama rejected the mail in (Florida) and primary  (Michigan) because both plans would have negatively impacted who could vote.

Since some areas in Florida no longer have voting machines (those areas are getting new machines for the fall), you could not have a re-vote. Main-in elections tend to hurt those who are less affluent and live in urban areas.

In Michigan, the proposed "revote" would have excluded those who did not vote or who voted Republican because the Democratic ballot was not honest (not all candidates were on the ballot; the voters were told that the vote would not count, etc.)

Finally, some areas in Florida and Michigan would have needed preclearance from the Justice Department Department because the new voted would have constituted changes in voting practices and procedures under the Voting Rights Act.  

---

by: solon @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 14:03:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

dead horse (0.00 / 0)

The state legislatures of Michigan and Florida already failed to enact laws to have do over primaries. It's not up to Obama.

---

by: redwards95 @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 14:04:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I get the problems involved (0.00 / 0)

but wouldn't he gain the upper hand if he explicitly called for primary style re-votes?  I say this as trying to think of ways to eliminate Clinton's ability to play the shell game with the numbers.

---

by: quixote27 @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 14:47:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

As long as both parties.... (0.00 / 0)

have the ability to choose the terms of the election, which is their right, they will most likely never agree to terms.

Yes, It would be best if the held revotes under the same conditions in which they voted the first time and, yes, it would be best if the Obama camp attempted, for once, to gain the upper hand on this issue. However, this issue will just linger for the next few weeks. In Florida, they cannot revote. In Michigan, they will never agree on who can vote. Senator Clinton will want to reduce the number of voters to help her campaign while Senator Obama will desire to make sure everyone possible can vote to increase his totals.

Unfortunately, the Obama campaign seems to be on the losing side of the debate. His position is that we must follow the "agreements of the contract," "the rule of law," "rules agreed upon," etc. His position is the correct and legitimate position, but it is difficult to gain acceptance for voting technicalities as it lacks an emotional content. And if the Clinton camp or her state legislators do not favor allowing everyone in the state to revote, it may be best to wait for the DNC to act. If you cannot win the terms of the debate, it may not be best to engage in the debate.

Senator Clinton has the easier task, especially with the ghosts of 2000. She can cry out "Democracy," "Disenfranchisement" or "Count Every Vote," (as if they have not been counted or the delegates will not be seated) and not have to argue the technical aspects of voting rights and voting procedures that most people don't care about. What bothers me about this mess is that she would rather take the results as is as if they were fair and legitimate elections.

It certainly would be a good idea for the parties to agree to revotes but Obama will never gain the upper hand in this debate as the arguments, superficially, favor Senator Clinton. It would be best if the DNC announced its decision on what they will do around the same time that the Super Delegates make their preferences known. Take the 50% penalty, with no additions to the popular vote total, and call it a draw to end this mess.  

---

by: solon @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 15:18:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

delegates determine choice of candidate (0.00 / 0)

The only rule that matters is that 50% plus one, or more, of the delegates will select the nominee.  It is not possible for Clinton to overtake Obama's delegate count, and I believe Super Delegates will not overturn Obama's lead.  They will give him the votes he needs for a majority.  The only question is when?

---

by: hawkseye @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:55:36 PM CDT

just out of curiosity... (0.00 / 0)

If the primaries to this point were winner take all for delegates instead of this the byzantine proportional system, who would be in the lead right now? I just haven't seen that math done but it seems like it would be pretty enlightening.

---

by: spot @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 13:17:33 PM CDT

If our football game, started using basketball rules... (4.00 / 1)

If the primaries were winner take all, Obama would not have spent two days in California. The point being that Obama and his campaign created a great strategy to win the nomination under the proportional delegate system.  Clinton created a poor, almost awful strategy, to win under the proportional delegate system.

If the nomination rules had been winner take all from the beginning, Obama and Clinton would both have adjusted their strategies.  Would Obama's pattern of good decisions and Clinton's bad decisions have continued under the winner take all rules?

John McCain says overturn the law that legalized abortion

---

by: alcatholic @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 13:34:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I guess that answers it (0.00 / 0)

Judging by the answer I am guessing that means that Hillary would currently be winning.

---

by: spot @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 13:38:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There was thread on this earlier... (0.00 / 0)

And I think Obama would still be winning or Hillary would have just overtaken slightly with the PA win.

---

by: Ricky @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 14:01:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Maybe, but I don't know... (0.00 / 0)

I haven't read any posts that have made the winner take all analysis.  So I wouldn't judge by my answer.   Blind leading the blind, and all that. :)


John McCain says overturn the law that legalized abortion

---

by: alcatholic @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 14:02:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

well (0.00 / 0)

The reason I am asking is that the ability to manipulate crazy election rules sure does seem like a lousy criteria for selecting a nominee. There is no question Obama has been masterful at it, but it just doesn't fill me with confidence about his ability in a more straight forward election. Its not at all his fault that such godawful rules were put in place, but I am certainly curious to see what the results would have been in an election that resembles the general more.

---

by: spot @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 14:09:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

re: straight forward election (0.00 / 0)

the ability to manipulate crazy election rules sure does seem like a lousy criteria for selecting a nominee. There is no question Obama has been masterful at it, but it just doesn't fill me with confidence about his ability in a more straight forward election.

Under what definition of "straight forward" is the electoral college?

Though I agree, it's not a criteria to base selecting a candidate on.

---

by: themann1086 @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 14:42:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If you change manipulate to "navigate" I can understand (0.00 / 0)

I can agree that being able to "navigate" crazy election rules doesn't prove whether a candidate will win the general.  That is what polls are for!!

But I can share my personal feeling that Obama's campaign, whether it proves his bonafides in a general or not, is the kind of campaign that I am proud a Democrat is running.  And I don't mean proud in a messaging/values sense, but pride in how technologically savvy it is.  How aware it is of what I believe is the future of campaigns increasingly funded and manned via the internet.

Obama success with primary rules may not prove much in terms of general election rules, but Obama's success with people power, internet power, small donor fundraising, massive Internet volunteer corralling, etc. is exactly what I think many of us have been hoping for.  Not to mention Obama's seeming creation of the Bowers' Coalition of African-American's and the Creative Class.  I just have faith that those two Obama campaign accomplishments are winners, regardless of whether the primary proves they are or not, given the crazy primary rules.

John McCain says overturn the law that legalized abortion

---

by: alcatholic @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 14:44:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

back of the envelope (0.00 / 0)

gives me Clinton by 333 pledged in winner-take-all.  That gives her all of TX on the assumption that winner-take-all would be popular vote.  It does not include FL and MI.  As several have pointed out, Obama's strategy would have been different in a winner-take-all race.

---

by: jbj @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 14:45:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

superdelegates (0.00 / 0)

And anyway- it seems like the superdelegates are going to end up deciding this one way or the other. If Obama needs the support of superdelegates to win the nomination it sure seems hollow for him to complain if they choose to support Hillary. I still can't believe this is the system that the party came up with.

"Superdelegates. Every vote should count, just some count more than yours"

---

by: spot @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 13:19:27 PM CDT

facts vs fiction (0.00 / 0)

It's not hollow at all. Her arguments to the superdelegates are all based on her speculation about who would do better in the general election. His argument is that he has proven to be the choice of more Democratic voters than her by winning more pledged delegates, more states, and more popular votes. That's a much stronger claim.  

---

by: redwards95 @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 14:07:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Huh? (0.00 / 0)

So he wins more pledged delegates and does no worse than split the popular vote, but it would seem hollow to complain that the superdelegates went against the winner of the sum total of the actual contests?  The system is indeed stupid and corrupt but it would be much less hollow to complain about that than to complain that caucuses and states that were red in the last cycle should somehow count less in sum than the few big blue states.

The problem with a win by superdelegate coup has nothing to do with Obama's reaction should it occur, but the perception amongst voters and the spin of media.  Neither will be pretty.  Clinton will lose the Independent vote by an even greater margin than if she had squeaked out a pledged delegate victory and African Americans will likely stay home. Either one would cost her the GE, but both together would give McCain better election results than Bush II had in either of his elections.

Hillary would have beat McCain in a cakewalk had she won the nomination according to her original strategy.  Obama would have won in a cakewalk had Hillary conceded back in March when the math was looking all but impossible.  Now I am not so sure what will happen, but Obama is clearly the only choice that will have even a shot of beating McCain now.  Clinton is damaged goods anything that can be spun as a stolen victory just makes it all the more impossible.

---

by: Ricky @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 14:13:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Keep It Simple and Straight foward (0.00 / 0)

There is no legitimate method to derive actual caucus participation from exit polling. What you're describing is voodoo math.

The primary votes cast for Clinton and Obama in Florida are actual votes that do not need to be derived. No magic here; just apply the totals.

The primary votes cast for Clinton in Michigan are, again, actual. For Obama, since he voluntarily removed his name from the ballot, any primary votes he may receive from the Michigan contest can be derived from the number of "uncommitted votes" as a percentage of the number of "uncommitted delegates" who choose to commit to him. Allocating uncommited votes based on exit polling is nothing more than vote stealing.

There is no need to craft erroneous and illegitmate methods to complicate the solution to a simple problem.

---

by: fafnir @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 13:36:26 PM CDT

So basically (0.00 / 0)

your solution is just not to count the caucus states?

---

by: expatriatedjerseyan @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 13:47:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Of course, that is a very simple way to show Hillary is winning!! n/t (0.00 / 0)

John McCain says overturn the law that legalized abortion

---

by: alcatholic @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 14:04:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't care who wins the Democratic Primary (0.00 / 0)

This is about fairness and counting the votes -- something "Democrats" claim to care about. My candidate is Ralph Nader, not Hillary.

---

by: fafnir @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 14:11:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The caucus states (0.00 / 0)

are not in dispute. The primary votes cast in Florida and Michigan haven't been counted, yet

---

by: fafnir @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 14:09:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Did you read the post? (0.00 / 0)

The caucus states would very much be in dispute, since there is no hard record of the number of participants within each caucus.  Besides the fact that you're apparently a Nader supporter and don't really have a stake in the outcome, how would you propose that caucus participants be counted within a popular vote tabulation, since that seems to be the metric of discussion du jour?

---

by: expatriatedjerseyan @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 14:18:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The proposition of the post (0.00 / 0)

is invalid, because caucuses are not intended to count participation. In other words, participation in caucuses counts towards selecting delegates, not  enumeration of votes -- apples and oranges. Therefore, any attempt to derive turnout will result in vote stealing or vote manufacturing. What is valid are the uncounted votes in the disputed contests in Florida and Michigan.

---

by: fafnir @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 14:40:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'll try to reason this simply for you (0.00 / 0)

Based on your logic:

"enumerated votes" from primary contests, including Florida and Michigan, should be the sole determining metric of the Democratic nomination - anything other "derivations" of turnout would results in "vote stealing" or "vote manufacturing."

The results of caucus states do not count "enumerated votes"

Thus, the results of caucus states do not factor in to the determining metric of the Democratic nomination.

Can you explain to me at all how that makes any sense, or is at all democratic? It seems neither to me.  But good luck with Nader.

---

by: expatriatedjerseyan @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 14:50:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No need to be condescending. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: fafnir @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 14:58:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If the elections in Michigan and Florida were illegitimate (0.00 / 0)

then the voting results would be illegitimate.

At the very least, fair elections require honest ballots, time for the candidates and the parties to campaign, and there must be a level playing field. The Michigan and Florida votes do not meet these minimal requirements.

If possible, both candidates would need to agree to revotes under conditions as close as possible to the original votes and still meet these basic requirements. I doubt that both candidates would agree to terms that attempted to establish this.  

---

by: solon @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 15:26:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think they do (0.00 / 0)

1) Ballots were established by state governments who administered the elections.  I see nothing dishonest about the ballots.
2) The candidates chose not to campaign, but they could have, and did in indirect ways.  The reason they chose not to campaign was in order to pander to IA and NH voters (and to a lesser extent NV and SC voters) for whom their right to vote first is more important than any other consideration (note that the "pledge" was not made to the national party but the the state party chairpersons).  I apply the word "pander" here to every candidate in the field at the time.
3a)  Clearly there was a level playing field in in the case of Florida.
3b)  In Michigan, Obama chose to withdraw for tactical reasons (again, the need to pander to NH and IA).  In my opinion he got an excellent payback for this tactical maneuver; generally has run by far the better tactical race. His absence from the ballot, however, is purely a tactical decision on his part.

---

by: jbj @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 17:26:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Meaning of Campaigning and Honesty (0.00 / 0)

First, I think as to whether or not the ballots were honest hinges on the fact that the Democratic Party declared that the delegates and the votes would not count, altering the voting situation.

Second, as for the nature of campaigning, there is a lot involved. If they were not able to develop a ground game, stump, and run the basic level of advertising, etc., this diminishes the quality of the vote, providing Senator Clinton with an enormous advantage on party history and name recognition.  

Third, whether or not Senator Obama's was not on the ballot does not make a difference because of the first two reasons. It certainly diminishes the meaning, and honesty, of the ballot.  

---

by: solon @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 19:15:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The popular vote is inherently flawed (0.00 / 0)

I'd love to use it as the deciding metric but doing so is intellectually bankrupt because of the Democratic Party's inequitable primary system. PocketNines of DailyKos outlined the reasons for this well, so well that he got front-paged: http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

It has been hilarious to see the pro-Clinton faction argue that Obama should have won Pennsylvania because he had six weeks to campaign and flooded the state with ads. All this time we've been told that Obama being barred from campaigning in Florida made no difference and thus Florida should be counted as is. Now evidently being allowed to campaign in a state does actually make a difference. Of course, the reality-based community knew that all along. All one had to do is acknowledge the fact that he's improved dramatically in any state where he's campaigned. So I'm glad to see the Clinton people finally admit that.

Of course, they still insist Florida should be counted as is, but at least we've gotten an admission that the ban on campaigning hurt Obama. Same goes for Michigan.

It's absurd to include states in the popular vote based on elections which the voters were told would not count and in which the candidates were not allowed to campaign. These conditions violate the fundamental principles of a free and fair election.

---

by: vosh @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 14:38:00 PM CDT

The PocketNines post bears excerpting (0.00 / 0)

Here is the meat of the post, but go read the whole thing:

Point Number 1:  If the popular vote determined the nominee, no candidate would ever go to Iowa or New Hampshire.  They'd spend all their time in big urban areas all over the country from the outset of the campaign, racking up raw numbers.  What would be the point of even visiting New Hampshire if you could camp out in Brooklyn?  Concrete Example:  Barack Obama would not have spent only a day and a half in California before the Feb 5 primary.  He would have never gone to Idaho.  Duh.

Point Number 2:  If the popular vote determined the nominee, no state in its right mind would ever hold a caucus, instantly disenfranchising itself.  Concrete example: Minnesota-Missouri.  Minnesota gets credit for 214K votes, and Missouri gets 822K votes, but they each get 72 delegates.  Is Missouri's voice 4 times more important than Minnesota's?

Point Number 3:  The arbitrary distinction between who gets to vote in these primaries is nothing like the general election, where everyone registered gets to vote.  In the primaries, sometimes it's just Dems, sometimes Dems and Indies, sometimes anyone.  Concrete example:  Texas gets a million more votes than similar overall population New York (2.8M to 1.8M), even though New York is far more Democratic, simply due to this arbitrary restriction on who can vote (NY = closed, Texas = open).

Slacking toward the apocalypse

---

by: roberto @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 15:07:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Odd logic (0.00 / 0)

"In keeping with the principle of one person, one vote, the only good metrics to use are the ones with the broadest popular participation. As such, when measuring the popular vote, it is best to throw the widest possible net. This means to include Florida."

Does that mean I can run an unsanctioned election in 2012, it will count towards the nomination?

---

by: shaej @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 16:11:13 PM CDT

depends (0.00 / 0)

are you a state?  If so, you can run an election.  If not, not.

---

by: jbj @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 17:27:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]