« First Look: McCainRevealed.Com | Main | On Tanker Deal, McCain Campaign Jabs At The Media »
The Obama Campaign's Delegate Count Chart
12 Mar 2008 10:10 am
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/21692
Comments (76)
Obama is so far behind there is no way he can win.
Doing a bit of Hillary Rodham / Bill Clinton math here, Hillary is way ahead.
The black votes and black delegates are only worth, at most, one half of the white votes and white delegates. That puts Hillary ahead in the popular vote, delegates, states and just about everything else.
Obama is so far behind that he would be lucky if he got a VP slot because of an affirmative action quota.
Actually, the HRC campaign has one. It just stops at Feb. 5.
At this point, it's all on the superdelegates. They have to recognize that Obama is not going to carry Pennsylvania in a closed primary and he's not going to come close as Al Giordano laid out today (http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=888) although they'll work to keep the margins close. So they have to decide if they are going to overturn what will be a clear superdelegate lead. No matter what happens, if the party DOES decide to do that, it'll be signing a death warrant in November.
This process needs to end in my opinion before Pennsylvania and a campaign that works to poision the well for a candidate in this swing state takes place. I think the Obama campaign should offer the VP slot to Hillary informally and superdelegates should lean on her to give up since the math is against her. Conversely, the superdelegates need to decide what they're going to do if they wait, HRC trashes Obama for the fall, and still doesn't have a popular vote total, a delegate lead, or anything? Hmm? They're screwed.
The Clinton campaign has been allowed to set the table for this primary and flount the rules and set the stage for deciding when to exit. It's perplexing and a failure of leadership on Dean's part in my opinion. That being said, the party high command has to come together and finish this now.
There is no way for Clinton to win. It's not going to be possible for Florida to revote and Michigan can hold a primary again but time is also running out. The Clinton's are running out the clock and setting up the party for failure unless someone steps in and tells them enough.
They've been fighting for this too long to see the writing on the wall.
I like that chart. Look at NV. Hillary won the popular vote. NV voted for Hillary. obama ended up with more delegats. The will of the people of each state is certainly something the supers should look at when deciding.
What's interesting is comparing this chart to the one that Obama's camp "accidentally" sent to the media some weeks ago. Their projections are pretty close to the actual results -- and where they've been off, it's generally because they underestimated Obama's performance.
The bottom line is that regardless of what the pundits are chattering about, this campaign is unfolding exactly the way Obama thought it would. I doubt you could say the same for Clinton's side.
It's clear the Obama campagin has worked hard and played by the rules. It's clear more voters voted for him over all, consistently.
Imagine Clinton giving at the podium giving the nomination acceptance speech. How did she get there? By changing the rules? Beating us over the head with Obama's Blackness? Promising ambassadorships to superdelegates? None of that sound good for the Democratic party or the nation.
Obama and his surrogates need to hammer the media over their "deadlocked" narrative. Almost all the chatterers this past Sunday used some variation -- "tied", "neck and neck", etc. -- to describe the state of the race. It's all nonsense.
Obama is ahead in states won, delegates and popular vote and the chances of Clinton catching him in any of those is slim to none. That's not a tie or a deadlock by anyone reasonable standard.
Remember, the popular vote totals don't include the caucus states. If you include the caucus states that have released turnout numbers, Obama's popular vote lead is almost 300,000. That may seem small, but there aren't enough votes left for her to catch (unless she starts winning by 20 pt margins). He will go into the spring ahead in states, delegates, and popular vote.
So will the supers hang themselves?
Lance, Obama already has a 700,000 vote lead if you exclude Florida and Michigan.. And you can't include Michigan cause he wasn't even on the ballot!! So if you include Florida he still has a 400,000 vote lead. Add in Washington and Iowa caucus results and it's around 500,000 - 600,000.
Two observations:
1. Hillary should be overjoyed that she held Obama to a net five delegate advantage last night.
2. The fact that Hillary is in a position where "only" losing by five is a good outcome shows just how dire her position truly is.
Meanwhile, another few dozen fewer delegates to contest, while Hillary's surrogates play the race baiting game. We'll see how this plays out over the next several weeks, but if Hillary is the nominee, I expect to see the Democratic/African American alliance damaged, if not fractured. If I were a Republican, I'd be overjoyed to be watching this.
This is for "D":
Do you speak English? Do you read English? Did you graduate from a school? Are you just stupid?
How do you see Hillary as being ahead?
You are nuts.....and, there is no way she can win!
This is for "D":
Do you speak English? Do you read English? Did you graduate from a school? Are you just stupid?
How do you see Hillary as being ahead?
You are nuts.....and, there is no way she can win!
This is for "D":
Do you speak English? Do you read English? Did you graduate from a school? Are you just stupid?
How do you see Hillary as being ahead?
You are nuts.....and, there is no way she can win!
This is for "D":
Do you speak English? Do you read English? Did you graduate from a school? Are you just stupid?
How do you see Hillary as being ahead?
You are nuts.....and, there is no way she can win!
This is for "D":
Do you speak English? Do you read English? Did you graduate from a school? Are you just stupid?
How do you see Hillary as being ahead?
You are nuts.....and, there is no way she can win!
Thanks John. I hit the wrong button. It was supposed to be 800,000, though (I just looked it up again) it is actually between 850,000 and 900,000 when adding caucus states.
Sry about that.
Me, can't you see that I am trouncing Obama by all measures. Once I win the nomination I will consume Obama's brain, stealing his life force and becoming the all powerful Goddess that I have been chosen to become.
Sinator Clinton
Hmmm, irony REALLY is lost on some people.
Me no speak engrish. Me read engrish with pictures. Me graduate from school in bush (not GW) with fundamentalist Christian Baptist teachers who made me go to school in exchange for free meal. Yes, me stupid, very very stupid. Me vote Obama for color. Rather support Hillbilly for play by play. Hillary way ahead because she make me Ambassador to Nigeria for bundle of checks for Hill raising. Hillbilly must win or I want money back.
Actually I think the states in which African-Americans make up a significant portion of the vote are only worth three-fifths of the regular states, so i think the Obama camp's math might be a little off.
Come on, everyone knows Obama's delegates are only worth three fifths.
Hopefully, they're sending this chart to the supers. They're the only ones who can end this thing. Time to grow a pair, folks.
Of course, Hillary ignores inconvenient facts and spins on behalf of a pre-conceived political narrative. I'm sure that if and when someone comes to her to tell her she's losing, she'll refuse to accept it, and suggest that it would take a "willing suspension of disbelief" to do so.
However, IT isn't over, as much as the Obama-ites who dominate the Ambinder threads might wish it to be so. There are many different ways to view the numbers of pledged delegates and popular votes, and late momentum combined with opinion poll standing may count for a lot as the real decision approaches.
In the meantime, thinking that the process can be closed down prior to Pennsylvania, that excluding Michigan and/or Florida can possibly be good for the eventual winner, or that some SuperDelegate force majeure can or will rescue the party from fratricide and a more dramatic than desirable Summer suggests a different kind of refusal to accept reality. Neither the Democratic Party nor Obama can afford to become identified with aborting democratic processes and denying voters their voice because doing so might be inconvenient.
The time has come to start the call to URGE THE CLINTONS TO STEP DOWN.
its time.
Hillary Clinton simply underestimated Obama because she did indeed lead by over 20points in the polls at the beginning of this campaign. Obama played it smarter in the sense that he looked at his prospects: he was unknown then, he is African-American, he did not have the Democratic establishment with him (Hillary Clinton had all of them) and the press was anointing Hillary as inevitable. Obama obviously made a conscious decision to tackle the "smaller" states first where his chances were better and then build from that. That turned out to be a winning strategy. Hillary has been outplanned, outmaneuvered and outsmarted. That's what a campaign is supposed to be: show one's mettle and Hillary is found short.
thanks for the morning chuckles (D, racist, sinator clinton and even me--who could use a laugh or two him/herself). i needed that!
Deep breath everyone....
Sen. Obama will likely win this thing and I don't begrudge Sen. Clinton her continued campaign. I would really prefer to see them spending their time talking about how each will reverse any one of a number of disastrous Bush initiatives rather than the ongoing trivia of the horse race or who is going to be whose VP.
CK MacLeod, you say that the time for the "real decision" is still approaching as if the vast majority of states haven't already voted or that barring an epic collapse by Obama, Hillary cannot catch up. Yes, this is extremely close, but the only way she can win is to destroy him, which would leave her badly wounded and a party in disarray. I was fine with this thing continuing when the debate was actually about issues. But the nasty turn of the last few weeks is very dangerous for the party. It's not enough to derail Obama, but could guarantee a fractured party unable to come together to defeat McCain. Even if we add Mi and Fla as is, which will never happen, Obama still comes out on top. Since Feb. 5 he's dominated the super delegates. The REALITY is that this thing is effectively over and the longer it goes on the more McCain is a happy man.
CK MacLeod:
"There are many different ways to view the numbers of pledged delegates and popular votes, and late momentum combined with opinion poll standing may count for a lot as the real decision approaches."
So the people who have already voted weren't making a real decision? When I cast my vote on Super Tuesday, it was just pretend or practice?
Seriously, the will of the people is clear.
Obama is ahead in pledged delegates
Obama is ahead in states won
Obama is ahead in the popular vote
I'm not sure what other magical criteria people are supposed to take into account for the "real" decision. But if they ignore the three above, they can go fark themselves.
"magical criteria people are supposed "
And by people I was referring to Supers.
"D," you're a card. I love you for brightening my day. (And I believe all of us Barack supporters are cleverer, by far, than the supporters of "Hillbilly.")
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
I have lost a lot of respect for both CLinton's--they really have turned out to be the same oled-0same old in politics: it's all about "the people" unless the candidate might lose, then any and all integrity is out the window and your own selfish career interests trump all.
Anyway, I wonder how "bad" this extended campaign is for BO. I don't think HRC has raised anything or tried any tactics the Repubs won't use. Maybe it is good for BO to figure out the best way to deal with it now so he is rock solid for the general election. Few surprises left.
Plus, I have been reading concerns that McCain will use HRC's sound bites against BO but I don't really see it. I think HRC's credibility will be wayyyy down after this and she didn't raise anything McCain didn't know already.
Could Edwards settle the matter for the good of the party and throw his delegates to Obama (in exchange for the VP slot)?
NHCt, even if I fully accepted your underlying analysis and assumptions - which I don't - epic collapses do occur, and in any event voters, activists, and donors on both sides have been promised a campaign at least through Pennsylvania, with many on Hillary's side convinced that a fight all the way to the convention floor is their duty. Hillary could at any point overrule them, but she's given every sign that she intends to stay in the fight until, as her husband used to say, the last dog dies.
As for anyone else intervening to slap down the uppity woman, that's the very last thing you should even be whispering about. Obama-supporters seem to think sometimes that African Americans are the only liberal constituency that's been waiting its turn and that is capable of anger. There are already many Hillary-supporters - feminists in particular - who find themselves in the unpleasantly familiar position of being unheard and belittled. They don't agree with the Obama-ites that the raw pledged delegate or popular vote totals as tallied to this point, or as projected, represent a true and fair democratic choice, and believe further that it's the SuperDelegates' true responsibility to correct the flaws in a deeply flawed primary process whose inequities have been exacerbated by the DNC's poor leadership. You can visit a site like TalkLeft to get a flavor of their arguments.
Hillary may at some point close down the show, but it's not going to be because Obama or his supporters make some intellectually persuasive argument about pledged delegate or popular vote counts. It'll probably be around the time some critical mass of her donors tell her they've had it, and not a moment earlier. In the meantime if things start getting really dicey, she might even welcome heavy-handed and arrogant calls for her to quite - both for short-term organizing and sympathy-vote purposes, and for the long-term purpose of setting up a "Hillary was robbed" narrative.
Ahhhh...CK... god (or gods) have a way of manipulating primaries and elections.
Hillbilly have to quit pretty soon to get ready to run for Governor and rid NY State of someone who is inexperienced, unqualified, unelected, and certainly not ready for the difficult tasks of being Governor from day 1.
That fella is very impressive, and it is certainly a great honor to share a state with him, but he is not material for Governor. Why, he can't even read the writing on the wall that he is there just because of.... NY State don't want him answering the phone at 3am when the next bombing happens.
Besides, Hillbilly have to make room for Chelsea to take over her Senate seat and keep it warm until her term(s) as governor runs out.
Thinking forward to November, remember that Bush and Rove are pushing Romney as the VP for McCain. This will mean that, to continue to bring the country together to solve accelerating problems than any of us can count, Obama must keep in alignment with Bloomberg, stay on the White Horse to ride to the White House, and consider, at the right time the secret Election 2008 BOMB: Barack Obama/Michael Bloomberg
Gherald, what do you mean? The DNC will only count Obama's delegates as fractional? Somebody needs to organize a mass emailing to Dean and the DNC to stop this horrible double standard immediately! And where did they come up with the 3/5 number anyway!
Signed, Me (who doesn't know the basic facts of American history and can't recognize satire, irony or dry wit if it bit me in the ***)
However, IT isn't over, as much as the Obama-ites who dominate the Ambinder threads might wish it to be so.
Can you provide a way that Clinton can end up at the convention with more delegated, pledged or otherwise, than Obama?
The Obama campaign got to fire back against the 3/5ths or 1/2 rule right away.
They got to get the credentials committee to require every delegate be DNA tested by an impartial, neutral testing agency and then scrupulously apply the "one drop rule" first before applying the 3/5ths rule.
Hillbilly could come out ahead easily on this basis.
Thumbs up to D.
Obama has to downplay PA expectations heavily. Say he closes it by 10 points from where it is today at +19 - will the media yet again say it's major Clinton momentum? Yes, wins are wins, but Obama has a lot more of them and has already won more than half the states.
Looking at the post-Ohio results (both Obama and Clinton win by 10 in the general), maybe a longer race is actually beneficial and all that's being polarized are the hardcore online supporters. Obama's rebound in national polling will make it that much harder to knock him down with the "experience" argument next time.
Finally, what is Clinton's path to win the general election? She will have to overturn a sizable pledged delegate lead with superdelegates, and her campaign is race baiting like there's no tomorrow. Black and young voters are disgusted with her and will stay home in droves. The Democratic nominee MUST have strong black turnout or they will lose - every single time.
John M....
Hillbilly has solved the strong black turnout problem.
She intend to cross dress white female voters as black faces to make it look good.
Can you provide a way that Clinton can end up at the convention with more delegated, pledged or otherwise, than Obama?Any moderately well-informed observer knows that neither candidate is remotely likely to gain a majority without the Super-Ds, and that Super-D commitments aren't final until their votes are actually cast. Hillary could announce tomorrow that she was quitting politics and joining a convent, hoping to re-create Sally Field's aeronautical exploits or many years ago, and the Super-Ds could still in their wisdom choose to nominate her over the unelectable upstart from Illinois.
(unless of course the pledged delegates un-pledged themselves - but we're not even supposed to think about that possibility, right?)
Any moderately well-informed observer knows that neither candidate is remotely likely to gain a majority without the Super-Ds, and that Super-D commitments aren't final until their votes are actually cast
I didn't ask about a majority, I asked you to show me a way that's even remotely reasonable that Clinton gets to the convention with more delegates than Obama.
Something within the realm of possibility, showing me that Clinton has even an outside chance at the nomination. Something that doesn't require her to get close to 70% of the remaining pledged delegates, and about the same percentage of PLEOs. Something, in other words, to justify her continued destruction of traditional Democratic coalitions.
Something within the realm of possibility, showing me that Clinton has even an outside chance at the nomination.
"But it's miiiiiine! MINE, I say! It's my preeeeeeeeecious!" --Hillum
Unfortunately for Hillbilly, the NY governor who just resigned was superdelegate supporting HRC .
The question is, will the credentials committee strip Eliot of super delegate status just because he resigned?
He will probably be cruising the convention floor looking for dates. He likes them around 20 years old or so, so that rules out Hillbilly or Geraldine.
Who knows, maybe he will hook up with Rachel Marsden. She is kind of needy right now. Second thought, she is too old.
Hillary could announce tomorrow that she was quitting politics and joining a convent, hoping to re-create Sally Field's aeronautical exploits or many years ago, and the Super-Ds could still in their wisdom choose to nominate her over the unelectable upstart from Illinois.
Sure, they could theoretically do that. The fact that this is the kind of scenario you're led to cite says something about how realistic the chances are at this point.
I asked you to show me a way that's even remotely reasonable that Clinton gets to the convention with more delegates than Obama.Actually, that's not what you originally asked. Maybe it's what you thought you asked. However, what's true about the first ballot is also true about pre-convention endorsements: The Super-Ds are free to change their minds at any point.
If the pledged delegates and popular votes are very close, perhaps after FL and MI re-votes, then the argument can be joined as to what those tallies actually mean. Clintonites and diverse objective observers have made strong arguments that Obama's tactic of running up the score in caucus, small, and one-sided states has exploited the unfair, undemocratic nature of the primary process. If FL and MI aren't re-voted or counted, or if some obviously Obama-favorable pseudo-solution is forced on them (like the 50-50 non-starter), that makes Clinton's fairness argument stronger, not weaker.
As for destroying the Democratic coalition, that was probably already in the cards when Democrats opted for ideological conformism, and were left with two candidates whose differences amount to competing "identity" claims and related symbolism rather than meaningful adverse issue stances and corresponding political records or qualifications. But that's an issue for historians, not something we'll sort out on a soon to be dead internet thread.
The fact that this is the kind of scenario you're led to cite says something about how realistic the chances are at this point.Posted by guyx | March 12, 2008 2:01 PM
You wish.
"The black votes and black delegates are only worth, at most, one half of the white votes and white delegates."
Let's compromise: how about three-fifths?
Actually, that's not what you originally asked. Maybe it's what you thought you asked
Here's what I originally asked (spelling error corrected):
Can you provide a way that Clinton can end up at the convention with more delegates, pledged or otherwise, than Obama?
How you turned that into a question about getting over the top, or even a majority, I'm not sure.
... Clintonites and diverse objective observers have made strong arguments that Obama's tactic of running up the score in caucus, small, and one-sided states has exploited the unfair, undemocratic nature of the primary process
I asked for something reasonable, not something that completely ignores the rules surrounding the process (which all campaigns agreed to), and ignoring the basic math of the situation. There is no way that Clinton can walk into the convention with more delegates (admittedly, on the first ballot) than Obama, unless she can take close to 70% of the remaining pledged delegates, and close to that of the PLEOs.
The current Obama lead in the popular vote is over 830,000, he's within double digits on the PLEO delegates, and she can't close the gap on pledged delegates either.
Basically, what you're saying is that after the first ballot, an asteroid might strike in Denver and take Obama off the ballot. That, or the supers can swing it to Hillary becase .... why? What would be the reason?
If it weren't for the fact that links tend to trap posts in an anti-spam decision queue, never to be seen again, I'd provide you with a link to tallies of so-called popular votes that put Obama's current lead at very close to 700,000. Counting FL: ca. 400,000. Counting MI & FL: ca. 80,000. I'm referring to the page you can find at Realclearpolitics. Don't know where you get the 830,000 figure.
The 700,000 deficit is not impossible to make up if FL and MI are re-voted. The 400,000 deficit would be doable. The 80,000 deficit appears rather likely to be made up once Pennsylvania is in. The small-state/caucus/one-sided state advantage has been analyzed elsewhere, and suggests that Obama's delegate strongly misrepresents his real support among, variously, citizens, registered voters, actual voters, and Democrats.
It is very possible that Clinton will have more actually tallied popular votes, or greater arguable popular vote strength, when the SuperDs have to make their final determination.
That, or the supers can swing it to Hillary becase .... why? What would be the reason?
Why? I'll tell you why. Because 4.5 million Florida and Michigan voters were disenfranchised, because Obama has no chance of winning Massachusetts or New Jersey, because Obama can't win big states, because 11.2 million voters in Florida and Michigan had their votes stolen, because Hillary Clinton has !!!35!!! years of experience, because Sinbad is biased, because 93 million voters have been personally disenfranchised by Barack Obama.
Or because Hillary is banking on that ~5% chance that she winds up with a higher "popular vote" total, and can use that to convince delegates that she should have the results of the primaries overturned on that basis.
Honestly, I'm not sure which is more pathetic.
The 80,000 deficit appears rather likely to be made up once Pennsylvania is in.
Wait, is that the same 80,000 vote margin you calculated including Michigan's "votes" for Hillary? That's perhaps the most ridiculous rationale for Hillary's continued candidacy I've read yet, and there have been some humdingers.
D: I thought black votes were worth three fifths of the white vote.
Do you think there is a solution for Hillbilly's Delegate Deficit Disorder (DDD)?
Is there a cure she can get like accusing OBambam of being Client 10 or something and have Bush administration officials (speaking off the record) confirm it?
Maybe Hillbilly can sue for protection under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) for 'reasonable accommodation' by the DNC, granting her more time to collect enough delegates ? At the very least, they ought to give her until November 2, 2008.
After all, she is a disabled person as defined by the act, right?
Three Fifths is an old compromise that was intended to be used only for the purposes of counting population for distribution of taxes and apportioning of House of Representatives members.
It was, however, never used to grant voting rights.
So anything above zero in terms of voting rights is a gift from god, right?
However, in the interest of pleasing everyone, I will go along with three fifths!
Now I got to go back to work collection donations with my Nigeria based phone bank / direct mail / email operation for the Hillbillies.
Yes, it includes Michigan as voted, as should seem rather clear from my post.
It's the only number you'll have to refer to until and unless Michigan is re-voted. If Clinton wins a high turnout late re-vote, it would still cut into The Change You Believe In's remnant advantage if any.
CK Mac, just checking, because the number is so utterly ridiculous that I wasn't sure why you would have used it in apparently serious fashion.
If Clinton wins a high turnout late re-vote, it would still cut into The Change You Believe In's remnant advantage if any.
It seems quite clear that she would have to win by +329,000 in a "high turnout late re-vote" for it to be a net advantage. And given that the last poll I saw had them at 41-41, that does not seem clear to me at all.
Obama would be foolish if he put Hillbilly in the VP slot. He'd just get what JFK got from LBJ conspirators who helped LBJ get the presidency he strongly coveted. He had better watch his back and constantly!
RCP doesn't include any numbers for caucus states, so it's a bogus number. To approximate that, divide the state delegate percentages by the total turnout. It's definitely not exact, but it'll be pretty close.
So, for all the races on RCP, we have Obama up by 702,162.
Now, use the following for caucus attendees:
Turnout BHO% HRC% Advantage
IA: 220,588 38 30 Obama +17,646
NV: 117,599 45 51 Clinton +7,055
WA: 250,000 68 32 Obama +90,000
ME: 45,000 59 40 Obama +8,550
That's another 109,141 for Obama, so he's up to 811,303. Not sure how to figure the Texas caucus "votes" versus the primary "votes", really.
Including MI, where Obama wasn't even on the ballot (and Clinton pledged not to compete) is disingenuous to say the least. Including Florida gives an Obama lead of over a half million.
Again, Bill Clinton quote, as recounted by the entertainer, Sinbad: “I can't go ‘cause I might get shot so I’m going to send my wife ... oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you:” http://theseedsof9-11.com
It is time for someone to go to the Billary's and tell them stop wasting our time and money. The only way they will get the White House back is to cheat or steal it back which is not to say that they will not try and do exactly that - it is their way.
Obama is a ahead in all counts AND remember only about 40 million will vote in the primaries and caucus' but two to three times this amount will vote in the general election and people will come together and vote for Obama, rather than have Bush for another four years.!!!!!
Once you start counting the caucus votes as "votes" you enter into a whole chain of rationalizations, with the differences between the Texas primary vs. caucus results emphasizing how tenuous and potentially misleading such efforts can be.
The whole system is, frankly, kind of a joke in the absence of an overwhelming winner. Any small lead in delegates or votes will almost inevitably be subject to the argument that they're artifacts of inequities in the system. It will be up to the Supers to weigh whatever factors they choose to, and whatever determinations they make won't be final until a lot more time has passed than the entire series of primaries have so far taken.
Once you start counting the non-delegate primary votes as "votes" you enter into a whole chain of rationalizations, with the differences between the facially fair Florida primary vs. the North Korea-style Michigan primary results emphasizing how tenuous and potentially misleading such efforts can be.
Is that comment supposed to somehow undermine my point, Jeff Larson? It supports it.
The Republicans have their own rather unfair and inequitable system designed to avoid such close calls. The Democratic primary system is a Frankenstein's monster, as deformed further by poor leadership and self-conscious gamesmanship.
There can be no demonstrable pure "democratic" winner of such a manifestly uneven and inequitable system - even before the insane decision to disqualify MI and FL - when the decision is this closely contested.
The Democrats chose to cater to their party's sensibilities with proportional allocation especially in big states, but made too many compromises. Among other things, they left the caucus system in place in many states, partly with the idea that it would serve as party-building efforts in red states like Texas and others won by Senator Obama. They figured the SuperDs would rescue them in a worst case scenario of a too-close contest.
Welcome to the worst case. You earned it!
Once you start counting the caucus votes as "votes" you enter into a whole chain of rationalizations, with the differences between the Texas primary vs. caucus results emphasizing how tenuous and potentially misleading such efforts can be.
Aaaah, more of the "some voters are more equal than others" stuff.
Look, there's a clearly defined process, and everybody knows what it is, and everybody was okay with it before the contest started. My candidate is out now, but I wasn't trying to discredit the results or change the process once the contests had started just because he was losing.
Elections aren't calvinball. They have rules. Changing the game halfway through because you don't like how it's going to end is just asinine.
You're taking the argument out of context, justinb. Super-Delegates and their freedom to consider just about any argument anyone puts to them - including the representativeness of whatever tallies - are just as much a part of the "rules" as the Texas Two-Step.
well i appreciate the laughs provided by the bo sycophants, i must say that while they are attackiing hc in their mindless zeal that they have not proven bo is the second coming
also remember the last person we elected who had the same level of experience.......george bush. why dont we call this lemming central?
history is replete with individuals who were elected with a mantra of change who provided nothing but calamities.
lol
There can be no demonstrable pure "democratic" winner of such a manifestly uneven and inequitable system - even before the insane decision to disqualify MI and FL - when the decision is this closely contested.
You could have stopped after the first half-dozen words or so -- Arrow's theorem.
CK MacLeod,
First, counting FL and MI votes when Hillary herself told New Hampshire voters that it didn't matter if her name was on the ballot, since those primaries clearly wouldn't count, and then trying to count both the popular votes and the delegates when Obama wasn't even permitted to campaign, there, or even have his name on the ballot in Michigan, is so underheadedly dirty pool that it's going to destroy our party if you and Hillary's people persist in it.
Now, if in a free and fair campaing HIllary can make up a 700,000 vote deficit in those two state, anhd close the gap elsewhere as well, then fine, she has an argument to make for her nomination. The problem is, how is she going to actually do that in a free and fair campaign. I'm not saying she can't possibly win in either state, though Michigan seems pretty far fetched, but if she does, it's going to be very close, and not make up any deficit in either the popular vote or the delegate count.
Second, primary voters are, indeed, voters. THe problem with disenfranchising them is that, first of all, you would be disenfranchising free and fair elections, which I thought was precisely not what you didn't want to do in Mi and FL. Second, this system was put in place with the approval of all the candidates. In particular, Hillary favored this, because she, like almost everyone else in the party, thought that caucuses would favor her, rather than any upstart rival like Obama. Why? Because usually it's the party establishment candidates and the party establishment machinery which dominates caucuses. What Obama has done to win the caucuses goes against all the conventional wisdom, and demonstrates just how powerful a grass roots campaign he's run. So it's sheer madness for Hillary to now go around claiming that the caucuses shouldn't count, simply because she's been outplayed in them. Where's the argument about her experience, wisdom, and judgement on Day One? Apparently she was taken completely by surprise - not merely because she's stupid, but because she completely misunderstood the situation, or the strategy her opponents could employ to defeat her.
Obviously, Obama has run a much smarter and better campaign from Day One. His victories, especially in the caucuses, are not undemocratic, but are a sign of his superior strategy and effectiveness at turning what should have been a negative for him into a positive. THis shows his imagination and resourcefulness, and Hillary's lack of the same, as well as his ability to organize a highly effective public campaign, which Hillary clearly lacks. So what's the rationale exactly for rewarding Hillary for her ineptitude, and punishing Obama for his superior ability?
also remember the last person we elected who had the same level of experience
Are you implying that either of the two dems have more FP experience than the other?
Hey we got one of those charts! I made it on a napkin, Sinbad showed me how. For some reason the numbers never match up.
| 
Even money on the HRC campaign not even having one of these.
Posted by JBS | March 12, 2008 10:19 AM