JUST FYI, Now MSNBC analysts saying if Hillary wins popular vote, she deserves nomination

[Tropics_Dude83]

Ann Kornblutt I believe said this on MSNBC at 11 a.m. just before Tim Russert's show aired at 12. She said "If Clinton wins the popular vote, Obama will be hard pressed to make a viable case that he deserves the nomination." Even if he is ahead in elected delegates. This was in the context of how Hillary could still win but it is still outrageous. Since when is popular vote determinative? Guess we should throw out the electoral college too!

That is NOT how we have ever chosen nominees. It's a delegate race. Even Hillary said this back in early February. Whoever is ahead in delegates wins period. Anything else is a theft.

I can't stand Cameron Hall and the "Hilbots" she interviews 24/7.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. We Should Throw Out The Electoral College

~

[Tropics_Dude83]

5. Be careful what you wish for

Kerry made it close in 2004 because of the electoral college. If it had been popular vote alone, Bush would have had a decisive victory,

[Skwmom]

14. Exactly. With popular vote all you have to do is control the vote in a couple of states.

[niceypoo]

65. With the electoral college all you have to do is control the vote in a couple of states...

...like Ohio or Florida...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. I Would Not Have Been Pleased To Win In 04 The Way Bush* Won in 00

Those races just show how anti-democratic the EC is... As much as I despise Bush* the fellow who got 3,000,000 more votes should win the race...

[MadBadger]

12. Some states arent counted in the Popular vote numbers because they are caucuses

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. We're Talking About Apples And Oranges

My concerns are confined to the EC which is anti-small d (democratic)...

Caucuses are anti-democratic too but Obama won them fair and square by the prevailing rules...

[dansolo]

41. I don't mind the EC, but I don't like that it is winner-take-all

I think that the EC votes should be divided proportionally according to the popular vote, with 2 of the EC votes being at-large votes that go to the overall state winner.

Also, I would not favor any system that works off of congressional districts. That leaves it susceptible to manipulation from gerrymandering.

[dchill]

27. Right. Hence the cry of "Popular votes"...

from the Hillary camp. I think Obama wins that, too, at this point.

[bellasgrams]

35. Caucuses should be done away with. They are not giving

'the people' a vote. Many working people can't get to the caucuses because they have to work. If they do get to the caucus your vote doesn't count unless your candidate has enough supporters there. There is so much confusion there are to many ways to manipulate the vote. Plus there's no early or absentee voting. The vote is skewed. Your guy may have won caucuses this time but what about the next.

[MadBadger]

37. I agree they should be done away with, but thats for the next time

Caucuses count and dont let anyone tell you otherwise.

[dchill]

25. Why are you talking about the electoral college here?

This is about the Democratic Primary, not the Presidential Election. That's the one in November - when the Electoral College decides the result. Popular votes will not decide THIS primary - the rules count delegates. End of story.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. Because The Original Poster Brought It Up

"...Since when is popular vote determinative? Guess we should throw out the electoral college too...!"

-tropic_dude 83

Super Delegates

Caucuses

The Electoral College

Byzantine delegate selection process

All anti small (d) democratic

One man one vote...

[bellasgrams]

38. dchill, you wish it was that simple.

[dchill]

39. Sure I do.

Don't you?

[JackORoses]

48. You know that the Delegates also represent states that don't tabulate Popular vote

I guess you are one of those who wishes to disenfranchise Caucus states.

For all your talk about how Florida needs to be counted, you seem quick to discount Washington, Colorado, Iowa, etc. etc.

[niceypoo]

64. I have said this for years...

[dkf]

2. I guess they are saying "The Texas Caucus Doesn't Count"

[KittyWampus]

30. There is NO SUCH THING as a "popular vote" in a Primary that includes caucuses

[AX10]

3. MSNBC is in Obama's corner.

MSNBC is to Obama what Fox is to Bush.

HRC can win the popular vote.

[grasswire]

4. yes, we should throw out the electoral college

Were you missing during 2000?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. They Never Will Though

It would require a Constitutional amendment and the small states who benefit from the EC will never vote to outlaw it...

[saltpoint]

6. MSNBC isn't running the Democratic Party. Thank God. Howard Dean is.

Dean presides over established rules, and the established rules, known to all candidates prior to announcing a White House run, indicate that a majority of delegates wins nomination.

That's how the game is played.

Among the many things that weakenns Hillary Clinton's campaign is the sustained impression that she thinks she's the exception and that rules and regulations are for someone else but not for her.

It's the entitlement virus, and she's got a bad, bad case.

[Tropics_Dude83]

13. Changing the rules in the middle of the game sorry

When this started, the rules were whoever gets to 2,024 or 2,208 first wins. Not whoever wins the PV wins. Even Clinton said that before she collapsed. Change to a PV system next time. Not this time. Too late.

[saltpoint]

16. Right. Obama leads in delegates. The most delegates wins the nom.

[bellasgrams]

44. No, it is not the one that has the most votes, it's the one that has

the magic number.

[saltpoint]

67. Delegates, voting as delegates, determine the nomination in Denver.

Swear to god.

[Asgaya Dihi]

29. Right

Whatever your feelings on the popular vote, electoral college, or any of the rest of it, changing the rules in the middle of an election is a real bad idea. Everyone knew how a caucus and all the rest of it worked and everyone had the same chances to plan their campaign strats and compete under the same rules. If they didn't do as well as they wished that's just poor campaigning.

It's a bit late in the game to move the goalposts now. If you want to talk change for next election I've my doubts about the system too but we don't change the rules in the middle of the game. This one we finish with the same rules we started with.

[MonkeyFunk]

62. Yes

but it appears neither candidate will have a majority of the delegates going into the convention, so the superdelegates will have to decide.

The popular vote is a pretty good criterion for helping them decide which way to go.

[C_U_L8R]

7. What total bullshit.

The Clintons can't cheat their way out of this one
no matter how many flaks they pay off.
Besides, they are running out of money.
Lets see how long their dirty tricks team holds
together without their big fat salaries.

[bellasgrams]

46. C U, What are you talking about? It's clear you're a Clinton hater

but how do you think they could cheat? BO is the one that has the cash and questionable backers to help him.

[C_U_L8R]

56. Yeah I'm pissed at Hillary. Very simply what I'm talking about

is that the Clintons keep trying to redefine the rules of the Primary in their favor.
Where I come from that's called cheating. We've selected our candidates through
the delegate process for generations and you don't change the criteria mid-game.
Compound that with Hillary's and Bill's outright lies, their public attempts at intimidating the
Superdelegates (a la Nancy Pelosi), their smearing of Obama (from drug dealer to radical muslim),
and the general thuggishness of their team (judas) and a dozen otheur heinous acts and
I am quite disgusted indeed and yeah, I'm pretty darn angry with the Clintons.
I didn't start off that way either... I once supported Hillary but she has totally earned every
ounce of my disrespect. And she deserves to lose as ugly as she's run her campaign.
I am embarrassed that Hillary is a Democrat. She's no good.

[Igel]

70. Both sides are playing the same kind of game.

They want to somehow impose a moral rule on superdelegates. There is none. The unpledged leadership delegates can vote however they please.

But we have some people using threats: Don't overturn the vote for Obama, because if you do then you lose the black vote. Others use some sort of "this is what I consider moral, and you're immoral if you don't agree" calculus: Don't overrule a majority of the pledged delegates. Don't overrule the majority of the voters.

Oddly, the "Don't overrule a majority of the pledged delegates" *has* to be nuanced and apply at just the right level to give the desired result. If you don't take it at the national level, but at the state or more local levels, well, that's also immoral. The added rule has to be just so, otherwise, well, we don't get the moral result.

Then there's the outrage at HRC's ruminations over the necessity of pledged delegates remaining true to their candidate ... whether on the first vote or the second vote. I say it's fake because when HRC lost a delegate in Iowa (because, I assume, some HRC delegates decided to change their minds and cast their lot in with BO--a legit decision on their part)--it was greeted with whoops of joy. Any outrage that relies primarily on 'my candidate's right and yours is wrong' is, IMO, deeply rooted in hypocrisy.

There are no rules on how the unpledged official and leadership delegates should vote. Moreover, when push comes to shove, they're just delegates. Anything else is trying to impose a new rule mid-process.

[Skwmom]

9. What about the voters who didn't go to the polls b/c they were told that

this was a delegate race? However, if they would have known it was a POPULAR vote race they would have rushed to the polls. This is why you DO NOT CHANGE THE RULES in the middle of the game.

[democrattotheend]

10. I don't completely disagree with that

But it depends how they count Michigan and Florida. If they count all of Clinton's Michigan votes and 0 for Obama that's completely unfair.

We need our nominee to have unquestionable legitimacy. If one candidate has more elected delegates but one has more votes, or if Michigan and Florida would alter the outcome, the nominee will be crippled in the fall by a lack of legitimacy. Clinton being ahead in the popular vote while Obama leads in delegates is a nightmare scenario, because one side will feel like it was stolen no matter what. If that's the situation at the end of the primaries they pretty much have to run on a joint ticket to avoid a meltdown.

[depakid]

11. Wrong

Whoever the 2025 delegates decide on gets the nomination- being "ahead" is irrelevant.

[TwilightGardener]

17. That's bullshit. If popular vote was the goal, Obama would have run

a much different campaign, with a bigger focus in highly-populated states and primary states (rather than caucus states). They can't change the rules and measurements 3/4 of the way through the race. This is the media's way of pretending Hillary still has a chance, to keep the horse race and interest/ratings going. Keep moving the goalposts.

[Tropics_Dude83]

20. I couldn't agree more with you

And actually I think to myself sometimes if I use this rule this time of not "changing the rules in the middle of the game", am I being hypocritical when this is juxtaposed against my support for Al Gore in 2000. I don't think so. I think the Florida courts had broad authority to resolve an election contest in any way they saw fit. Thus, changing the rules in the middle of the game didn't apply in Florida 2000 but it does apply here.

Sorry I'm talking to myself there a but lol but anyway.

[Skwmom]

18. In 2000, Bush planned to argue popular vote if Gore had won the electoral college.

[City Lights]

21. Did she explain how to count the popular vote in a caucus?

Our corporate media experts are farking clueless!

[TwilightGardener]

23. There is no critical thinking or fact or logic going on--the media just takes

Hillary's new goalposts as their meme.

[dchill]

40. Easy, caucus votes don't count!

That wouldn't work for Hillary.

[mmonk]

22. It has to be by delegates and states.

Early states had more than two candidates on the ballot and also early voting. That skews the popular votes.

[bellasgrams]

24. Dude 'not how we have ever chosen nominees', would you want to

go back to the days of the smoke filled room where a hand full of men decide who the nominee is? I'd much prefer the popular vote, that gives the 'people' their choice.

[Tropics_Dude83]

26. Again, take it up next time

Next time, get rid of delegates and say that the winner of the national popular vote at the end gets 2,025 or 2,208 delegates.

Those weren't the rules this time! Too late to change them now that your candidate is losing sorry.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

and "if the skies open up, and the angels sing"

then she should win.

[totodeinhere]

28. That's only one person's opinion.

Ann Kornblutt is only one analyst of many at MSNBC and the vast majority of them would disagree with what she said.

[proud2BlibKansan]

31. Is there a chance she can win the popular vote?

[Tropics_Dude83]

32. A chance but even that is tough

It requires winning PA 65-35 and NC or IN 65-35 as well.

[City Lights]

34. How do you count the "popular vote" in a caucus? nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

43. Why would you not count it?

I participated in a caucus. I watched them vote and I watched the votes counted. In many ways, it was more fair than a traditional election is.

[City Lights]

47. I'm asking how you count it...sounds like you're saying you just add the

number of people who show up to caucus to the popular vote total. Is that what you're saying? It that what's happening now? I'm asking 'cause I don't know.

[proud2BlibKansan]

51. I only know how it worked in my state

37,000 participated in the Democratic caucus. We stood in line for hours and voted in a fair caucus. It wouldn't be right to say those 37,000 votes don't count.

[City Lights]

55. So the 37,000 people who participated in your state were added to the

popular vote totals? That's what I'm trying to figure out. When you show up to caucus, do you get added to the popular vote total? :shrug:

[proud2BlibKansan]

57. Well we only had caucuses

so I am assuming our caucus votes were added to the popular vote total.

[City Lights]

61. You assume your caucus votes were added to the PV total, but you're not

sure. I'm not sure either. That's what I'm trying to find out. :-) I wonder if anyone knows...:shrug:

[jwirr]

36. I have been watching conventions since Eisenhower won - they

have always been based on delegate count. I do not want the rules changed. If one cannot win under the existing rules they should not be trying to change the rules just for their own benefit.

[bellasgrams]

50. nope, I remember staying up late on convention night waiting to

to see who was chosen to be our candidate. If it was strictly delegates they would have known be forehand

[jwirr]

54. Yes, delegates do negotiate when it is not a solid win. But it is still

the delegates not voter count.

[Buzz Clik]

42. LOL! She can say what she wants, but that is NOT how it works.

[FrenchieCat]

45. Why are we supposed to "care" what an MSNBC Analysts says?

Working for General Electric doesn't provide the kind of credentials that will make me listen to that person.

Of course the Corporate Media think Hillary should win. Bill did sign the Telecommunications Act of 1996, didn't he? http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/06/28/telecom_dereg/index.html

And Hillary did vote for this corporate record breaking profit driven war, right?

So yeah, of course, an MSNBC "Analyst" would be rooting for the Corporate candidate.

What else is new? :shrug:

[jillan]

49. Popular vote?

Yeah - who cares what the voters think!
:eyes:

[Vinca]

52. It doesn't matter. Hillary is unlikely to catch him on any level.

Her one and only hope is swaying the superdelegates. If you happen to be one and want a cushy job, now's your time to act.

[LTR]

53. So why didn't they demand Gore become president in 2000?

Do they just make shit up as they go along?

BTW: Obama is currently way ahead in the popular vote.

[Bensthename]

58. Sounds good, but it AINT gonna happen.

[Life Long Dem]

59. Obama has it covered.

Obama is going after the popular vote in PA.

[Sulawesi]

60. Popular vote means nothing when a subset of the contests are caucuses

[OzarkDem]

63. It matters for winning the GE

The Dem candidate has to be able to win as many states as possible in the GE, especially large electoral states.

[DUyellow]

66. When do they make the rules? WAKE UP PEOPLE... YOU ARE ALL BEING PLAYED

[sueragingroz]

68. If she gets the popular vote and did it in the states that matter

you are darn tootin that she is best placed to capture the WH

[Barack_America]

69. People in caucus states don't count!

Considering the popular vote is all that now matters and they're not a part of it.

So Iowa, Washington, Minnesota and others, please pack your bags and go home. The Democratic party no longer has any use for you. Perhaps the Republicans will be willing to honor your votes.