About this mythical "popular vote"

[guyanakoolaid]

Do you Clinton supporters think if enough start chanting this, it will become real? Do you think if enough of you keep saying it, that the differences between a primary and a caucus will magically disappear?

The part that makes me laugh, though, is that if you used this mythical "popular vote"... Obama would still be in the lead.

Obama: 14,397,506, 49.2%

Clinton: 13,896,368, 47.5%

[Pab Sungenis]

1. They're the ones who keep saying caucuses don't count

so why should it surprise you that they only count primary states in their mythical "popular vote?"

[Coexist]

11. don't forget the correct terminology

they are "sham caucuses"

LOL.

[Austinitis]

29. They count for what they add to the popular vote,

but there's no reason they should be allowed to wildly influence the nomination through the pledged-delegate count.



Why should someone in Wyoming count 16.64 times more than someone in California? The pledged-delegate scheme is all fucked up.

[godai]

2. They want to count MI and FL at this time.

Todays talking points are double digit victory, tide has turned and Clinton leads the popular vote (with FL and MI counted).

[BlooInBloo]

3. But Clinton agreed not to.

[MonkeyFunk]

32. No she never agreed

not to count the popular vote in those states. Don't be silly.

[DrDan]

4. don't forget - Fl and Mich get to vote in the GE

and are quite pissed-off at having their voice ignored by the party.

[mbperrin]

5. and why shouldn't they be?

Those who want to skip the last 8 states and these 2 think that "too much democracy" or "too many voters" or "too much participation" are problems.

I belong to the party of inclusion and the true big tent. We have always found ways to help people find their voice, rather than putting them at the back of the bus for some alleged "crimes" or "waste" they've committed.

Let's go all the way with the process as written out. That includes all the way to the last caucus and the last primary, just as the RULES say. (For the anal.)

[DrDan]

8. my point is we will be going with a candidate selected

by 48 states, Puerto Rico, Guam, and 800 superdelegates.

In the GE - 50 states vote, Puerto Rico and Guam do not, superdelgates get one vote.

I am simply pointing out that the choice of the party does not reflect the voting process of the GE. And to deviate very far from that can potentially cost the party the election.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. Are they pissed off at themselves?

Because they're the only ones to blame for that predicament.

[DrDan]

10. no - nor should we be

it was the leaders of the party that did this - at both the state and national level.

I know of no individual voter that was asked. Lets get real. And guess who gets the "punishment" - these individual voters. Punish the state leaders - who cares. But let our voices count.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

12. You elected the morons who made the decision to violate party rules.

Take some responsibility for your actions.

[DrDan]

13. they never - not once - while running

indicated they would participate with the national leaders in devoicing us during the primary.

I know - hard to believe. But this was not a part of their platform.

Get real. Who would have known.

[guyanakoolaid]

17. Looks like it's time to vote real progressive Democrats into office

get to it.

[DrDan]

19. my plan exactly - starting with the GE

will be voting for the D of my choice - not the party's

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

23. They did not "participate" with national leaders. They did the exact opposite.

They knowingly violated a rule put in place by the DNC to avoid constant leap-frogging of primaries. The DNC had nothing to do with their conscious decision to thumb their nose at the rule and throw away their state's privilege to participate in the party's nomination process. Once again, it is your own elected officials and no one else that is to blame. It is not opinion - it is pure fact.

[DrDan]

30. get a grip.

There are obviously other opinions about this.

Pure fact? Give me a break. I live here. Do you?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

31. Then tell me what the facts really are.

True or false: Florida and Michigan elected, or selected by means determined by the populace, representatives to act on their behalf.

True or false: Those elected representatives made the decision to change the primary dates in Florida and Michigan.

True or false: The DNC had a rule in place well before that decision was made indicating that the consequences of such a move would result in the removal of their delegates from the nomination process. Therefore, the elected representatives knew that their actions would result in disenfranchising their constituents, and yet performed such actions anyway.

True or false: My state of residence has no bearing whatsoever on the three above statements.

Get a grip indeed.

[DrDan]

33. Here are the facts as I see them

The charter of the Democratic Party states:

"The Democratic Party of the United States shall
...
Section 4. Establish standards and rules of procedure to afford all members of the Democratic Party full, timely, and equal opportunities to participate in decisions concerning the selection of candidates, the formulation of policy, and the conduct of other Party affairs without prejudice . . . "

Article 2 states that the convention delegates are to be chosen so as to fully and fairly represent those that participate in primaries.

In addition, Article 8 clearly states that members of the party can expect to fully participate in party activities.



The rule, and its subsequent "punishment" violate these provisions. The rule was not fair. Punish the state leaders by not allowing their participation at a party level, withhold funding, but . . . continue to allow members of the party the opportunity to particpate in a primary. That should NEVER have been the stakes. Those are fundamental principles of the Party.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

35. The rule was not unilaterally agreed upon.

If those concerns were held, they should have been voiced at the appropriate time. They were not. Clearly this stuff wasn't a secret.

[DrDan]

37. nonetheless - the Democratic Party represents itself as

a party of the people.

Rules and actions like this show it is moving toward an elitist point-of-view. SDs also provide fodder for this argument.

This does not play well in Florida.

[DrDan]

34. also

never mind - wasting my time

[stillcool]

26. the way it was...

December 1, 2007, 11:42 am
Democrats Strip Michigan of Delegates

By The New York Times

In a widely expected move, the Democratic National Committee voted this morning to strip Michigan of all its 156 delegates to the national nominating convention next year. The state is breaking the party’s rules by holding its primary on Jan. 15. Only Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada are allowed to hold contests prior to Feb. 5.

The party imposed a similar penalty on Florida in August for scheduling a Jan. 29 primary.

The Democratic candidates have already pledged not to campaign in the state, and Senators Barack Obama and Joseph R. Biden Jr., as well as John Edwards and Gov. Bill Richardson, asked to have their names removed from the state ballot.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/democrats-strip-michigan-delegates/

Lawmakers in US state Michigan approve moving presidential primary to January despite rules
The Associated Press
Published: August 30, 2007

LANSING, Michigan: Michigan lawmakers have approved moving the state's U.S. presidential nomination contests to January, three weeks earlier than party rules allow, as states continue to challenge the traditional primary election calendar to gain influence in the race.

Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm is expected to sign the bill passed Thursday that would move the contest to Jan. 15, but approval of the switch is far from certain. A disagreement among state Democratic leaders over whether to hold a traditional ballot vote or a more restricted caucus is complicating final action.

If the date moves up, Michigan Democrats risk losing all their national convention delegates, while Republicans risk losing half.
------------------------------------
Rules in both parties say states cannot hold their 2008 primary contests before Feb. 5, except for a few hand-picked states that hold elections in January.
--------------------------------
"We understand that we're violating the rules, but it wasn't by choice," Michigan Republican Chairman Saul Anuzis said, noting that state Democrats first proposed moving the date to Jan. 15. "We're going to ask for forgiveness and we think ... we will get forgiveness."
----------------------------------
Even states that do not have favored status are trying to jump toward the front of the line. Florida Democrats decided to move their state's primary to Jan. 29. The national party has said it will strip Florida of its presidential convention delegates unless it decides within the next few weeks to move the vote to a later date.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/31/america/NA-POL-US-Primary-Scramble.php?WT.mc_id=rssap_america

Democrats vow to skip defiant states
Six candidates agree not to campaign in those that break with the party's calendar. Florida and Michigan, this includes you.
By Mark Z. Barabak, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 2, 2007
The muddled 2008 presidential nomination calendar gained some clarity Saturday -- at least on the Democratic side -- as the party's major candidates agreed not to campaign in any state that defies party rules by voting earlier than allowed.

Their collective action was a blow to Florida and Michigan, two states likely to be important in the general election, which sought to enhance their clout in the nominating process as well.

Front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York followed Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina in pledging to abide by the calendar set by the Democratic National Committee last summer. The rules allow four states -- Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina -- to vote in January.

The four "need to be first because in these states ideas count, not just money," Edwards said in a written statement. "This tried-and-true nominating system is the only way for voters to judge the field based on the quality of the candidate, not the depth of their war chest."

Hours later, after Obama took the pledge, Clinton's campaign chief issued a statement citing the four states' "unique and special role in the nominating process" and said that the New York senator, too, would "adhere to the DNC-approved calendar."

Three candidates running farther back in the pack -- New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Sens. Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware -- said Friday they would honor the pledge, shortly after the challenge was issued in a letter co-signed by Democratic leaders in the four early states.
--
Florida, the state that proved pivotal in the 2000 presidential election, is again a source of much upheaval. Ignoring the rule that put January off-limits, legislators moved the state's primary up to Jan. 29, pushing Florida past California and other big states voting Feb. 5.

Leaders of the national party responded last month by giving Florida 30 days to reconsider, or have its delegates barred from the August convention in Denver.

"The party had to send a strong message to Florida and the other states," said Donna Brazile, a veteran campaign strategist and member of the Democratic National Committee, the party's governing body. "We have a system that is totally out of control."

Despite that warning, Michigan lawmakers moved last week to jump the queue, voting to advance the state's primary to Jan. 15.

Florida Dems defy Dean on primary date
By Sam Youngman
Posted: 06/12/07 07:58 PM
Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), is trapped in a high-stakes game of chicken with party leaders in Florida.

They warned him yesterday not to “disenfranchise” state voters and risk being blamed for a debacle on the scale of the 2000 recount.

The warning comes amid alarm over a decision Sunday by state Democratic leaders to embrace Jan. 29 as the primary date.
They are defying DNC headquarters and daring it to follow through on its threat to disqualify electors selected in the primary and punish candidates who campaign there.

But the DNC is not backing down. The committee bought time with a statement late yesterday saying, “The DNC will enforce the rules as passed by its 447 members in Aug. 2006. Until the Florida State Democratic Party formally submits its plan and we’ve had the opportunity to review that submission, we will not speculate further.”

Dean does not, in any case, have the power to waive party rules, a DNC spokeswoman said. The entire committee would have to vote again to do that.
------------------

Carol Fowler, chairwoman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, said she won’t move that state’s primary, scheduled for Feb. 2, unless the national committee allows her.

“I’m going to do what the DNC tells me to,” Fowler said. “I’m not willing to violate the rules. The penalties are too stiff.”


http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/florida-dems-defy-dean-on-primary-date-2007-06-12.html

Posted: August 27, 2007, 6:05 PM ET
DNC Moves to Stop Primary Frontloading
The Democratic National Committee moved over the weekend to penalize Florida for moving up its primary date to Jan. 29 -- a violation of DNC rules that prohibit states from holding nominating polls before Feb. 5.
The committee said the Sunshine State would be stripped of its delegation at the party's National Convention in 2008 if the state does not reschedule its primary in the next 30 days.

As the nation's fourth-most-populous state, Florida has 210 delegates and has played a major role in recent presidential elections. Florida's decision to advance its primary follows the increasing trend of states pushing up their contests in order to gain relevance in the election.

"Rules are rules. California abided by them, and Florida should, as well. To ignore them would open the door to chaos," said Garry Shays, a DNC member from California. California -- with its 441 delegates -- moved its primary to Feb. 5, along with more than a dozen other states.
-----------------------------------------

The DNC's move may have repercussions beyond Florida as other state legislatures consider disregarding the Feb. 5 cutoff. Last week, Michigan's state Senate voted to hold its primary on Jan. 15. The state's House is expected to approve the earlier date as well.

The DNC gave Florida the option of holding a Jan. 29 contest but with nonbinding results, and the delegates would be awarded at a later official date.

Florida Democratic Committee Chairwoman Karen Thurman said this option would be expensive -- as much as $8 million -- and potentially undoable. Another option would be to challenge the ruling in court.

"We do represent, standing here, a lot of Democrats in the state of Florida -- over 4 million," Thurman said, according to the New York Times. "This is emotional for Florida. And it should be."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/politics/july-dec07/florida_08-27.html

Published: Monday, September 24, 2007
Florida defies Dems, moves up primary
Associated Press

PEMBROKE PINES, Fla. — The Florida Democratic Party is sticking to its primary date — and it printed bumper stickers to prove it.

State party leaders formally announced Sunday their plans to move ahead with a Jan. 29 primary, despite the national leadership's threatened sanctions.

The Democratic National Committee has said it will strip the Sunshine State of its 210 nominating convention delegates if it doesn't abide by the party-set calendar, which forbids most states from holding primary contests before Feb. 5. The exceptions are Iowa on Jan. 14, Nevada on Jan. 19, New Hampshire on Jan. 22 and South Carolina on Jan. 29.
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20070924/NEWS02/709240045/-1/

Michigan defies parties, moves up primary date
JAN. 15 DECISION COULD SET OFF STAMPEDE OF STATES
By Stephen Ohlemacher
Associated Press
Article Launched: 09/05/2007 01:34:57 AM PDT

WASHINGTON - Michigan officially crashed the early primary party Tuesday, setting up showdowns with both political parties and likely pushing the presidential nomination calendar closer to 2007.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm signed a bill moving both of Michigan's presidential primaries to Jan. 15. Michigan's move threatens to set off a chain reaction that could force Iowa and New Hampshire to reschedule their contests even earlier than anticipated, perhaps in the first week in January 2008 or even December 2007.
-------------------------------------------
The national parties have tried to impose discipline on the rogue states. On the Republican side, states that schedule contests before Feb. 5 risk losing half their delegates to next summer's convention, though some are banking that whoever wins the GOP nomination will eventually restore the delegates.

Democrats have experienced similar problems, but party officials hoped they had stopped the mad dash to move up by threatening to strip Florida of all its convention delegates for scheduling a primary Jan. 29 and by persuading the major Democratic candidates to campaign only in the party-approved early states.

Michigan, in moving up its primary, faces a similar penalty from the Democratic National Committee.
-----------------------------------------------------

The decision by the major Democratic candidates to campaign only in approved early states renders voting in the rogue states essentially non-binding beauty contests.

But Former Michigan Gov. James Blanchard, co-chairman of Hillary Clinton's Michigan campaign, told the Associated Press on Tuesday that the pledge allows candidates' spouses to campaign in the state, allows the candidates to speak to groups of 200 or fewer and permits fundraising.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_6804685?source=rss

Editorial: Follow DNC rules on seating delegates
February 25, 2008
By Editorial Board

On September 1, the campaigns of Clinton and Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) issued press releases stating that they had signed pledges affirming the DNC’s decision to approve certain representative states and sanction others for moving their nominating contests earlier. But now that the race is close, Clinton — whose top advisor Harold Ickes voted as a member of the DNC to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates — is pushing for the delegates to be seated.

Her argument is that not doing so disenfranchises the 1.7 million Florida Democrats who voted and that her pledge promised only that she wouldn’t campaign in the states, not that she wouldn’t try to seat the delegates. However, the results of the contests in Florida and Michigan are not necessarily representative of the voters’ preferences in those states. Given that most of the candidates removed their names from the Michigan ballot, and that many voters stayed home from the vote in Florida with the understanding that their contest would not affect the final delegate count, the delegate totals that the candidates accumulated in these states may not accurately reflect the will of the voters. Had there been no restrictions in Michigan and Florida, the turnout, and thus the results, may have been different.

The Four State Pledge all candidates signed on Aug. 28 stated, “Whereas, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will strip states of 100% of their delegates and super delegates to the DNC National Convention if they violate the nomination calendar... Therefore, I ____________, Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules ...pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window.” When the candidates pledged to campaign only in approved states, they were also agreeing to the terms listed above, which explicitly mentioned stripping noncompliant states of their entire delegation.

As it has become clear that the delegate race will be very close, politicians in the Democratic party are discussing the implications of the DNC pledge, and whether it would be wise to seat the delegates after all, rather than risk offending these important states that could be influential in the November election.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) recently said that the Florida and Michigan delegates should not be seated if they would decide the nomination. Other compromise proposals include holding new nominating contests in these states, but such contests would be expensive and cumbersome. The irony is that had Florida and Michigan not moved up their primaries, they would have voted in February and March, when they would have been even more important than in earlier months in determining the Democratic nominee — and would not have created an enormous controversy that has the potential to divide the party.
http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2008/2/25/editorialFollowDncRulesOnSeatingDelegates

Kucinich Files Affidavit To Remove Name From Michigan's Primary Shortly Before Deadline

October 10, 2007 8:19 a.m. EST
Ayinde O. Chase - AHN Staff
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7008781843
Dover, NH (AHN) - The Kucinich for President campaign Tuesday afternoon officially requested that Kucinich's name be withdrawn from the Michigan Democratic primary ballot. The affidavit came by way of to the Michigan Secretary of State's office.

The Ohio Congressman and Democratic Presidential candidates National Campaign manager Mike Klein said in the statement, "We signed a public pledge recently, promising to stand with New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, and the DNC-approved 'early window', and the action we are taking today protects New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary status, and Nevada's early caucus."

The statement continued: "We support the grassroots nature of the New Hampshire, small-state primary, and we support the diversity efforts that Chairman Dean and the DNC instituted last year, when they added Nevada and South Carolina to the window in January 2008. We are obviously committed to New Hampshire's historic role." Klein who actually recently moved to Dover said, "We will continue to adhere to the DNC-approved primary schedule."

Governor Granholm and other Michigan Democratic leaders have openly criticized the decision by several presidential candidates to keep their names off the state primary ballot.

The Michigan lawmakers are taken back by Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Edwards and Bill Richardson's decision to withdraw their names from the January 15th ballot.

The only ones who remain on Michigan's primary ballot are Hillary Clinton, Mike Gravel and Chris Todd.
-----------------------------
The DNC has threatened to punish states that break tradition and the rules by challenging Iowa and New Hampshire as first to pic. The committee has threatened to unseat the delegates of states that go ahead defy the primary rules set by the party

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

36. Funny, then, that none of this matters to DrDan.

Apparently, months of prior notice was not enough. Nor could DrDan have been bothered to inform his elected officials how he felt on the issue.

This whole debate is completely asinine. You break the rules, you pay the price. Period.

[stillcool]

25. Where were they in August of 2007

when the Democratic National Committee voted to strip the delegates? Where were they in March of 2006, when their states agreed to the rules? Why no "outrage" then?

[hfojvt]

27. you don't have to be asked

you could actually pay attention to what is going on and let your representative know how you feel about it. I am pretty sure it was in the news, even in Kansas. At least in the blogosphere news if not the M$M.

[JeanGrey]

7. ONLY HILLARY would count a state that her opponent wasn't

even on the ballot because they weren't supposed to be. Only Her.

[godai]

9. Desperate moves by a sinking campaign.

Despite all the spin today, there's now 1 less state for Clinton to surpass Obama and she did little catching up yesterday. They are grasping at straws but the MSM seems to love it.

[JeanGrey]

20. Last night put her even further behind.

[Skwmom]

14. Don't forget that Limbaugh voters who are only voting for Clinton

b/c she would be the easiest to beat (and to continue the Democratic bloodbath) will NOT vote for the Democrat in Nov are included in this total.

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. A pledged delegate lead is no more or less official an indicator of anything than popular vote lead

Both are statistics. Neither have any official role in determining who becomes our nominee. There is no distinction in the counting of pledged and unpledged delegates. The nominee is the person who wins a majority of delegates, period. Being ahead in pledged delegates is a nice talking point just like being ahead in popular votes.

For the record, since the popular vote is not officially related to delegate selection, the DNC does not penalize Florida by saying no one can add their popular vote count to an unofficial benchmark, which is what the popular vote lead is. I count Florida but don't count Michigan, but since Obama didn't sign on to the DNC/Clinton plan for a Michigan revote, I don't fault Clinton for trying to claim Michigan's vote also.

[guyanakoolaid]

16. Actually, pledged delegates do have an "official role in determining who becomes our nominee"

:tinfoilhat:

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. Delegtes have an official role

How one becomes a delegate are the mechanics of the DNC approved process to select a nominee. I do not claim that it is irrelevent to consider how the candidates did in the primaries, but looking at the popular vote count is part of considering how the candidates did in the primaries.

[BzaDem]

21. Oh, the differences between a primary and a caucus won't disappear. They just don't matter.

Because in America, we don't weight votes. We don't say, well, for every person that came to a caucus, 4.5 people were too lazy to show up, so we're going to weight caucus votes by 5.5. That may be standard fare on DU, but outside of DU, you don't see anyone talking about this. You see all the media and many superdelegates talking about the popular vote, calculated using good old addition. If 20,000 people showed up at a caucus, than they get 20,000 votes. If you don't like it, too bad. The only thing that matters is if superdelegates look at that total, not you.

[guyanakoolaid]

24. Like me, the SDs will be rolling their eyes at your "good old addition"

:crazy:

[Tommy_Carcetti]

22. The mythical popular vote

From the mythical little people.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

28. "popular vote", "big states", off-limits states, pledged delegates aren't pledged.... CRAP CRAP CRAP

[Two Americas]

38. defensiveness

There are twenty incidences of frantic denials by Obama supporters for every incidence of supposed charges against Obama from Clinton supporters. That is noteworthy and remarkable, and I see it as a symptom of an extremely weak campaign.

What I see in your popular vote numbers is a race that is a toss up, and a reflection of an unresolved nomination process.

I don't see Clinton supporters chanting anything in the hopes of it becoming real if we all just believe in it. That is happening here, though, it just is not coming from Clinton supporters to any great extent, and perhaps people are projecting their own approach to the primaries onto their imagined opponents?

Some of the chanting I read here everyday -

Kitchen sink, kitchen sink, kitchen sink.

Scorched earth, scorched earth, scorched earth.

Liar, liar, liar.

The math, the math, the math.

Cackle, cackle, cackle.

Shrill, shrill, shrill.

Desperate, desperate, desperate.