Let's clear something up concerning the popular vote.

[Big Blue Marble]

The core of of the Democratic Party's presidential nominating process is the proportional delegate system.
This system was devised to bring more democracy to the process. It rewards those districts that have strongly
supported the Democratic Party in the last two Presidential Elections. It intentionally recognizes close primary
elections results with its nearly equal proportional distribution of delegates. All voters in close elections have their votes
count, not just the ones that support the winner.

Remember this commitment the Democratic Party has made to its supporters is designed to empower and support all Democratic
primary voters. Its intent is to insure that that the voters have the major role in choosing the candidate that will represent the party.
The motivation behind this plan is to bring more voters into the process by supporting fairness in its implementation.

Clinton and her supporters' popular vote argument totally undermines every aspect of this commitment that the
Democratic Party has made to its voters, every single one. She is saying commitments do not matter.
How then is she to be entrusted with our Presidency? How then could we ever respect her as our leader?
And how could we, ever again, trust a party leadership that would endorse this violation of our trust?

[2rth2pwr]

1. Is this the argument you were making in 2000 in defense of b*sh?

[Rob Gregory Browne]

2. Bush won neither the popular vote nor the electoral vote, so what's your point? nt

[2rth2pwr]

6. Gore won the popular vote, b*sh ended up with more electoral votes.

b*sh has been in office ever since, check the teevee to be sure.

[Cali_Democrat]

10. Bush was installed by the Supreme Court

It was neither a free nor fair election. In reality, Gore won the popular vote and the electoral vote.

[rox63]

3. B*sh has never run in a Democratic primary

In case you haven't noticed, the rules for primaries are quite a bit different than for the GE. In fact, some of the rules that are causing headaches for HRC supporters were originally devised by her campaign chair, Terry McAuliffe, when he was head of the DNC.

[krkaufman]

19. Did some states hold caucuses in the 2000 GE that I wasn't aware of? n/t

[cbayer]

4. You make a very good point.

How do you feel about the role we have given to the SD's?

[Texas Hill Country]

5. it is another measuring stick the SD's can use to guide their decision and a valid one.

[nichomachus]

7. But not all popular votes are equal

You can't say a popular vote in May is the same as a popular vote in January. Why?

Because the May voters know more about the candidates than the January voters.

In fact, this is the whole rationale for such a long drawn-out process -- so people can see and hear the candidates over time and make decisions about them. It's safe to say that if another NH primary or Iowa caucus were held today, the results might be significantly different -- for a lot of reasons.

The people in IA and NH were working on much more limited information.

This is the role of the superdelegates -- to take a look at the progress of the campaign and make the decision that's best for the party, factoring in the state primaries, but realizing that those votes -- especially the ones made with limited information -- aren't the end-all and be-all.

[onenote]

8. and what exception to this wondrous rule will you come up with when obama wins NC and OR?

That the voters in those states have been asleep since January?

Please enlighten us.

[nichomachus]

9. Not sure what you're getting at

your nastiness is getting in the way. If you ask a question in a civil way, I might be able to answer it. As stated, it doesn't make any sense.

[onenote]

12. I will try again:

You wrote:

You can't say a popular vote in May is the same as a popular vote in January. Why?
Because the May voters know more about the candidates than the January voters.


The premise of your post appears to be that the more recent primary results should be given more weight by the SDs than earlier primaries because the voters have more information now than they did in January. The implication, as I took it at least, is that Obama's early victories should be discounted by the SDs and more weight given to the results in Ohio, TX, PA, which came later.

My point is that Obama is going to keep winning some primaries in May and by margins comparable to the margins he won some primaries in January, February and March. And by margins comparable to the wins that HRC has scored in March/April. So I'm trying to figure out why the SDs would discount the earlier results by that much since the impact of getting more information about the candidates appears to be dramatically inconclusive.

Maybe that wasn't the point you were trying to make, in which case I apologize. But it sounded like it.

[nichomachus]

13. I'm sure the SDs will look at all these things

All I'm trying to say is that just doing a simple addition of votes can be misleading. If the NH primary were held today, things would be different. Heck, if Pennsylvania were held in January, Hillary might have won by 40 percent. In fact, if an SD were really astute, he/she would be looking at the trends over time, rather than the actual numbers.

The SDs will most likely decide based on what they think at the time is best for the party -- picking the candidate who they think can win. If they don't, then they will have failed the party and ultimately themselves. Their decision will be heavily tinged with self-interest, but the self-interest that comes from having a Dem in the White House and the self-interest that comes from having supported the person who ultimately wins.

After all, if you're looking for a cabinet post and Hillary wins, you damned well better have supported Hillary at the convention. The Clintons have very long memories and can be very vindictive. (Maybe Obama is too, but I don't have any data on that.)

What the party and the SDs don't want is another 1980, where Carter rode in as the populist candidate to the horror of the party insiders. A lot of the rules were changed after that to prevent a re occurrence.

[onenote]

15. I agree with you

Thanks for the explanation. Can't disagree. Every SD will approach their decision from their own particular perspective and that perspective will be informed by many things. It may be what is best for the party -- it may be what is best for the party in their particular state or district. For example, Gov Henry of OK just declared for Obama even though his state went for HRC in the primary by a decent margin. Why? Maybe because he thinks Obama is best for the party nationally. Maybe he thinks Obama would be best for the party in OK notwithstanding the vote in the primary. Maybe its because he wants a position in an Obama administration.

You are absolutely right that the SDs will weigh a variety of factors, of which popular vote -- either nationally or locally -- will be only one.

Thanks again

[Big Blue Marble]

11. You may be comfortable with the rationalization

that those who vote early should not have their votes count as much. I am not sure that
they would agree with you. Where does that buyer's remorse show in the national polling.
RCP has Obama up by 9.7 over HRC nationally. According to your argument, he has sunk
like a stone in the national consciousness and only the Supers can save us.

Also according to RCP, He is beating McCain by more than she is.
Your argument just went flat.

In regards to NH, I agree. He would beat her now.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

[nichomachus]

14. If the PA vote were held in January

Hillary, according to the polls, would have come in 25-30 points above Obama, instead of 9 points. So, things do change over time.

I'm comfortable with that rationale.

[Big Blue Marble]

16. Your logic does not hold up.

If the PA vote were in January, Obama would have campaigned there.
Those numbers would have dropped just as they did in April.
He may have even done better than in April. There was no controversies
as Rev. Wright etc.

I repeat your argument would only have validity if his national polls slipped
way beneath HRC's. The opposite has happened. There is no justification
to "rescue" the party from Obama.

[nichomachus]

17. yes and no

He wouldn't have been able to campaign as hard or as long, because he would have had to be in Iowa and New Hampshire at the same time. Also, because Hillary was the presumed winner, he wouldn't have had the resources. This is the reason they spread the primaries out.

Going into PA this time, he had more money, more name recognition, and more time to campaign than he would have had in January.

[Big Blue Marble]

18. Your are right that he has a significant financial advantage

now. Even in January he was on financial equal footing with Hillary. He matched her pretty much dollar
for dollar all of last year. His track record has shown that he can increase his numbers in each
state as he campaigns there in the closing weeks of each primary. That would have been likely
to be true in PA in January as well.

Whether or not either candidate would have done better or worse if the primary were held at a differnet
time is really moot. Given the results in California, it was the early voting that gave Clinton her
significant edge on Feb 5th. A later vote there as was traditional, might have given California to
Obama. If so the race would now be totally over.

But remember your underlying argument is that the Supers have the right to reconsider and reverse
the primary election process. I am saying that would should only happen if the bottom completely
fell out of Obama's national support. His national support is has been over the last two months
always above or close to Clinton's. That does reflect that there is no buyer's remorse from
the early voters. Unless that changes, the Supers cannot risk discounting his wins and and
giving the nomination to Clinton.

[SoCalDem]

20. "...The people in IA and NH were working on much more limited information...."

You got THAT right.. They never knew what a B**** Hillary really was :rofl:

[BzaDem]

21. Only on DU would a poster actually attack one person one vote.

If you told me 2 years ago that there would be a whole army of people on a message board that would be so hostile to one person one vote, I would have assumed they were drunk.

You go on and keep arguing that where you live should determine the weight of your vote. Just keep in mind that you are making the same argument slaveholders used in 1789. Slaveholders wanted votes to be weighted by how many slaves were in each state (hence the 3/5 compromise and the electoral college).

[last_texas_dem]

22. Your argument that tallying the popular vote in this series

of primaries and caucuses has anything to do with "one person, one vote" is ridiculous. Perhaps if the system worked where all fifty states held primaries on the same day, all conducted in a similar way (all open, all closed, etc.), you might have a point. But comparing the vote tallies generated by different contests, held on different days at different times, just flat-out makes no sense. The sudden championing of the "popular vote" regarding the Democratic primary process appears to be totally disingenuous to me.

Also, I think the poster a few above here who points out the problem of comparing votes cast at different points along the way makes a good point as well. As a former Edwards supporter, it makes me think about the voters in the earlier states who voted for Edwards when they still had that option. How would they have voted, later down the line, having to choose between Clinton and Obama? This is just another reason that the consideration of the popular vote in these contests is flawed.

I am one of the biggest advocates of eliminating the Electoral College around, and your whole "slavery" argument is a total reach. "One person, one vote" does not exist in the current Democratic (or Republican) primary process. I mean, the fact that we have "superdelegates" is perhaps the most glaring evidence there is that it does not. Minus some major reforms of the system (and it's far too late in the game for that, in terms of this election cycle) there is no way that the different votes cast in different states during this primary process can fairly be compared to each other.