Newflash: It's not all about the pledged delegates anymore

[NJSecularist]

Pledged delegates are used as a means towards the automatic nomination of a candidate. Since neither candidate will have enough pledged delegates to achieve nomination before the convention, their impact is diminished.

If my fellow Obama supporters expect to "it's all about the pledged delegates" meme to hold up as we go towards the convention, they will be very dissapointed. This race can, will and should be decided based on popular vote and performances in several key swing states. Racking up wins in solid GOP caucus and primary states is nice, but it should not have any impact on how we choose our nominee. The margins of victory in some of the GOP caucus states are fools gold and it's not in the best interests of our party to decide our nominee based on those delegate margins given our chances of winning some of these heavy red states are little to none.

I expect a articulate, well-reasoned and passionate debate as we move towards the convention about who our nominee should be, but simply repeating the "it's all about pledged delegates" meme is not a convincing argument given the unique circumstances we are in.

[DesertFlower]

1. you are absolutely right. nt

[Omega3]

2. you're right, he's racked up delegates in red states to run up his total but hasn't really proven

anything. He's a paper tiger being propped by repukes in open primaries with a repuke contest over for a long time now - hence the ability to crossover and mess up our election. I think the mainstream, long-term Democrat prefers Hillary.

His strategy is actually quite smart until you realise that delgates from WY, ND, ID, UT, AK, AL, GA, SC, LA, VI are not going to translate into electoral college wins in November. Paper tiger.

[GarbagemanLB]

18. Propped up by repukes? I take it you don't consider Texas a win for Hillary, then, because they help

ed her?

[Omega3]

37. if she hadn't won in TX you'd be calling for her to drop out, look at percent of delagates from red

states and he's the one winning far more states that won't go blue in the GE.

[Kittycat]

67. She didn't win TX.

And your blue state theory doesn't hold water either. I'm assuming you've seen the electoral map from SUSA?

[SoCalDem]

73. Did Gore win those states? Kerry? and yet

but for NH in '00 and Ohio in '04 we'd be RE-electing a dem president or electing a vice president after an 8 year term..

and there are states becides those which ARE in play for Obama..that are NOT for HRC.


The popular vote is not all that relevant in the primary season becase SO many of Obama's wins were caucuses with very small numbers.. and YET, he's still AHEAD in the popular vote.. Had those been primary states his popular vote number might be HUGE ..

The DNC set this up as a DELEGATE race, and with the dreaded sooooopers there will be a difinitive winner..

The people who flocked to the party came because of HIM.. it does not translate into a swap for her.. she LOSES those newly-inspired people who will be TURNED OFF and tuned OUT..and she loses most of the people BC alienated in SC, because if it's "given" to HRC and HE has more delegates, they will bolt..and may be forever turned off..

[susankh4]

112. This would be a wash

because alot of old guard Dems won't vote for him.

That's the way it goes.... and we really need to do something to unite the old guard with the newbies. Or we are all doomed in November.

[cooolandrew]

103. Far better than a paper trail of lies. Dishonesty is not the best policy all we have seen form HRC.

[cooolandrew]

104. Far better than a paper trail of lies. Dishonesty is not the best policy all we have seen form HRC.

[Sulawesi]

3. No.

The popular vote is not appropriate, some states were caucuses, others primaries, weighted differently.

Key states is bogus unless you consider how each candidate runs against MCCAIN. This talk of HRC winning better states is bogus. Just because BO lost NY to HRC does not mean he loses it to McCain for example.

If the pledged delegates are very close, and if there is ab obvious weakness with the top candidate, maybe.

Otherwise it is just not fair.

I think this is articulate, and well reasoned, but it concludes the pledged delegates are the key, except under very special circumstances that have never been encountered.

[Omega3]

caucuses are undemocratic- there are over 59K register Dems in WY, under 9K voted in the caucus

[wileedog]

6. And March during an election year is not the time to debate that

If you throw out the influence of caucuses this year you "disenfranchise" every caucus state just as badly as FL or MI.

[Exilednight]

16. If you think a caucus is undemocratic, then you should be more worried about SD's.

[fujiyama]

24. I agree that caucuses are unfair to many

but this was something that should have been argued about BEFORE they took place. Hillary knew the rules before entering the race. So did Obama. He just did a better job mobilizing his support at them.

[shraby]

31. Primaries are no more democratic..only a percentage

of the registered voters participate in them.

[RBInMaine]

41. Obama would have beaten her anyway, BIGTIME.

In the red caucus states (and others like ours in Maine) they have had record turnouts and he has blown her away. OBVIOUSLY he still would have if they were primaries. THEY DON'T LIKE HILLARY OUT MIDWEST/WEST AND MANY PLACES IN THE SOUTH. SHE TENDS TO DO SHITTY IN PLACES WITHOUT CLINTON MACHINE POLITICS. End of story. Obama is by far the best NATIONAL candidate.

[Milo_Bloom]

62. You do realize we don't live in a democracy, right?

Further, the primary process is about selecting a candidate, not selecting the governing representative.

The idea is to get the most interested people to choose a candidate to represent the party values. There is no reason for every single person to participate in that specific process.


Caucuses often work better towards those goals, as caucus voters are often more dedicated and possibly more informed.

[dchill]

88. And that 9k is 12X...

the number who voted in the 2004 WY Caucuses.

[susankh4]

113. This is a VERY serious problem

and it really needs to be looked at for the next round of primaries.

I will say one thing good is happening this season: we are all getting an education! State by state we are seeing how fixxed, how prone to bullying and coersion, this whole process really is.

[NJSecularist]

7. Let me explain

When I refer to "key states", I am not talking about safe Democratic states like California, Illinois and New York. Nor am I talking about safe Republican states like Texas, Alabama and Georgia.

When I say key states, I am talking about the swing states that will decide this election. Iowa, New Hampshire, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, New Mexico, Colorado, Missouri, etc.

The nomination should not be decided by pledged delegates, but by a careful debate of the popular vote and/or the candidate's relative strengths in each of these swing states.

[Sulawesi]

36. Why have primaries at all?

All the states you cite? It does not really matter whether HRC beats BO, or vice versa, all that matters is how they do versus McCain. Primaries help us with that, in a way.

The thing is that if HRC is the nom, there are new key states...NC, GA, IL...it is not that simple. This is not 2000, 2004, CO is in play, VA in play, Obama changing the map.

[JackORoses]

59. Obama will carry all those states in the General

Hillary cannot carry Colorado or Virginia.

You are dead wrong when you say that Popular vote carries more weight than Delegates.
If this was the case, then they would not even award delegates.
Yet they do, why?
Because they are the measure of victory.

What is the true purpose of this OP. Are you sure you support Obama?

[susankh4]

114. This is correct......

and we have yet to hear a serious evaluation by anyone in the know.

[Exilednight]

21. I fully agree. No matter who has the most pledged delegates, they should be the nominee. What .....

good is a system if you don't follow it?

Caucuses are weighted differently and can not be compared to primaries, and this late in the game is not the time to argue whether they are right or wrong.

[BzaDem]

107. The popular vote is very relevant.

What the popular vote does, is it gives 1 caucusgoer in a caucus state the same voting power as 1 voter in a primary state. WHAT A CONCEPT! It doesn't weight them any differently.

[leftofcool]

4. It never has been

but Obama would have you believe that

[wileedog]

5. Its not a 'meme'

Its a fact.

If the SDs turn over the PDs there is going to be a complete fucking shitstorm brought on by the MSM and driven by the Republicans.

That fact blows every other theory away.

Debate all you want in the most eloquent terms you can about big states, swing states, electability, etc.

Doesn't fucking matter.

If they overturn the system the party is going to be ripped in two. There will be no trust in Dems as long as Superdelegates exist, because people are going to wonder why they bother voting. The party elite - the Clinton Crowd - is just going to pick who they want anyway.

[NJSecularist]

12. Most voters are not aware how the pledged delegate system works

So we can throw that argument out of the window.

In reality, the only people who will be offended will be the hardcore supporters of the Democratic party who know the nooks and crannies of the delegate system, but they will likely come back to the party anyway.

[wileedog]

25. Are you kidding?

You really don't think the MSM and Republican party will take gobs of time to explain to them just how badly the Democratic party just screwed over their own voters?

Plus I don't agree with you. Anyone who takes the time to vote knows what the Electoral College is - saying we should nominate who we want because people are ignorant doesn't sound like a system I want to be a part of.

Why do you?

[NJSecularist]

39. Pledged delegates are used as an automatic process to select a nominee

Since neither candidate has enough pledged delegates to win the nomination by themselves, as I said, their importance is diminished.

Would you rather select the nominee for our ticket that has been carefully analyzed to be a better GE candidate, or would you rather choose the nominee based on a flawed pledged delegate system that gives more importance to large wins in solid GOP states than wins in swing states like Missouri, Ohio, Florida and Virginia?

[wileedog]

58. I would rather not be told

That the opinion of Wyoming is irrelevant because they are a caucus state that is usually Red. WTF is that?

And I certainly don't trust a small group of political party hacks to sit in a room and decide who THEY think is the most electable. What kind of precedent does that set? How do we know what moron will use that in the future to REALLY fuck things up?

BTW, I sincerely hope you are not one of the same idiots clamoring that MI and FL need to be seated so no one is "disenfranchised"

[NJSecularist]

63. I have never advocated seating MI and FL

unless re-votes occur.

The fact of the matter is that Wyoming is irrelevant at this point to the Democrats. It has no chance of going blue. That is the truth. The same thing applies to many other solid GOP states like Georgia, North Carolina, Alabama, etc.

[wileedog]

74. OK, so who gets to choose

in your system what states matter.

Where does CO fit in. Matter or not?

How about MO? WI? Where do we draw the line on a state that matters or a state that doesn't?

And more importantly, WHO gets to make that decision? Superdelegates? Based on what, their superior campaign contributions?

And most importantly, what about this reminds you even remotely of a democratic process?

[NJSecularist]

82. CO, MO and WI matter.

We have data going back years and years that tells us which states are swing states and which states are solid Republican. We will target the swing states and ignore the solid red states that we have no chance of winning.

Any other questions?

[wileedog]

96. What we don't have

is data predicting future performance.

The South used to be solidly Democratic, remember?

Again, what you are proposing is Kingmaking. The very epitome of some powerful Democratic elites sitting in a "smoke filled room" and deciding who the nominee is, rendering the entire voting process null and void.

You want to play that game and still expect Democrats to come back and vote in the GE or for primaries in 2012 you are completely nuts.

[Exilednight]

30. More people are aware than you think. Super Delegate is announced every minute of every....

day on cable news.

My sister, who's dumb as a box of rocks, even knows how the SD system now works, well at least on the most basic level.

[earthlover]

8. It's all about electing President McCain....

If you go against the will of the Democratic voters in the primary, that is, it is all about electing President McCain!

I know you want to be able to rationalize going against the will of the Democratic races. But have you come up with a way to...something to say to...the millions of voters who thought their votes had some meaning....and be able to tell them that in spite of their votes and their enthusiasm, the SDs have decided what is best for them? HUH? What is it you are going to say to these people?

Unless you can come up with some pretty convincing stuff, we are going to have a divided party going into the election if Hillary is annointed the nomination in spite of the will of the people.

Do you have any persuasive arguements why these people should not think they were screwed?

[Omega3]

9. what % of his delagates come from Red states that won't go blue in the GE? His % is much higher > HC

[earthlover]

13. so what? they are still democrats. they still voted. their votes count goddamnit!

Hillary does not give a shit about their votes? Is that what you are saying?

[Omega3]

19. how many votes = 1 del in WY? versus votes in Oh, CA, NY to = 1 del, please stop with this, his red

state delagates are not equal to the blue state votes, coupled withthe fact we won't win his red states.

[earthlover]

105. the system we have in place is for every state to have delegates

they all count. period. whether from a red or a blue state.

That's why we call ourselves the Democratic Party. Not the Blue State Regional Party.

The Hillary Herd is stretching the logic to try to make some gains for their Herd Leader. That's what this is all about.

But it doesn't make consistent sense. Florida was a red state the past two presidential elections. So was Ohio. But the Hillary Herd is saying THESE red states are important, right? And Texas for that matter. And new hampshire is not always blue.

Much better to just acknowledge that we are a national party and some of our members live in red states. The logic of your position is basically telling Democrats in red states to bug off!

[BzaDem]

108. The question isn't whether they count. It is a question of how much they count.

A Wyoming delegate represents (8000 votes / 12 delegates) = 666 voters.
A Texas primary delegate represents (2,800,000 votes / 126 delegates) = 22,000 voters.

We aren't saying Wyoming "shouldn't count." We are saying that voters in Wyoming should count equally as much as voters in Texas and any other state.

Luckily, pledged delegates aren't dispositive, and superdelegates can take this into account.

[earthlover]

119. You don't change the rules in the middle of the game

Comparing states with caucuses (low vote totals) to primary states with high vote totals is comparing apples to horses!

If the SDs find a way to deny the nomination to whichever candidate who won the primaries/caucuses....there will be consequenses. The two that stand out: a) a divided Democratic Party and b) President John McCain

[NJSecularist]

20. Stop with this strawman argument

Your argument is based not in logic, but in passion. We need to be practical here given we are in a unique circumstance - a circumstance some of us have never seen in our lifetimes. The truth of the matter is that Democratic voters in states such as Missouri, Ohio, Florida, Colorado, etc, should be of more importance to us than in Democratic voters in states such as Utah, Wyoming, Texas, Georgia, Alabama, etc.

[wileedog]

32. Yeah, fuck the people

Why are we bothering with primaries at all? We can just get a few people in a room, decide who is the most electable, and go from there.

Great plan!

[Omega3]

34. thank you, why can't other see this?????????

we will NOT win WY, AK, ID, KS, ND, NE, AL, SC, GA, LA,

give up the ghost

[earthlover]

52. Why the hell can't you see this? THe democratic party has rules!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They determine the delegates in advance for each state, according to the rules therein.

Obama had a smart strategy. He had a 50 state strategy. Hillary had a dumb-as-hell strategy. she thought she would be annointed by Super Tuesday and pretty much ignored the other states. Too fucking bad.

Now the Hillary Herd is trying to say all these Democrats don't count. What a crock of shit!

They voted. They organized. They did everything the Democrats did in the Hillary states. The only thing that they did differently is that they didn't vote for Hillary! If they voted for Hillary YOU would be saying they counted. But they didn't and YOU DON'T GIVE JACK SQUAT ABOUT THEM! And you call yourself a DEMOCRAT? HUH?

The Democratic Party has rules. They divvy up delegates to ALL the states, not just to the Blue states. If you don't like the rules, shut up!

[earthlover]

81. Actually, no, they shouldn't! We should abide by the rules set forth before the election started!

We can't change the rules in the middle of the game. All the states matter. If you have a problem with that, change the rules for 2012.

This is not just about Hillary.

We also need to win congressional races. The problem with not having a 50 state strategy is we wind up with not enough congress-critters to do anything.

[susankh4]

116. You mean the rules that

stated Superdelegates are free agents? Leaders... not followers?

[earthlover]

120. I was referring to this quote....

"The truth of the matter is that Democratic voters in states such as Missouri, Ohio, Florida, Colorado, etc, should be of more importance to us than in Democratic voters in states such as Utah, Wyoming, Texas, Georgia, Alabama, etc."

I strongly disagree with the sentiment here. We can't tell good Democrats to bug off or that their voices won't count as much unless we want to write off these states forever! Don't forget Ohio and Florida have been red states for awhile. The irony here is pretty rich!

Yes the super delegates have a role to play. But all this bs about some state's delegates being more equal than other states' delegates is Orwellian hogwash. If they find a way to usurp the voice of the primaries and caucuses, they will divide the Democratic Party and lead to the election of President John McCain.

[pampango]

115. I think some would prefer that we only have primaries and caucuses in states

we can win in the GE. The idea seems to be that Democrats who live in states that usually go Republican should have no say in who or what type of candidate we should have.

Perhaps in 2012 we should only have primaries and caucuses in states that we win or come within say 5% in 2008. We can cede the rest of the country permanently to the Republicans. :banghead:

[wileedog]

14. Doesn't matter

Kerry wasn't the best match in any way shape or form to try and capture Red states was he?

But the electorate spoke and he was nominated. There wasn't a cabal of SDs huddled in a room thinking "Hey, you know Edwards could probably get us a couple of southern states that John has no chance at."

If they turn this over they are beyond fucking stupid, and deserve the huge loss coming to them.

[NJSecularist]

10. Pledged delegates do not equal popular votes

[Omega3]

11. this is correct -----1 del in WY = 666 votes, 1 del in OH= about 15,000 votes

[earthlover]

23. one is a caucus, the other is an election...another reason Obama shines

If Wyoming had a primary, he would of course get more votes but you conveniently ignore this fact....do you guys even try to be fair?

[BzaDem]

109. If Wyoming had a primary, HRC would also get a ton more votes

and the margin would be MUCH smaller. Just look at WA, where there was a 36 point caucus margin but a 6 point primary margin. Or Texas, where there was a 4 point margin for HRC in the primary but a ~10 point win for BO in the caucus.

[SoCalDem]

117. AND the one thing that no one wants to talk about

EVERYONE KNEW HOW EACH STATE VOTES...
B E F O R E THE PRIMARY/CAUCUS SEASON STARTED..


Each started out with about the same amount of money.,. actually HRC had MORE..she had the name recognition (how she won Calif..because 2.5Million absentee ballots were sent out before Obama won Iowa))and she has been "running" for 7 1/2 years.. she should have had her plan figured out

They ALL knew the rules ..She planned to be "all done and selected on Feb 5"...The fact that SHE did not plan ahead is not BHO's fault..

He won all those states because he can plan, and knows how to manage money and a campaign..

Presidents have to be able to manage situations and plan ahead... not have MPD snit-fits and claim that it's so unfair..and then demand that rules get changed so he can win..

He's been ahead since the beginning, and has not gone negative like HRC's group has.. he just plods ahead, racking up more delegates..he;s got his eye on the prize.. She's got her eye on HIM and only to bring him down to her level.. He's not biting..

[Sulawesi]

45. Show me the post where you argued this point before HRC started getting her ass handed to her in

the caucuses...

We are here now with caucus results. If you use the popular vote you are disenfranchising the voters of Iowa relative to VA.

Look beyond your allegiances for a minute. You are like a team behind in the 9th, protesting that games should be 10 innings long.

[earthlover]

15. obama leads in both pledged delegates AND popular votes.

Of course none of these votes count because the only votes that count are in hillary states!

[Omega3]

22. not among registered Dems

all these repukes voting for him will vote mclame in novemeber, you will be disappointed.

[earthlover]

29. just how fucking far are you going to move the goal posts?

Obama has more votes period.

[apocalypsehow]

47. They are going to try and move them however far it takes for their Queen to get her coronation.

They've been doing it for months now, and getting quite bent out of shape whenever another round of Democratic primary voters puts a stop to it.

[earthlover]

33. i think it is clear that a lot of repukes voted for hillary in oh and TX

Rush had an impact. in fact, more voted for Hillary than Obama!

[BzaDem]

110. Um, that is completely false.

According to the CNN Exit poll, republicans voted 52-47 for OBAMA. You can see this at www.cnn.com/election after clicking TX and then TX exit poll. Stop making up stuff please. Thanks.

[fujiyama]

38. Do you get those numbers by voter roles

or exit polls?

Either way, I don't find it a terribly accurate way of selecting our candidates.

Look, if you want to work for all closed primaries, the more power to you. I wish you luck in that effort for 2012.

But the system we have now allows for some open and closed primaries, caucuses, and weird systems in between (like TX). And just because Hillary did a shitty job mobilizing her supporters in "red" states, we have to debate this further.

[wileedog]

17. Which is irrelevant

because we don't elect anyone by popular vote.

[NJSecularist]

28. This is a unique case

Pledged delegates are not indicative of whom has a better chance to win in the general election. Popular vote isn't the best way either, but it's certainly a better way of determining who should be nominated - and who has a better chance to win in the GE - than pledged delegates.

[wileedog]

43. Again

An "Election" is not sitting down and analyzing who is the most electable. It is listening to the will of the voters.

If you have a problem with the Pledged Delegate system bring it up with the FOunding Fathers - they are the ones who installed a representational democracy - a republic.

In the meantime, I suggest you read my posts again about the consequences of overturning the PDs and think about them.

p.s. this is not a 'unique situation', and even if it was that doesn't make it an excuse to throw out the opinions of states that "don't matter"

[NJSecularist]

75. The system is designed to listen to the will of the voters

But if the American people can't near unanimously choose a candidate, the next step of the process is for the system to chose the most electable candidate.

The American people have been split 50/50 over whom to nominate. Now this process goes to the superdelegates, party elders, and Democratic officials.

[wileedog]

80. Its not 50/50

The popular vote counts don't reflect caucus states.

The system is predicated on Pledging Delegates. One candidate has a commanding lead in those delegates.

I'm not sure what exactly more you need to see, other than your candidate having that lead.

And again, if you go against the pre-agreed upon system you are going to royally piss off the electorate. Honestly the Dems might be better off losing for 4 years of McCain then pulling this stunt.

[shraby]

26. Caucuses are the mode of choosing

a candidate in many states, and has been for years. What are you going to do, throw out all those states votes that caucused? On what premise can this possibly be considered? You can't change the rules in the middle or end of the game. If caucuses are not to be considered, that is a rule that must be made before one vote is cast.

[NJSecularist]

48. I have never advocated the removal of the caucus system

The caucus results in key states like Iowa and Nevada are very important and should be considered. What I have said is that wins in GOP caucuses or primaries should be taken with a grain of salt.

[ruggerson]

27. 100% agreed

and if Hillary does not make a convincing showing of it in the popular vote in PA, FL and MI (if they hold revotes) - enough to emerge with a popular vote lead - she does not deserve the nomination.

[RBInMaine]

35. Here is why you logic sooooooooo FLAWED.

To write off the "red state" means hanging all of the DEM state and local candidates out to dry. What the Hillary people forget is that MANY of these "red" states have MANY Dem office holders. Iowa, Arizona, Montana, Kansas, Colorado, Virginia, ... all have Dem Governors, and we have many Dem congressional members in these states. The old worn out
pre-Dean 20-state strategy is a LOSER. Obama has won 29 contests compared to 13 for Hillary. WE NEED A CANDIDATE WHO CAN HELP THE ENTIRE TICKET, AND, YES, EVEN IN THE REDDEST OF RED STATES. You want to just blow off these states. THEY MATTER !! Your thinking spells DOOM for our party. Obama has the coattails. HILLARY DOES NOT !! Many of our Dems in these wouldn't want to be seen with her. HALF THE COUNTRY DISDAINS HER !! Face reality my friend.

[Omega3]

42. again, if you want to win the WH stop propping up all these red states, they won't help us in Nov.

BO has gotten a much larger % of his delegates from there.

[Sulawesi]

51. that is crap...I live in VA, Obama will take it, HRC will not...this is not 2000!

[Omega3]

70. Kerry lost it by 8%, why will Obama be any different, esp. in a border south state like that.

where does that 8% come from ?

[wileedog]

83. The fact that Obama is not Kerry?

And the rest of the country who didn't hate Bush before has pretty much figured it out? I'm sure as your candidate can tell you 8% is hardly insurmountable - Obama just shaved 20 off Texas on her.

Seriously, why give up states before we even try? Isn't that just dooming them to ALWAYS being Red states forever?

[Sulawesi]

101. Obama is ahead here, we are coming off Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, Webb...

VA is in play with Obama...HRC hands it off to McCain without a fight...

but the point is VA is not the only one...look at SC, GA, NC...with Obama we can cut into the GOP base and put them in play. BO is our chance to play offense. The fact that the HRC peeps cannot see this is a constant source of amazement to me, yet they try to sell me the bridge that we need HRC for NY...jeez

[RBInMaine]

65. You are discounting the "purple states" and the big picture.

Your logic remains stale and FOOLISH. WE NEED TO BE A 50-STATE PARTY. Why in hell are you stuck-in-the-past pro-Hillary
Washington-establishement people so opposed to that?? Obama can better help us down-ticket which gives our party a stronger national mandate and bodes much better for the future. HE WILL WIN THE "BIG BLUE STATES" ANYWAY. You seem to be confusing a primary with a general election as far as the "big blue states". Are you telling me he would lose Mass., NJ, NY, and CA in the general election? CERTAINLY NOT !!
And he would do as well as Hillary if not better in OH and FL because he carries so many more I's and crossover R's. AND, we need to be able to flip places like Virginia, Louisiana, Colorado, etc.
MANY of our down-ticket candidates won't go near Hillary because the populace in their states despise her. Please come into the present, think big picture, and think what is best for the ENTIRE party and not just the Clintons.

[earthlover]

77. Unless we turn some red states blue we will have the same electoral vote total as last time

In other words, we lose!

Apparently the Hillary Herd thinks it a bad thing to expand the democratic victories, they just want to cling on to the states that gave us defeat in the past two elections.

I live in Virginia. Obama could win VA. Hillary can't. Obama could win MO. hillary can't. Obama could win Nevada. Hillary can't. Obama could win new hampshire, Hillary is behind McCain there. Obama could win Washington, Oregon....Hillary is losing to McCain in these states.

You go up and down the electoral map, and Obama wins, Hillary loses. The only way hillary wins is if she wins Florida....don't hold your breath.

But back to the issue at hand....the Democratic party divvies up delegates to ALL the states, not just to the Blue states.

If you have a problem with that, try to change the rules for 2012. Until then, obey today's rules and quit the complaining.

[NJSecularist]

60. Wait..

I have mentioned states such as Iowa, Colorado and Virginia as particular points of interest... states where we need to evaluate the data to determine whom our nominee should be. Each of those states should play a big role in whom we select as our nominee.

In states such as Arizona, Montana and Kansas, we stand very little chance to win any of them in November. They are less important and margins of victories in those states by either candidate is fools gold and should not determine our nominee.

[JackORoses]

40. I give up on you. If you think Pledged delegates are unimportant then you are deluded.

Pledged delegates are the only representation of all states.
Many Caucus states aren't included in the Popular Vote Total.

And winning a swing state in the Democratic Primary has no direct relation to winning it in the General Election.

The unique circumstance is that Hillary cannot catch up,
yet she continues.

She is counting on people like you buying her arguments. It is sad really. You give her campaign life with threads like this.

The Superdelegates know what the true measure of public support is.
They will not overrule the Pledged delegates, but nice try though.

[Omega3]

55. all delegates are not equal, some take 665 votes to equal 1, some 15,000votes to equal 1, it's not

who won Kansas or Alaska or Idaho, forget them, they're lost. It's pumped up his total but delegates do not equal the popular vote. Among registered Democrats it's Hillary who's won.

[JackORoses]

69. keep telling yourself that, and you will be seriously disappointed when you get proven wrong

The System is not based on Popular vote. It is based on representational distribution of Delegates.

That is it.
If you have a problem with the system then that's one thing,
but your dislike for it doesn't change the rules as they exist.

Delegates are the measure of Victory. Always have been.

[Omega3]

79. there's nothing representative when different vote totals equal 1 delegate. enjoy your vicotories in

Kansas, Utah, Montana, Idaho, Alaska, Georgia et all, I'm glad they might give BO the Dem nom but they sure as hell won't give him the WH in Nov. the only ppl around here who will be dissappinted are BO supporters.

[JackORoses]

90. how many votes equals a delegate is dependent on turnout and is different for each state

That's just the way it is. It has always been like this.

Delegates are the measure of Victory. Just because you don't like it doesn't change the fact.

And you are seriously mistaken if you think you can determine what is going to happen in the GE based on the Democratic Primary.
They are wholly different contests.

Obama will crush McCain. And sadly, you will probably be disappointed at this.
But the rest of us will be ecstatic.

[Cha]

91. I've given up on

'im, too..I came all the way down here to see if I could get a reasoned response to what I thought was just a distraction by the OP. Thanks.

And, Altair explains this very well in this OP..

"Why popular vote totals are irrelevant for the election ...
If we are going to use the popular vote as the scorecard, then that means that the numerous states which have chosen to use caucuses as their party voting method will inevitably be disenfranchised. Caucuses inevitably have far fewer participants than primaries, but many states find it necessary to use them, in part because they are much less expensive or because the states are sparesely populated, as with Wyoming and Idaho.

But let's first look at New Hampshire and Maine- two very similar states geographically and population-wise.

New Hampshire population: appx. 1,300,000
Maine population: appx. 1,300,000

As it happens, Maine chose to have a caucus, while New Hampshire chose to have a primary. Each is a perfectly legitimate choice under the Democratic party's rules. No one even suggested to Maine that it was somehow a second-class state as a result of this decision. To the contrary, New Hampshire and Maine have a very similar number of delegates to offer- 22 in the case of New Hampshire and 24 in the case of Maine.

Now, let's compare the vote count in the New Hampshire primary with that in the Maine caucus on the Real Clear Politics popular vote tracker:.."

<lots more>
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4992119

And, NJSecularlist..you're not an Obama supporter even if you think you are.

[JVS]

44. I heartily encourage Hillary to give up the hunt for pledged delegates.

It's all about delegates. If Hillary continues losing states by 60-40 splits, she's going to need way more supers than Obama will need. Also, she will have wowed them all by her ability not to get votes.

[fujiyama]

46. They can debate it as much as they want

Hillary can throw as much of a fit as she wants. The simple fact is, she knew this was about pledged delegates and winning delegates and because she had the great foresight to ignore most states, she's TRAILING.

Why didn't she just run a better campaign earlier on? Was she planning on running for the "President of the Swing States of America"?

[high density]

49. If it's not about pledged delegates, why did we all bother voting?

Why hold the caucuses and primaries yet to come? Why spend perhaps millions on re-votes in MI and FL?

Why do we give delegates to the red states? Why do we have super delegates in the red states?


What you are saying does not match reality. It doesn't matter if you append "anymore" to it or not.

[NJSecularist]

54. Wow, way to extrapolate my argument into something it isn't

When have I ever said that people's votes don't matter?

[high density]

57. Umm, when you said "it's not about pledged delegates"

what you are saying is that the people's votes don't matter.

[Omega3]

66. ppl's votes matter but why are some delegates worth 665 votes and some worth 15,000 votes? you can't

deny that his delegate totals are artificially pumped up by these RED state victories whereby 1 delegate traditionally equals less votes than in other states.

[wileedog]

85. Ask the Founding Fathers

But they would probably say because they didn't want a country ruled by a few large states imposing their will on everyone else.

Do you have a problem with the Senate? I mean why should Rhode Island have as much influence there as Texas?

[wileedog]

64. Several times in this thread actually

[NJSecularist]

71. Care to give examples?

I have said that in several states like Wyoming and Utah, it doesn't matter how well our candidates do. We will lose those states and we will lose them big in November.

[wileedog]

87. Which translates to

their votes don't matter. So we shouldn't take them into account when we decide who the nominee is.

Where am I mis-interpreting you?

[NJSecularist]

92. I am saying that Democratic voters in certain states matter more than others.

[wileedog]

97. Which is what Hillary thought

And why she has lost.

[seabeyond]

50. of course not cause hillary cant win that way..... n/t

[OhioBlue]

53. Obama is a better strategist

he knew how to win more pledged delegates. Hillary didn't plan beyond Super Tuesday and she ignored some States.

Obama will be a better strategist for the General Election as he has already shown better judgment for the Primary.

[Omega3]

61. BO has more delegates from rural western red states where smaller #'s of votes give him a delegate,

it won't work in the GE

[wileedog]

68. Which doesn't matter not at all

Welcome to Democracy.

[Omega3]

72. welcome to President McCain

[wileedog]

86. If that is the will of the people

So be it.

[OhioBlue]

76. The point is he had a plan that didn't leave out any States

His plan was better for the Primary than Hillary's. He showed better judgment. His plan for the General Election will not be the same as the Primary. My money would be that the plan that his campaign has for the General will be better than the one that Hillary has for the General as he has already shown better judgment.

[MattP]

56. Coattails

Hillary doesn't care about coattails, just like Bill didn't his coattails were so short that we lost in historic fashion for the first time in 50 years to the GOP and look at the damage it did.

[David Zephyr]

78. In other words, you just want to cheat, huh?

600,000 more votes than Hillary.

Over 100 pledged delegates.

27 state victories to her paltry 14.

[BeyondGeography]

84. Just cut the bullshit and stop posing as an Obama supporter

:eyes:

[ruggerson]

95. Must not hef any deviation from ze party line

KILL HER! KILL HER!

[writes3000]

89. You are only HALF right.

Pledged delegates do matter. They have to be taken into consideration. You say the public doesn't understand it. They will understand it for sure if the superdelegates decide to overturn it. This will create a firestorm that hasn't been seen since Bush/Gore in 2000.

BUT pledged delegates won't get anyone over the top so it's on to the superdelegates. As I stated above, they are going to need an extraordinary reason to act in a way they haven't acted in over 30 years when they were instituted. Maybe popular vote sways some of them but I don't think it will sway all of them. And I don't think Clinton can overtake Obama in popular vote in any significant way.

Clinton's one trump card she could have played is the sexism card. She could claim that the party is keeping her from the nomination not because of less pledged delegates, not because of fewer states won, not because of vote counts but because the Democratic leadership is afraid of a woman in charge. 1) That argument is bull. 2) Obama has the racism card which nullifies hers.

Hillary can try to make the argument that she's more electable but there's no undeniable proof of that. They are fairly evenly matched. And because of that, the SDs will look to the pledged delegates and the less controversial position - which all favors Barack Obama.

[Stephanie]

93. Howard? Is that you?

Taking the spin out for a spin to see how it goes over?

[NoBushSpokenHere]

94. Look just because she won a few large states this winter

doesn't mean she can in November...nor does it mean that he can't. Furthermore, as I have stated before my dog catcher could beat McCain so please don't try to brainwash us on this subject!

[Gore1FL]

98. Popuar vopte doesn't work unl;ess you tell the caucus states to FO

The pledged delegates take voting population, electoral votes, and performance in the last the past 3 elections. The delegates are already allotments of the popular vote, and expected voter turnout.

Super Delegates use the pledged delegate vote count in a major way when making their decisions. Other factors include how their district voted and how their state voted, states won, etc.

After that the decision is based on "gut feelings." "Gut feelings" could mean anything from hairstyle, debate performance, GE polling, hopw their campaign was run, states in play with either candidate in a GE, their vote's effect on the party, or their baking ability.

The pledged delegate numbers are a pre-define agreed to accumulation of state importance in the GE. The distribution of those delegates provides an overview of GE pop vote predictions, and likely election strength. They are not arbitrarily assigned. They mean something. To dismiss their numbers is not rational. To impose other numbers that conflict with what they reflect is not rational either.

The super delegates can vote any damn way the see fit for any reason. Chances are though, most are up on the process not to follow skewed "popular vote" totals, who is more likely to win 4 specific states, or who someone's spouse it. To expect a 20%+ majority (in a best case scenario) to do so is silly and unrealistic. Most are going to want to be on the winning train before it leaves the station.

It isn't "all about the pledged delegates", but is the single most major factor that will govern the most of the decisions. That is how it works. If Obama goes to the convention with a high double digit or triple digit lead, and hasn't robbed a bank, he is going to be the nominee.

I rode the train you are talking about in 1984 and was crushed when reality came crashing down. I am older, wiser, have seen more, and involved more since then. Leavbe the pipe dreams to the plumbers.

[Singular73]

99. Yes, Hillary will lose her way to the nomination

Makes a lot of sense.

Some of you people are idiots. You understand that if Hillary wins, we ain't votin for her.

So have fun losing to McCain.

[Unsane]

100. With supporters like you he doesn't need enemies

[wileedog]

102. I think you have miscalculated the purpose of Superdelegates

They are not in place to decide who is the most electable, which states votes count, or what is the best way for HIllary to win, err, I mean to pick a particular candidate.

Their purpose was to ensure that someone completely un-viable, someone totally out of the blue, didn't beat the system and become the candidate.

Unless you can unequivocally prove that Obama is a fluke nutjob with a closet full of scandals and with no chance whatsoever of winning the GE, then you are in for a world of disappointment if you think the SDs will go against the vote.

You and others may not like him, but given his numbers and background it is going to be very, very hard to prove that. And impossible to sell to the electorate.

[bigtree]

106. wow, they sure turned on you fast!

no matter, you're correct that this should be an interesting debate. If the result has any taint of the party leaders choosing the nominee, there will be strong protests. Look closer at the argument about caucuses your fellow Obama supporters are raising in this thread. I think that's your blind side.

[Altair]

111. That Survey USA national electoral vote poll is a good start

[susankh4]

118. It's truly unfortunate that....

when you drag a bunch of political neophytes into a nominating process.... you just can't reason with them. They are adamant that their "man" be installed, even if the evidence is not there to support that he could win in November.

That's because their participation is about, and only about, their "man." The evidence suggests that many Obama voters don't even bother to vote downticket. Why is that? I could make a good guess: They don't know, or give a damn, about the Dem party. Or Dean's 50 state strategy. Or the ballot issues for that matter. They are participating in an "American Idol" voting process that will happily take the party down if that is what it takes.

(Note: I am not saying this of *all* Obama supporters. And I apologize in advance to those who did vote downticket. You know who you are.)

But, you know what? I am not even angry at the neophytes who don't understand how elections are strategized and won. They make up for their blindness with their energy.

The people I *am* angry at are the party elders who got us into this situation to begin with. Howard... "following my own rules" Dean, who apparently did not realize that the disenfranchisement of FLA and MI could result in a pledged delegate shortage???

Sens. Kennedy, Kerry and their ilk ..... who couldn't help being so shortsighted as to NOT EVEN ASK what would happen if we got to this point, of not having enough pledged delegates to go around, and they had already stated who they would support as Superdelegates.

WTF? What do we pay these folks for?? To make stupid decisions about which states to count and not count?? To egg on two minority populations with the promise of a "presidential first?" And not to see the potential cost of the high stakes in a race like this? Guess what we *really* need is a white guy in the white house, eh? So the scenario plays out..... "women and blacks can't be trusted. So emotional are their voters....."

We'll get a white guy in the white house alright. Mr. McCain is his name. And... then we'll get another White guy on the Dem ticket in 2012.