Bill Clinton: Now all of the delegates don't count - only popular vote - move those goal posts

[grantcart]

After Iowa it wasn't going to be the number of wins - "Its the number of delegates"

. . . Obama pulls ahead in delegates

Then it was Super Tuesday - "Whoever wins Super Tuesday is going to be the nominee of the party"

. . . Obama wins Super Tuesda

Then it was "February was a good month for Obama, but March will be a good month for me"

. . . .Obama wins more delegates in March

At the same time Bill is saying "She has to win Ohio and Texas and she will be the next nominee of the party"

. . . Obama narrowly loses in Texas, wins the caucus and wins more delegates in Texas

Then we had a brief interelude where delegates were split up into new cateogires - automatic delegates, elected delegates, caucus delegates

. . . Frankly didn't really get beyond the laugh stage- of course it could be that everyone was too lazy to re engineer their spreadsheets.

Well now all talk about delegates is gone - now who ever wins the popular vote will be the next nominee - of course this means that all of the caucus states are out because the turn out is much lower for a caucus than a primary. I guess they want to do away with delegates completely and simply have a popular vote decide it.

I wonder if that means that they are going to cancel the primaries that occur after Pennsylvania if HRC finally sneaks by Obama in popular vote.

I guess we can cancel the convention in Denver, the delegates are no longer needed.


(Moving the goal posts comes at 2:00)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xWuVc-xkwE

[MonkeyFunk]

1. Got a link

to a quote? I doubt he said what you claim.

[grantcart]

2. too lazy to hit the you tube link?

"I believe that by June she will have the popular vote . . and be the nominee of the party"

[MonkeyFunk]

9. So that's not what you claimed he said

There's nothing wrong with arguing that the popular vote winner should win. Most of us felt that way in 2000.

[phrigndumass]

15. Most of us felt that way *in the general election* in 2000

This isn't a general election, it's the contest to pick a Democratic nominee.

However, if one candidate wins pledged delegates and the other wins "popular" votes, it's logical to think they will split the superdelegates 50/50. If you add 50% of the superdelegates to a majority of the pledged delegates, you get a nominee.

[MonkeyFunk]

16. No, it's not "logical"

there's no reason to think that way, other than that it benefits your candidate so you really really want it to be true.

[phrigndumass]

19. Let's step into your shoes for a moment ...

How is this logical?

"Obama may win the pledged delegates, but Clinton will win the popular vote. Since Clinton will win the popular vote, she will earn the endorsements of at least three-fourths of the remaining superdelegates."

This seems to be what you're implying, without taking into account the numbers, and it's absolutely ludicrous.

Here's why it's ludicrous (and I'm being "kind" to Senator Clinton's figures):

If Obama wins pledged delegates 52% to 48%, that would be 1,694 pledged delegates, or 331 short of the goal. He already has about 213 superdelegates endorsing him, leaving him 118 of the remaining 333 superdelegates to endorse him for the nomination, or roughly 35%.

If Clinton wins "popular" vote by 52% to 48%. With 1,533 pledged delegates, or 489 short of the goal, she already has about 249 superdelegates endorsing her, leaving her 240 of the remaining 333 superdelegates to endorse her for the nomination, or roughly 72%.

:wow:

Edited to say: Her campaign can't even win a primary by that much, so what makes you think logically that she can win the remaining superdelegates by that percentage?

[styersc]

20. Neither candidate can hit the magic number so popular vote

is a perfectly reasonable means of choosing the candidate. I can't believe you are sitting there trying to devise a way of getting around the will of the majority of the voters.

[phrigndumass]

21. Show me where "popular vote only" gets you the nomination

Bill Clinton's argument was that Hillary Clinton will win the popular vote, thus garnering the most superdelegates needed to win the nomination.

You have to be a complete idiot to think that "only popular votes" (and no delegates whatsoever) will be what it takes to win the nomination, because the rules require a delegate system.

Just in case you don't know how primaries work, here's a link to the rules:
Link here from democrats.org:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/3e5b3bfa1c1718d...

Go ahead, click it. I dare you. Relieve yourself of your utter stupidity.

[phrigndumass]

23. Just in case the first link doesn't work ...

http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/de68e7b6dfa0743217_hwm6bhyc4.pdf

Or go here and click on "Delegate Selection Rules":
http://www.democrats.org/a/convention_2008/delegate/

[MonkeyFunk]

26. He's saying...

quite reasonably, that the superdelegates ought to align with the person who got the most votes.

It's astonishing that people are opposed to that idea.

[rufus dog]

30. save this one Monkey

Because I think it will be Obama!

[phrigndumass]

31. I understand that, but ...

But it would still require 72% of the remaining superdelegates endorsing Senator Clinton for her campaign to win the nomination.

Are you suggesting that winning over 72% of the remaining superdelegates is probable? Her campaign hasn't even won one single contest over 70%.

[MonkeyFunk]

32. of course it's possible

If it's determined she'll be the better candidate in November, of course they will. And remember, the superdelegates that have already "pledged" are free to change, too.

[phrigndumass]

33. The word was "probable", not possible

Superdelegates are free to change their endorsements, yes, but it works both ways.

[phrigndumass]

34. definition of "probable"

probable

prob·a·ble - Pronunciation
–adjective

1. likely to occur or prove true: He foresaw a probable business loss. He is the probable writer of the article.

2. having more evidence for than against, or evidence that inclines the mind to belief but leaves some room for doubt.

3. affording ground for belief.

[laugle]

55. Thanks for some

sanity...........I'm to tired to re-hash this..............

[krkaufman]

47. What is astonishing is that Democrats are rationalizing the disenfranchisement ...

... of all the voters in the states that conducted caucuses. Basing the choice of nominee on the primaries only is ludicrous.

The candidates are running to become the nominee of the Democratic Party, not the nominee of the Democratic Primaries.

[krkaufman]

46. The *only* fair measure of the will of the voters is the elected pledged delegate count

If some other metric was to be used, I'm sure those states that opted for caucuses would have preferred to have been informed of this change before the nomination process was begun.

The popular vote is *NOT* a reflection of the will of the majority of voters, as it is almost entirely weighted according to how those states that held primaries voted. Basing the nominee on the popular vote would be wholesale disenfranchisement of the voters in every caucus state.

The candidates are running to become the nominee of the Demcratic Party, not the nominee of the Democratic Primaries.


p.s. And don't you find it ironic that the Clinton campaign is decrying the "less democratic" nature of caucus-derived delegates as their argument for overriding Obama's pledged delegate lead using the most undemocratic of delegates, the superdelegates?

[roguevalley]

38. since they all went in under the same rules and followed them,

wanting to change them now is bullshit

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[greguganus]

13. I see the Secret Service having to constantly pry Bill and Hillary from the White House gate

after Obama is elected.

[WinOneAlready]

4. I think Obama said the same thing about the popular vote

[grantcart]

5. lol who did you used to be? lol

no there would be little reason for Senator Obama to want to move the goal posts since he is actually winning.

See trying to change the framing of the spin is only critical when you have lost.

When you have the

most delegates
most primaries
most caucus wins
most donors
most money raised
most senate endorsements
most gubenatorial endorsements
most votes from largest 7 contested primaries

you don't have to go shopping for a way to spin.

By the way implicit in President William Jefferson Lincoln's statement is that they acknowledge they are behind in everything else including the popular vote.

You should hurry up and get your memo - you are supposed to be arguing that the popular vote should be the only indicator and the delegates be damned.

[MonkeyFunk]

10. Getting the most votes isn't spin

it's democracy.

[ProSense]

12. And in this democracy, Obama has the most votes. n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

14. That's not the topic of discussion

we're talking about who SHOULD get the nomination at the end of the primaries. Clinton may well have the popular vote.

[grantcart]

37. Actually the topic of the discussion is how the Clinton's keep changing

how they frame the narrative of the spin in an increasingly desperate hope to keep a failing campaign alive.

You have not disagreed with any of that simply have endorsed the final sping as being correct. Now if Obama ends up winning the popular vote are you going on to the next stage of spin?

[grantcart]

28. The spin part is that every week they try to frame what is important

for winning the nomination. Early on when they thought that they would be able to use their institutional power to garner up delegates it was "only the delegates count". Now that that is gone, and everything else too, this is the last grasp. It also is a
clear admission (yes implied) that they have given up hope of getting to the convention with a delegate advantage and are now hoping for a brokered cnvention.

[Medusa]

35. Make up your mind Monkey.

Last night you were claiming that the superdelegates existed to prevent the populace from nominating an unelectable candidate. Now you want the popular vote to count. You can't have it both ways. Oh yeah, I keep forgetting. You're a Clintonistas. You really do THINK you can have it both ways. :eyes:

[MonkeyFunk]

40. Got a link to my so-called post saying that?

I'm arguing that there are plenty of valid criteria the superdelegates can take into account. I'm not saying they should be bound by any one criterion.

[Window]

6. LOL! Reminds me of when I was a cheerleader a hundred years ago.

"The goal posts, the goal posts are hot
You can't beat Obama with the stuff you got."


:rofl:

[jackson_dem]

7. I know many "Obamites" aren't Democrats so they may not know why our party was created

Hint: the popular vote was overturned.

[grantcart]

41. really

you are very ignorant of American Revolutionary History it was to establish a republic not a democracy.

Not only were slaves not counted
women were not counted

you had to own land

jews could not vote.

if you did not support the religous dogma of the colony you were in you not only did not vote

you got hung from a tree like the quakers in Massachusettes.

They specifically did not want people voting directly on anything they wanted them simply to vote for somebody that would make decisions for them hence the electoral college. Not only that but they did not want the people voting for Senators either.


All of which of course avoids the OP which is why do the Clintons keep changing what they say is important. Because they keep on losing.

[krkaufman]

48. note: the poster was referring to "party" not "country" n/t

[krkaufman]

50. "popular vote"

The popular vote is almost entirely skewed to the votes cast in the states that conducted primaries, so basing a candidate choice on popular vote totals would effectively disenfranchise the voters in caucus states.

The candidates are running to become the nominee of the Democratic Party, not the nominee of the Democratic Primaries.

The superdelegates would be completely within the rules to override a pledged delegate majority. Just don't make up ridiculous rationalizations to justify their doing so. Clinton supporters feel that the superdelegates need to overrule Obama's pledged delegate majority because they feel she is a better candidate for the general election, and that Obama's pledged delegate majority is invalid because it doesn't reflect their own opinion.

[ProSense]

8. Bill says a lot of stupid things. He doesn't realize that Obama has the popular vote lead

Popular Vote Total -
Obama 13,280,770 49.5%
Clinton 12,577,044 46.9%
Obama +703,726 +2.6%

Popular Vote (w/FL) -
Obama 13,856,984 48.5%
Clinton13,448,030 47.1%
Obama +408,954 +1.4%

Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)* -
Obama 13,856,984 47.5%
Clinton13,776,339 47.3%
Obama +80,645 +0.2%

link

[phrigndumass]

17. Working the angles

Good info, grantcart. A candidate will look at the statistics to see which scenario would benefit them the most, then float the idea behind it, to see if it sticks. They're working the angles.

As ProSense mentioned, you have to lead in that scenario for it to stick and work. Senator Clinton's campaign doesn't have that advantage.

:thumbsup:

[Obamaniac]

18. I don't think this matters because...

I think Obama will be leading in the popular vote after all the primaries are done with. So does this mean we can expect that Hillary will drop out after June 7th when it becomes clear that she lost the popular vote to Obama or will this be another example of the Clinton's changing the goal posts after he wins that as well?

The Clinton's can spin all they want and make this about anything they want to, Clinton supporters may blindly believe the things they say, but DELEGATES ARE the way the nomination will be settled. The majority of them will vote at the convention and whoever wins more wins the nomination.

[grantcart]

25. Well it shows there future spin but it also shows that instead of a revote

in Florida they will switch to seating all of the delegates at 1/2 vote then they will be able to add Florida's popular vote back in

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

22. Thing Is, About 60% Of Democrats Agree With Him.

The last poll I saw on the matter, I believe had about 60% believing the PV should determine, whereas only like 24% thought the pledged count should.

[JackORoses]

29. some say...

I'll guarantee you that 100% of the Democrats in Caucus States disapprove of this.

You don't think they should be included?

[grantcart]

51. Your exactly right and also when the point was getting delegates

Obama was spending time in places like Iowa and people on DU were laughing about it. Now that they want to change the criteria I say fine - lets redo SuperDuperTuesday and have those 20 states vote and this time we will stay in LA and NYC to campaign.

[grantcart]

36. Well then they agree that as of right now Obama should have the nomination

I think the significance of this is that they recognize that this is their only hope - they have given up on getting close in delegates.

They may get closer in popular votes but the advantage they gain in PA is likley to be surpassed by the difference in North Carolina.

I think it foreshadows the new negotiations will be not to re-vote in Florida and Michigan but get any possible compromise so that they can add in the popular vote.

Obviously I could be wrong, but if we see a quick compromise on those two states it would tend to confirm where the spin is going.

[phrigndumass]

42. It's something to watch for ...

interesting.

[goclark]

24. Thanks grantcart ~ as always

you have great posts.

You also try to keep them positive. :patriot:

[bigbrother05]

27. Thanks Grantcart

great info as always:hi:

[Eurobabe]

39. Somebody oughta drop kick the Clinton campaign through the

goalposts of life.

[AZBlue]

43. Um, OK Bill...but Obama's leading there TOO!

Give it up and GO HOME!

[phrigndumass]

44. Kickin'

[Cha]

45. bil clinton is living

in his own little orgasmic world.

[kwenu]

49. It's sad to realize that the critics may have had a point about about the Clinton's...

But it is being painfully realized just how slimy they are on a daily basis.

[grantcart]

52. with Iowa's county conventions moving further into Obama's camp we shall see more slim coming

[laugle]

53. In the end, IMO it will

come down to who is the most electable. Right now we have to see the fall-out for the Pastorgate issue.

Whomever the nominee is, they MUST WIN! The alternative is unthinkable!!

[laugle]

54. dupe