Clinton's core strategy: disenfranchise tens of millions of Democrats

[DeadElephant_ORG]

Much was made in the Clinton camp of Hillary's fervor not to disenfranchise voters in Florida and Michigan. So, HRC supporters, please explain why you are arguing to summarily disenfranchise a much larger swath of voters?

Your only remaining arguments for why the super delegates should reverse the result of our primaries, and hand the nomination to Hillary, are:

      1.) she won a handful of "big states".

      2.) she might win the so-called "popular vote". (emphasize might)

But both arguments disenfranchise voters EN MASS. The "big states" argument discounts all the votes cast in the 45 states which you dismiss as "not big". The "popular vote" argument discounts the expressed will of the people in 16 states in which caucuses were held. And neither arguement even existed until after it became clear that Hillary had lost the pledged delegate race. If Hillary held the lead among states that started with the letter "H", one suspects you would argue for the supremacy of "H states".

Both arguments - "Big States" and "Popular Vote" - are embarrassingly undemocratic, and immoral. If the super delegates accept your arguments, the Democratic Party will be destroyed. Deservedly so.

[leftofcool]

1. Don't you get it yet?

Both sides can make any arguments they want.....the super delegates, can decide any way they want to

[OzarkDem]

2. Obama disenfranchised them

by refusing to agree to any kind of resolution.

Why do Obama supporters always have such problems with truth and reality?

[Texas Hill Country]

3. its amazing, isnt it?

[mattclearing]

61. What, both of your complete disconnection from reality?

See you at the convention.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

4. why not answer the question ?

[OzarkDem]

34. Because I reject your premise

Obama is the one who has prevented FL and MI from reaching a resolution to have their votes counted, not Clinton.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

38. My "premise" has nothing to do with FL/MI. Do you support disenfrancisesment of "small state" Dems?

[papau]

8. I agree - Obama's fear of a redo in Mich/Fl does not show "pro-democracy" thinking

[OzarkDem]

35. Just "pro-Obama" thinking

which is what governs everything he does. Its one of the biggest objections I have to his candidacy.

I don't subscribe to the belief that "what's good for Obama is good for the country". Those are not the qualities we look for in a presidential candidate.

[stillcool]

18. Truth and Reality

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

[themaguffin]

20. Bullshit, the states disenfranchised their own voters on purpose

That's pretty shitty blaming Obama for their on fuck you to every other state who followed the rules.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

40. We could argue FL and MI all day. But how do you defend "Big States" and "Popular Vote"???

[RememberWellstone]

5. I'm in Florida

My vote did not count, what do you suggest I do?

[DeadElephant_ORG]

10. well I voted in California which, according to you makes my vote count double!

[wileedog]

32. Elect better party leaders next time.

[GOTV]

65. Vote out the idiots that keep screwing up your elections n/t

[DeadElephant_ORG]

6. We could argue FL and MI all day. But how do you defend "Big States" and "Popular Vote"???

[SeaLyons]

7. Did Kennedy and Kerry disenfrancise the voters

in Massachusetts? Did Richardson disenfranchise the voters?

[DeadElephant_ORG]

16. No. They voted their conscience - as we all must do.

Richardson said that he regards Obama to be "something special". I've no qualm with anybody voting for Hillary on similar grounds. But I take issue with those who argue that the supers should discount votes cast in certain states.

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. I just want to point out

That you refer to the difference between big states and small states as if we were using adjectives like "warm" and "cold, "eastern" or western". But in fact the difference between big states and small states is a bit more related to the core principles of Democracy than that. Big states have more voters living in them, that's why we call them "big".

George Bush "won" the 2000 election by "winning" 30 States out of 50. Had he only won 29 States out of 50 Al Gore would be President today. John Kerry "lost" the 2004 election by only "winning" 19 States out of 50. Had Kerry won 20 States out of 50 he would be President today.

Our system, and even our nominating process, gives added influence to "small" States relative to "big" States. California has the same maximum number of Democratic Super Delegates slots reserved for Democratic U.S. Senators as Hawaii does, two, no matter how many more people vote in California compared to Hawaii. The same principle applies to State Democratic Party Chairpersons getting Super Delegate Slots also. Maine gets one, same as New York.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

13. That's why pledged dels are more important - their numbers are proportional to population.

In our primaries, all states, big or small, have the same ratio of pledged delegates to voters.

In the general election, all states, big or small, have the same ratio of electors (in the electoral college) to voters.

A candidate's pledged delegates, and pledged electors, are of equal value toward being elected, regardless of the state that provided them.

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. That part is true

Though in this instance Obama probably will benefit by the way Super Delegates are distributed. My main point though was that it is completely not relevent who wins the most states. A candidate who wins the 26 smallest states would not have a stronger claim to the nomination than a candidate who won the 24 largest ones.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

26. Are the super delegates really not proportional?

I suspect you're right about that. But as congress members are all super delegates, and their numbers are proportional to population, the lack of proportionality of the super delegates might be less than the example you gave. hmmm.... I have to think about the implications...

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. It's like the electoral college in that way

The House of Reps is based on a set rule of thumb proportion, one seat for every so many thousand voters, so a small state can have only one rep while California has dozens. But when it comes to electoral votes for the Presidential Election each State starts out with a minimum of two, since every State has two Senators.

If a State does not have sitting Democratic Senators, then they don't get extra Super Delegates because of them, but most States have at least one. I'm not sure all of the rules about ex elected Democrats and Party Officials and DNC members etc. but I believe that the Party Chair of each Democratic State Party at least gets to be a Super Delegate.

[lark]

81. Unless they live in FL or MI

you forgot to discount us, unlike your saint.

[wileedog]

36. And those bigger states get many more delegates

The point is not to discount Big States, its to say that whether a delegate comes from California or Rhode Island, a delegate is a delegate.

I'll admit when people say "Obama won more states!" I find it meaningless for exactly the reasons you describe above. However winning 'Big States' is equally meaningless.

The point is delegates, and Obama has a lot more. Everything else - big states, small states, red states, blue states, popular vote, etc is meaningless, because the system we use to determine the nominee gives no weight to them.

[ClassWarrior]

11. It's been the Corporate RW's strategy for decades,ever since they discovered...

...that they can't win elections legitimately.

NGU.

[rodeodance]

12. HA HA HA HA HA-- what a FOOLISH post

[DeadElephant_ORG]

14. then you should have no trouble explaining to us why these new justifications do not disenfranchise.

[ClassWarrior]

17. ~crickets~

:rofl:

NGU.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

21. no need to be childish. What are you saying?

[ClassWarrior]

22. I'm saying I'm waiting for the poster to answer your question, and all I hear is...

...crickets.

:shrug:

NGU.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

23. sorry about jumping on you. What do "crickets" and "NGU" mean?

[ClassWarrior]

25. You ever hear a comedy bit where someone's waiting for an answer...

...but all you hear is crickets chirping in the background? That's what ~crickets~ means.

NGU = Never Give Up, my personal motto since 11/03/04.

NGU.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

27. excellent. So "crickets" is the resounding sound of ... S I L E N C E

and I like your motto.

[ClassWarrior]

29. Exactly.

:toast:

NGU.

[tritsofme]

15. Caucuses inherently disenfranchise a large swath of voters.

If she is able to win the popular vote, it will be because the people chose her.

A lead in pledged delegates without a majority of delegates overall is an arbitrary figure.

I think it is patently absurd to say that the popular vote is undemocratic.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

19. It's not a "popular vote" unless everybody can cast a vote.

Voters in caucus states cannot contribute the the "popular vote" tally.

If as a party we choose to eliminate caucuses, fine. But we haven't done so.

All the candidates understood the rules of our primaries from the start. Now that one candidate is losing, she wants to re-write the rules at every turn. And as any school-child can tell you, if you re-write the rules in the middle of the game so that one side is newly favored, the game itself is destroyed. That's what we're looking at: the end of the Democratic Party.

[BzaDem]

30. Why do you keep saying the popular vote doesn't include caucuses?

It includes all but 4 caucus states, since all but 4 caucus states report actual popular vote totals out of caucuses.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

33. Participation in caucuses is miniscule compared to participation in primaries.

So reporting out the "actual popular vote totals out of caucuses" is meaningless.

For example, consider two hypothetical states of equal population. One state runs a caucus, and the other a primary.
Candidate A wins the caucus by 100%. Popular vote reported from resounding caucus win = 300 K.
Candidate B wins the primary by 51%. Popular vote from narrow primary win = 20 million.

Looking at the so-called "popular vote" would give the impression that candidate B is 70 times more popular than candidate A, even though candidate A is in fact far more popular.

The "popular vote" meme is not just meaningless - it is deliberately misleading.

[paulk]

31. this isn't a "game"

the point of this process is winning the general election.

The big states vs small is a valid argument. If Hillary wins PA, she will have won eight of the nine biggest states, electoral vote wise. The only one Obama has won is Illinois, his home state. Twelve of Obama's victories have come in states Kerry lost by 15 percentage points or more. In terms of the general election, those victories don't matter.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

37. So Obama's victories "don't matter" because you know which states will go red this year?

This comment came from BumRushDaShow (725 posts) to an early post

And you know this how?

Crystal ball?

The Democratic Party has spent the last 30 years ignoring certain states and the result is that our party all but handed them to the repukes on a silver platter. If you look at the voting trends in the '60s, you will see the point when the repukes finally woke up and decided to do their "50-state" strategy:

(Red = states won by Johnson, Blue = states won by Goldwater)




And after Goldwater lost like that, they were determined to redo the entire landscape. And they succeeded. And here we are today and it's time for the Democratics to get these folks back. The RW experient has failed and failed miserably. The country and the world is in economic collapse, the environment is only being looked at today because some figured out they could make money out of it, and the ridiculous ideological wars keep coming and coming.

It may take some time but at least the DNC is taking the first steps in reclaiming its rightful place as the "majority Party".

[ClassWarrior]

39. Yes, it's the Clinton "15-State Strategy."

NGU.

[paulk]

43. I know it because I pay attention

and I don't have my head buried up my partisan ass, like the poster you quote.

An election from 50 years ago is hardly relevent, and I certainly hope the Obama campaign, if he is the nominee, doesn't run a GE based on such nonsense.

The swing states this time around will be the same ones as the last few times, and for the same reasons. There will be a few new ones - maybe CO and VA. AK if Hillary is the nominee. I can't see any of the southern state were Obama has been racking up huge wins going Democratic. Same goes for Idaho, Utah, Nebraska, Kansas, and Wyoming.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

53. So why doesn't the party give more pledged delegates to swing states? or big states?

You might be right about the way to win the GE. You might be wrong. But if the party as a whole agrees with your approach, they should weight the proportion of delegates according to the importance of each state to winning in the general. BUT THEY DON'T DO THAT, now do they.

I might be supportive of a system (such as in Texas counties) in which the number of delegates afforded to a state depended upon whether the state went Democratic in the prior three general election cycles. That way the dis-proportional distribution would itself be determined strictly according to numeric voting patterns.

This isn't a "game" for me, and never has been. And you needn't be insulting.

[paulk]

73. big states DO get more super delegates

simply because they have more elected officials (House and Senate)- and the more elected Democrats, the more super delegates, so they get rewarded that way as well.


A lot of the Obama supporters are treating this as if it's a game - where the clock runs out and the candidate with the most points wins. That's not how it works and that's never been how it works. Things like what states have been won, what demographic a candidate appeals to, whether the wins were in caucuses or primaries, whether the wins were in swing states, red states, blue states, who has momentum in a close race, are there any developing scandals that could sink a candidacy - all these factors will be part of the decision making process for the super delegates. The ultimate decision will be based on who can make the best argument for winning in the general election - not who gets the most pledged delegates or who wins the popular vote - although those factors will also be important.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

76. All the factors you list would affect MY thinking. In fact... they all DID.

So I'm certain that the Supers are thinking the same way.

I'm not sure though that you can say that the "clock running out" attitude has "never been how it works". In almost all primary cycles, one candidate moves far enough ahead that all the others concede. (As happened for McCain this year.) Exceptions are rare, and the results of those exceptions have always been DISASTERS for the party in which they occurred.

But to claim a "popular vote" in which the populations of 16 caucus states couldn't participate is literally a fraud. And to discount "small states" as less important is simple-minded. I'd be more open to a "swing states" arguement - but only as one factor among many.

[paulk]

77. "one candidate moves far enough ahead

that all the others concede"

That's obviously not what's happening now. Obama isn't far enough ahead for Hillary to concede. Neither candidate will have the required number of delegates to win on the first ballot, no matter what happens.

I don't understand your point on popular vote and caucus states.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

86. Participation in caucuses is minuscule compared to participation in primaries.

So a "popular vote" tally excludes all the votes that might have been cast in a primary instead of a caucus.

For example, consider two hypothetical states of equal population. One state runs a caucus, and the other a primary.
Candidate A wins the caucus by 100%. Popular vote reported from that resounding caucus win = 300 K.
Candidate B wins the primary by 51%. Popular vote from that narrow primary win = 20 million.

Looking at the so-called "popular vote" would give the impression that candidate B is 70 times more popular than candidate A, even though candidate A is in fact far more popular.

In the context of a mixed primary/caucus selection process, the "popular vote" meme is not just meaningless - it is deliberately misleading.

[paulk]

92. um... but isn't the reverse also true?

that the delegates gained in caucuses aren't as "worthy" as those gained in primaries, for exactly the same reason?

I mean, really - you can't have it both ways...

[DeadElephant_ORG]

95. That's an interesting perspective. I'm not arguing in favor of having caucuses...

I'm arguing that given the fact that we have a mixed primary, with some states running caucuses, the "popular vote" is a manipulative fiction.

Now, I think you've got a point about the "worthiness" of delegates selected by caucus relative to those in primaries. Do you think that the Clinton camp would want to argue that position publicly? I doubt it. There must have be a great deal of back and forth between the states about that when the Party settled on it's rules for the primary. And that seems the appropriate venue for that discussion.

You say I can't have it both ways. But it's interesting that the population of a caucus state is under-represented from either perspective. Fair or not their will is discounted regardless.

[MonkeyFunk]

41. you should look up with "disenfranchise" means

[DeadElephant_ORG]

42. Then tell us what it means, and why it does not apply here.

I'm getting tired of HRC supporters dodging this question.

[ClassWarrior]

44. No wonder she's losing. Lots of bullying, no substance.

And once again... ~crickets~

:rofl:

NGU.

[MonkeyFunk]

46. shove those crickets

My life doesn't revolve around arguing with idiots on DU.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

48. Yep, your life revolves around bashing people who disagree with you.

You dis me as ignorant of the meaning of "disenfranchise", but you don't have time to engage with a serious question. What ARE you on DU for?

[ClassWarrior]

63. Another fine HRC strategy. Call the voters "idiots" when they ask for substance.

NGU.

[MonkeyFunk]

45. People who vote

and don't vote for the winner aren't disenfranchised. People who are prevented from voting or whose votes aren't counted ARE disenfranchised. It's a very simple distinction.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

47. "Small-state" Democrats ARE having their votes discounted - by YOU !

Apparently, according to HRC supporters, my vote in California was worth more than any vote of any Democrat in 9 out of 10 of all other states.

[Milo_Bloom]

52. Not exactly.

To have a disenfracnhised voter you need a previous RIGHT to vote.

Since this is a private party selection process... there is no RIGHT to vote.

Thus, NO ONE is being disenfranchised.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

54. that's a technical arguement that doesn't wash

Even on technical legal terms it doesn't wash. Every state in the union has laws against fraud by anybody - regardless of whether the matter is public or private. Telling people their votes will count, and then discounting their votes, is FRAUD.

But beyond that, it doesn't wash with our common understanding of what enfranchisement means. Your arguement is hollow.

[Milo_Bloom]

57. It washes PERFECTLY.

You have no right to vote in primary, thus, you cannot be disenfranchised.

Even your "fraud" argument doesn't work, since your vote is nothing more than a suggestion to a delegate who may or may not take your advice as they see fit.

[ClassWarrior]

74. Tide?

Seriously, reasoning is swell, but it usually has very little effect on mass public perceptions. And this WILL be perceived as disenfranchisement.

NGU.

[Milo_Bloom]

75. It depends on the language used.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

97. I'm not arguing that winning w/ super delegates isn't really winning. But

But...
I'm arguing that de-valuing the votes of the people in some states versus others is anti-democratic. Devaluing caucus states by advancing a fraudulent "popular vote" is anti-democratic. Unless you think you can be "a little bit disenfranchised" any more than you can be "a little bit pregnant."

[Milo_Bloom]

49. NO ONE is being Disenfranchised.

The primary is a private selection process by the private party that is the Democratic Party selecting its candidate.

There is no right for anyone to vote in it, thus, you cannot "disenfranchise" voters.


Main Entry: dis·en·fran·chise
Pronunciation: \ˌdis-in-ˈfran-ˌchīz\
Function: transitive verb
Date: 1664
: to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity; especially : to deprive of the right to vote
— dis·en·fran·chise·ment \-ˌchīz-mənt, -chəz-\ noun "

[DeadElephant_ORG]

50. so a Democrat who's primary vote is discounted is NOT disenfranchised??

and this is because the state does not guarantee a right to vote in party primaries. Sure you want to stick to that?

What about the rules of our party? Suppose the Democratic Party decided that all primary votes cast by women would be counted at, say, 2/5 of the value votes cast by men. That, according to you, would not be disenfranchisement, because the state has no role in our party's rules. Going further, suppose our party said at the beginning of the primary that all votes would be equal, but then, when one of our candidates was losing by those rules, changed the rules to discount votes by women at 2/5s. Still think that's NOT "disenfranchisement"??.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course. But no thinking person would share your view.

[Milo_Bloom]

51. You have no RIGHT to vote in the primary.

Thus, your vote cannot be DISENFRANCHISED.

It really is that simple.

There may be other claims upon which one can sue; however, you would have to show damages and "my vote didn't count the way I wanted it to" is not going to be an allowable damage clause, unless you could establish a pre-existing contract.

However, that is a contract claim, NOT DISENFRACHISED.

It would be nice if people would learn to understand the meaning of certain words before throwing them around... and this applies to BOTH Clinton and Obama supporters (of which I am among the latter)

[DeadElephant_ORG]

55. hmmm... no "right" eh? That's the democratic spirt. You go with that.

Even on strictly legal grounds your arguement doesn't wash. Every state in the union has laws against fraud by anybody - regardless of whether the matter is public or private. Telling people their votes will count, and then discounting their votes, is FRAUD.

But beyond that, it doesn't wash with our common understanding of what enfranchisement means. Your arguement is hollow.

[Milo_Bloom]

56. You may not like it, but it is correct.

As I said, you may want to try a contract argument, such as fraud, but that ain't DISENFRANCHISEMENT because you have no RIGHT to vote in a primary.

They could choose the candidate by tea leaves and that would be fine.

They could take your votes, write them on a piece of paper, throw them in the air and whichever ones happen to fall face up.. those are the only ones that count.

I think you are forgetting, first and formost, that you do not live in a democracy... you live in a representative republic... when you vote, you aren't voting for the person, as much as voting for someone to go and represent your point of view using your vote as a SUGGESTION.

guess what... if the delegate your vote helped choose decides to change their mind and vote for the other candidate... you HAVEN'T been disenfranchised, because them thar are the rules and you have absolutely NO RIGHT to have your vote count in any specific way.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

58. so... why bother having a primary ?

Nothing in your recitation of the rules is new to me, or changes this arguement.

I'm not a legal scholar, but think that if the Democratic Party, or any political party, made a rule barring blacks from participating, you would quickly discover that Americans do indeed have a right to vote in primaries.

An if they tossed our votes in the air, and only counted "whichever ones happen to fall face up", as you suggest, the outrage would bring down the party.

I'm arguing that if our party discounts "small states", and caucus states, and the rules that governed this primary from the start, the outrage WILL bring down the party.

[Milo_Bloom]

Then frame your argument correctly.

If the party made a rule that white votes count, but black votes didn't, there would be an equal protection argument, but not a RIGHT TO VOTE argument. You can't treat people differently based along racial lines, so they could say NO ONES vote counts or EVERYONE'S votes count, but once you make a distinction based on race/gender, etc... it isn't about the right to do the thing, it is about the right of equal access.

If they threw votes in the air, it would outrage people and bring down the party, but no one would be DISENFRANCHISED.

If they overturn the will of the voters and have the super delegates select a candidate who lost the popular vote and the majority of "pledged" delegates, again, I think it will be a mistake, not because it will "DISENFRANCHISE" anyone, but because they would be ignoring the opinion of the majority of the party.

However, it is important to acknowledge that they have the RIGHT to do with your vote whatever they damn well please.... along those same lines, you have the right to do with your vote, whatever you damn well please come november.

However, to scream and cry about disenfranchisement, it just isn't true. No one is taking away your RIGHT to vote... they may not pay attention to your opinion, but that is their right.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

64. I understand. But there is a common, non-legalistic understanding of the term "disenfranchisment".

And you understand what I'm saying. The readers of this post understand what I am saying. Nobody is "screaming or crying".

Bottom line: you and I agree that discounting votes - legally or not - would, as you say "outrage people and bring down the party"

[Milo_Bloom]

70. The problem is the power the term carries...

And the insinuation that someone is "BREAKING RULES" to get their way.

I don't like it when Clinton claims that Obama is DISENFRANCHISING voters in MI and FL and similarly, I don't like it when Obama claims that following the democratic party rules would disenfranchise voters.

It is a charged word and one that doesn't accurately reflect what is going on.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

71. what word would describe it then, and still carry the full weight of the outrage?

[Milo_Bloom]

72. Outrage.

[lark]

82. EXACTLY -

You have turned the argument on it's head. The people of Fl and MI are outraged and could bring down the party, but hopefully the DNC will wake up and bring us back to the big tent.

[McCamy Taylor]

59. This is why the primary needs to continue as planned and not stop prematurely.

Every place that is scheduled to have a primary vote needs to be allowed to participate otherwise people will say that the eventual nominee is not the legitimate nominee.

Obama is ahead. He should stay ahead all the way until Denver baring any unforeseen disasters. The upcoming primaries will only validate his victory.

If he goes to Denver as the winner, then Florida and Michigan's votes can be counted and they will not change the results of the contest, given the likely Obama lead based upon polls of the states left to vote.

If a full election count gives Obama a victory, then the Party will fall in line behind him and John McCain will be unable to brand him a far left wing splitter who somehow stole his party's nomination.

For victory this fall it is essential that the Democratic Primary not look like the Republican Primary in which the Party elders chose McCain and forced him down the voter's throats.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

60. but the longer Democrats fight with themselves, the further McCain cements his lead. n/t

[McCamy Taylor]

62. No, there will be four months for a unified Democratic Party to take McCain down.

Four months is plenty of time for national opinion polls to completely flip.

Plus, after a few more contests, it will become increasingly clear who the winner is, and you will see more Democratic attention being focused on McCain.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

66. GOD I hope you're right. Why the HELL can't Obama AND Clinton go after McCain NOW ???

[ClassWarrior]

67. It's even deeper than that. The RW already has a script in place for the Clintons...

...and they just need to evoke a few key words to bring it all back up in the minds of the voters who aren't paying a lot of attention. "Monica" for instance.

The RW have no such scripts in place for Obama. Which is why they'd so much rather run against Clinton. But the only way she can stay in the race is by smearing Obama, so in doing so, she's pretty much vetting the new scripts for the RW.

Of course that's not to say any of it will stick, because Obama's such a cool customer, but the point is that the longer Clinton stays in, she is (inadvertantly or not) doing the RW's groundwork for them.

NGU.

[lark]

84. That's just plain silly

You don't think the RW has a whole team of people working on finding the dirt on Obama? Of course they do! Just because he's new and we didn't know anything about him before now doesn't mean they don't. Remember they can spy on anyone at any time. I mean, just stuff from Wright alone could damn him, especially if the RW can find video of one of Wright's just plain idiotic and outrageous sermons where BO was in attendance and he's sunk. that's the stuff we do know. You know there's more we don't know. And even if there's not - like with Gore - they'll just make it up and everyone will believe it. He's no saint, he doesn't walk on water and he is vulnerable.

[ClassWarrior]

89. The work isn't the finding or making up of the dirt. It's the process of...

...ingraining it into the minds of the populace so it becomes part of the way they frame the candidate. The RW have been working for 16 years on ingraining the Clinton meta-story. But they'd barely be at square one for Obama, except for the fact that Sen. Clinton's smear campaign is giving them a big head start.

NGU.

[paulk]

98. I think you've got it completely backwards

Throwing the word "Monica" out there for the Republicans will induce, at best, a big yawn, and, at worst, a pro Clinton backlash - like it did when they tried it before. There's very little the RW can throw at Clinton that isn't yesterday's news.

The pro Obama slant of the MSM has been documented. It's clear to any one not blinded by their bias that the Republicans would rather take on the blank slate of Obama than the duo that are the only Democrats to beat them nationally in almost 30 years.

[lark]

83. Thank you for the voice of reason!!!

That's exactly what a true Dem supporter of Obama should argue. Count all the votes and let the best person win. If Obama took that tact, it'd go a long long way in changing my and many others perception of him. I really don't understand why so many Obama supporters are against the primaries, against counting all the votes. If their guy is the real deal, he'll win anyway and the people supporting the losing candidates will fold right back into the party - same as usual. Or, he could really piss off lots of folks, win the nomination, yet lose the GE. His choice.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

94. Obama has never taken any other tact.

Many of his supporters, and many many Democrats generally, are dismayed at Clinton for clinging to this nomination so tenaciously, and so destructively. But Obama himself has not said she should bow out.

[DemzRock]

68. Caucuses themselves disenfranchize most voters. n/t

[DeadElephant_ORG]

69. agreed. but you can't change rules in the MIDDLE of the primary race.

[paulk]

78. a point I would like to make -

is that there literally are no rules. Even "pledged delegates" aren't really pledged. Have you attended a caucus? At the very beginning, along with all the other stuff they read (or have you read), is a statement something along the lines that chosen delegates are not legally bound to vote for the candidate they are elected to stand for at any level of the process - county, state, or national.

food for thought

[ClassWarrior]

80. Nope. Only perceptions.

NGU.

[robbedvoter]

79. Yup. Popular vote stinks...what does she think we are ? A democracy or something?

Outrageous, I tell you! Add to that that pennsylvania has the crazy rule that onlt democrats should pick a primary candidate - and the injustice done to GOP-ers is heartbreaking!

[DeadElephant_ORG]

85. There's no such thing as a "popular vote" unless everyone gets an equal chance to cast a vote.

Voters in caucus states cannot contribute to "popular vote" tally.

[AmericanUnity]

87. SHE SHOULD BOW OUT GRACEFULLY. OBAMA WON FAIR AND SQUARE. SHE CAN'T WIN. SO DO THE DEMS RIGHT

[Cha]

88. I hope no person with integrity is

trying to find logic in hilary's dissembling campaign. It reeks of rove, bush, and George Orwell's 1984.

[Mezzo]

90. Sorry, but THE RULES ARE THE RULES. No one is disenfranchising anyone by appealing to

superdelegates. It's in THE RULES. Now, if you want to CHANGE THE RULES, you'll need to wait until next time.

[ClassWarrior]

93. The point is that the only way HRC can clinch it is by strong-arming the SDs.

Unless she starts to win electorally, which would mean getting some 65% in every single contest yet to go, that's her only resort.

NGU.

[PseudoIntellect]

91. There was also the electoral college map pushed by the Clinton campaign.

...which was entirely silly.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

96. dozens of states - not important

not if they don't vote for Hillary...