Some seriously flawed and dangerous logic that is floating around in top Democratic circles

[IsItJustMe]

Just watched CNN and they had former Senator of NJ Bill Bradly (Obama supporter) and the Governor of NJ John Corzine (Clinton supporter) on, talking about the primary.

John Corzine, a man who I respect, is making the argument that if Hillary can beat Obama in the popular vote, than the SD could see that as an electability issue, and thus override the pledged delicate count. This logic is insane.


Here is why:

This whole primary is based on delegates. PERIOD. This is a false argument and will be seen for what it is. If this were to happen, I would predict that the most loyal Democratic voting group, the African Americans, would sit at home come November, and would be devastating to the Democratic party for years to come.

Secondly, because of the caucus states, there is no honest way to truly determine the popular vote.



Listen up. I know that Hillary and her supporters want to win this thing, and it seems they are willing to do it any way they can get it. But this argument, if implemented, would destroy this party for years to come, and there would be no way in hell Hillary could be elected in November without the black vote. I see this as a loose loose stratagy for the Democrats, no matter how you want to spin it.

I call it THE CUT YOUR FACE OFF TO SPITE YOUR NOSE strategy.

Be honest, with a straight face, and look at me in the eyes and tell me where I am wrong.

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. You are not wrong

The only thing keeping me sane is I keep telling myself I am witnessing the disintegration of the Clintons, not the Democratic party.

[IsItJustMe]

2. kick in an attempt to get an honest answer from a Hillary supporter.

[OzarkDem]

3. And delegates are allowed to change their votes

That's why the system allows for it. The convention system is designed to allow flexibility.

In a primary race like this one where the result basically ends up a "draw" between two candidates, the delegates have to caucus and vote based on which candidate can best win the General Election.

I agree that caucus states make it difficult to determine the real popular vote. The rest has to be based on public opinion polls, electoral state strategy and a host of other measures to best determine who to choose.

Primary elections don't choose candidates, they choose delegates for the Convention. When the primary is a draw, the Convention chooses the candidate.

On edit: Yes, Corzine is right on this point. Delegates will take a number of factors into consideration when making their choice, and electability in the GE has to be the most important one.

Also consider there are many AA who support Clinton. The same argument can also be applied to women voters - if Obama is chosen, the Dems will lose a signficant part of their base of women voters - a base that makes up more than half of Dem voters.

[IntravenousDemilo]

4. IMO

1. If Clinton has more delegates and more popular vote, the SDs should rally around Clinton.
2. If Obama has more delegates and more popular vote, the SDs should rally around Obama.
3. If Clinton has slightly more delegates, but substantially less popular vote, the SDs should rally around Obama.
4. If Clinton has slightly fewer delegates, but substantially more popular vote, the SDs should rally around Clinton.
5. If the popular vote is about even, the SDs should follow the delegate count if there's a wide difference.
6. If the delegate count is about even, the SDs should follow the popular vote if there's a wide difference.

[Igel]

5. You're not wrong, but don't assume that means you're right.

Consider Texas. It's a good example. How did the voting go? How did the caucus go?

Now consider a state like Iowa. You get delegates, but the voting is non-existent. Caucus only.

Then consider, oh, I don't know, California. You get delegates, but the grass-roots level caucus is non-existent. Voting only.

This leads to a problem: You can't go on the basis of a primary vote, because some states only have a caucus. But Texas shows that you can't go on the basis of the caucus results to show how a voting primary would have turned out, so extrapolating back from a caucus to some theoretical voter preference is inane.

Even if you just had primaries, precincts are weighted differently as the popular vote is converted into delegates. Where I voted had high turnout and a fairly large number of delegates because turnout was high in the last election; where others voted had a large turnout but a small number of delegates because turnout was low in the last election. In other words, my vote was worth more than other Texan's, but probably less than those of Texans in some other precincts. So votes don't translate directly into delegates.

Then there's the issue of closed versus open primaries. BO does well with independents; he's also gotten the lion's share of the repub cross-over vote. You can really compare states where the dem vote is diluted with cross-over voting against those where vote totals reflect just registered dems? (And where do you put Texas, where prior to voting as a cross-over voter you first join the dem party?)

Conclusions: Delegate count doesn't necessarily accurately reflect popular vote. Caucus results don't necessarily accurately reflect popular support. "Popular vote" doesn't necessarily express *Democratic Party* vote.

There's more. The process is based on delegates. Period. When push comes to shove, pledged and unpledged delegates are the same; take the Iowa second-round caucus results, where HRC supporters mourned losing, and BO delegates cheeredpicking up, a pledged delegate. In other words, moralistic arguments about loyalty and "what must be" fell by the board when principle came up againsts partisanship.

Given the uncertainties in what the delegate count must mean--you can play with probabilities and the underlying assumptions until you turn blue in the face--all that you're left with are specious arguments trying to force unpledged delegates to toe some partisan line.

What's left? The rules as approved. The delegates are free to do as they please. If they want to look at the popular vote, they're allowed to, if they want to base their collective decision on the pledged delegate count, they can; if the Texas unpledged delegates want to look at their state's delegate ratio, or play it winner-take-all, they can. If they want to say otherwise, they can. If they want to stay silent until they vote at the national convention, they can do that, too.

Personally, I don't think that having the first vote at the national convention "override" some supposed will of a specific group of voters would destroy the party. If it does, it's too weak to survive, too balkanized and riven by schisms. It may diminish turnout, but not devaste or ravage the party. Moreover, implicit threats that "you vote my way or get out" weaken the party as much, or more, than how the SDs vote: No one group can or should wag the dog, no group should let bitterness trump voting for what amounts to their best interests. Right?

[IsItJustMe]

6. A lot to chew on there. Thank you for your reply.

[Cha]

7. Who knew Corzine was

such a tool?

[Zachstar]

8. I will take this a step further. If they find any way to concinve the supers to ignore the delegates

Then many MANY democrats will stay home with a few just switching for the hell of it.

I mean this is it folks. There is no evidence that one of the candidates is a "rock star" or "Terminator" trying to get into the office of president. If the supers (They will not BTW) overturn the pledged delegate count then the democratic party deserves every loss it has endured for 100 years.

They wont do it. Not now not ever. They are not dumb enough to destroy the party to satisfy any kind of machine.

[azmouse]

9. kick