Zed! Jane!

Kos had a good suggestion.
Split the votes in half right down the middle.

I think it might be the most reasonable way to go.

I say bring in James Baker and Katherine Harris as mediators to negotiate an appropriate settlement.

-G

Let us decide, the delegate vote should reflect the wishes of the popular vote. Good point RevDeb, I shoot form the hip so am looking forward to what you all have to say about this.
Off to walk in the sunshine of a beautiful day in the mountains of Oregon.
feng shui all the way.

I vote for option three and let ‘em vote for whomever they think is the best candidate to win. It’s what they’ll do anyway and is the theoretical reason for their existence in the first place.

We had our area Democratic Party organizing meeting last night. After voting for new district and area officers, and talking about our responsibilities for organizing this year’s state Democratic Party Convention, we sat around and talked about our state’s five super delegates, and the announced stances of two of them. One is for HRC, the other for Obama. Obama got over 75% in Alaska.

Our convention is Memorial Day weekend. The arguers were arguing as much about whether SD’s will even be an issue by then, or not, as about anything else. Ms. ET said that they will be, because neither HRC nor Obama can get enough real ones to put them over the top by then.

And pay them $28 million to do it.

All the talk about super delegates, will of the people, stealing the nomination, etc. is making me nervous about the General election. Should the super dels vote as their State did? What about Kennedy and Kerry who have pledged for Obama? I think it is a real possibility that Obama will have the most delegates but Hillary will have the largest popular vote…what is the will of the people in that case? What about FL and MI?…The Dem party better sort this out before the convention or it will be Pres McCain 01/20/09.

I voted for #3 as well.

Hi, Jane and all!!

I’m still not overly clear on WHY the super-delegate avenue was offered.

The candidates aren’t the only ones that can smooze and/or pressure the superdelegates. I suggest that the netroots do sone politicing of our own. Half of them are congresscritters and a bunch of the other half are local pols. Phonecalls, faxes and even face to face meeting are all in order.

Exactly. I think the bigger question is Florida and Michigan. Particularly Michigan. How about a poll on that?

I think Howard Dean is already spending 110% of his time trying to keep this thorny issue from becoming a debilitating one for other Democratic Party candidates running for the US House and Senate.

OT

Senator McCain is asking for a confirmation from Senator Obama of his pledge from to take public financing for the presidential election. This is wonderful news that both of these potential presidential candidates are considering this option by choice. I would like them to go one step further and do ALL their campaigning appearances side by side, together by bus and train. Both candidates traveling together throughout the US, going to each state, giving speeches and having debates on the same podium. With question and answer sessions after their speech. And all speeches to be nationally televised.

I believe the American people deserve some civility in our elections. Right now, our elected officials seem to get elected by dirty tricks,
lies and misleading the citizens of this country under the guise of free speech. We have laws for honesty in commercials on TV but not in elections. This seems illogical to me.

It’s time for fear mongering, lying and nasty campaigns to be replaced with honesty, openness and dignity in campaigns.

Will these Senator’s bring truth and dignity back to campaigning?

Actually I was thinking about FL and MI not about the whole shebang. Outside of FL and MI I like what Lewis is planning to do. Vote for whomever won the district.

Thanks Jane, this will be telling.

After McGovern and Jimmy Carter ran basically insurgent campaigns against the establishment, the “super delegates” came into being. Supposedly to avoid another McGovern type debacle but also to assure that the elected officials and DNC members did get to attend the convention as delegates. In both ‘72 and ‘76, insider types wound up NOT being on the winning delegate slates from their states so were denied convention credentials.

I think it might be the most reasonable way to go.

I agree absolutely… well with one reservation, “reasonable” must not be used in the sentence.

A observation from frustration: The Dems have not a clue about how run an election but they are good at governing. The goopers have winning elections down but they have not a bloody clue how to govern.

Do you mean his district or his state? Just wanted to know because it sounds like a workable idea.

district.

I heard Clinton and Obama were both on the ballot in Florida and Hillary won the most votes. Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan. Maybe Florida should be given to Hillary and they have a do over in Michigan? There was a very significant democratic voter turnout in Florida.

Actually I was thinking about FL and MI not about the whole shebang. Outside of FL and MI I like what Lewis is planning to do. Vote for whomever won the district.

Did he make a statement? The last thing that I read was that he was being pressured but hadn’t committed.

How about Alaska? We have ONE congressional district and five supers. Obama took about 75% here.

Some caucus states did not measure or report the popular vote, so I don’t think #1 or #5 are the best solutions. I support #4, although I accidentally voted for #2 [face embarrassed]

Wht to do about superdelegates is a difficult decision. It’s not a decision that can be left to amatures. Fortunately, we are blessed to have a professional decider as Preznit and, frankly, he’s just not that busy these days. Let’s have Bush decide. He’s always fair.

Is there a list of super delegates per state anywhere?

I am surprised by the amount of support for Option three which I see as the most distasteful of the lot!

I understand the rationale for that option, ie: “The disastrous McCarthy & Carter nominations which ruined the Party’s viability for decades”, as someone here remarked earlier. But it still smacks of a disdain for the average citizen’s participation in the process that I find very depressing. Why should we even bother if the Party is going to ‘choose” the candidate “they believe would be the strongest candidate for the party” in spite of what we choose? Doesn’t that position make a sham out of the entire Primary process?

1.7 million..IIRC

I heard Clinton and Obama were both on the ballot in Florida and Hillary won the most votes. Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan. Maybe Florida should be given to Hillary and they have a do over in Michigan? There was a very significant democratic voter turnout in Florida.

But the agreement was that they would not campaign. clinton2 did not live up to that agreement

Taking anyones vote away or altering their vote is not acceptable whether or not they are a superdelegate. When I refer to FL and MI, I am talking about seating the regulardelegates. The superdelegates should follow the rules set forth before the start of the campaign and so should everyone else. What makes us look bad and will ruin the party is fluidity in the process.

On the poll count: That’s a pretty tight spread, suggesting, that few will be happy with a unilateral decision on this.

#5

Click on the state map near the bottom of this page:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind…..cy_Project

And Obama had TV ads..a wash…I think the let the FL result stand and a re-do primary in MI is the best of bad solutions.

It would seem that if one were to follow Lewis’ formula that O would get at least 3 of the 5- 1 congress, 2 senate, and the other 2 . . . . I donno.

I understand but we’re also talking about those folks who are already holding office under the Democratic Party umbrella or are active enough in the party at the state or local level to be members of the DNC. As a group, are we saying that the DNC and the elected officials from the Democratic Party are not to be trusted? If that’s the case, then we need to get far more folks active at the local level and above to replace them all.

I think that’s about right.

to be really honest about all of this . . .

wake me up when it’s all over.

If every person’s vote counts, then shouldn’t it be whatever the popular vote is?

Sorry to say, I think that’s about the size of it. These people are subject to pressure from lobbyists, funding raising, etc. Just don’t especially like superdelegates at all.

I voted no freak’in clue. Maybe I should be moved to the front row of Miss Hamsher’s class so I can “see” better.

Ding ding ding — that was the point of the poll. MoveOn and other petitions are asking superdelegates to “respect the will of the people,” but there are many ways to define that — and as the poll shows, people are all over the board on what exactly that means. Various metrics could ultimately favor one candidate over another and I expect at that time we’d see tremendously different results when the same question gets asked, so I wanted a baseline.

Some votes count more than others. It’s for your own good, though. You need to be protected from making a terrible mistake, since you don’t really know what is good for you.

If Mi & FL come into play I think Mi should have another vote. How can it be fair when Edwards and Obama’s names were not on the ballot with Biden, Clinton, Dobbs, Gravel and Kuchinch? Some people didn’t go vote because their candiate’s name wasn’t on the ballot and/or because we were told our delegate votes wouldn’t count.

I wish these state primary votes were closer together so all states would have value.

If every person’s vote counts, then shouldn’t it be whatever the popular vote is?

Popular votes weren’t measured in some of the caucus states. In those states, the party only reported delegate counts. And there is the 15% viability rule, which hides some votes.

In the future, I wouldn’t mind going to overall popular vote, but small states would complain.

Thank you.

I don’t think this poll is fair jane

some delegates are asigned to respective progressive groups, like native american indians, nurses, labor, things like that

these delegates need to vote according to which candidate will best serve their group

super delegates should NOT vote as a block, nor could they.

Well actually you probably should be moved to the front of the class, because, in short the answer is no f’ing clue. In short, they will do, what every they will do. There is no way to control what they do.

If every person’s vote counts, then shouldn’t it be whatever the popular vote is?

Then the argument will be caucus counts vs primary counts. The tone is getting ugly and people need to cool off a bit. I just read at WaPo that Tavis Smiley criticized Obama and now he is getting death threats and his family is being harassed…If this turns into a death match in Denver..it can’t be good for the General election.

Then why not follow the rules? Seems pretty simple to me.

I think both the netroots and the media are getting the story on Clinton’s superdelegate reliance in the Democratic primary wrong.

The ’superdelegates’ were added to the mix as a sort of referee for the primaries, in the belief that McGovern’s nomination reflected a mistake in the popular will. A lot of blogs have argued that the superdelegates should reflect the popular will by voting in line their respective states or districts, and making that the rule going forward – but that takes us right back to the conditions that led the Democratic party to create the superdelegates in the first place. Maybe they’re right, but that’s not really the problem this time around.

The superdelegates role is to vote for whomever they think will make the best president and/or is most likely to win the general election. It also gives the party a way to stamp out an early surge candidacy if the campaign becomes mired in scandal at the last minute. And if one candidate wins the popular vote while another wins more pledged delegates, then it gives the party a chance to weigh the advantages of each candidate before making a final determination.

The problem from the Clinton campaign is that they aren’t arguing she’s the best candidate, they’re just saying she’ll win among the superdelegates: in other words, it sounds an awful lot like “We’ll fix/bribe the refs.”

As far as campaign rhetoric goes, it’s pretty stupid and obnoxious. Also, as both Josh Marshall and Jane have argued, it’s pretty unrealistic. The superdelegates are going to vote for whoever seems most likely to win, and barring scandal or illness, that’s probably going to be the candidates that wins the most pledged delegates and the popular vote.

I voted for:

[x] Cast their vote according to what the pledged delegate total in their state was.

My reasons are:

* Removing super delegates after the rules have been established is unfair. Granted, let’s get rid of the super delegates before the next election cycle starts.

* As far as I understand, super delegates pertain to the primary process. So, the popular vote doesn’t come into play as the pledge delegate process is already underway.

Generally, I’m not a fan of winner-take-all type counting and the electoral system. I’d rather have the popular vote decide things, but not in midstream.

Rather than disqualifying Florida and Michigan, the DNC should have merely moved them to the end of the primary dates for breaking the rules. At this point, either these states shouldn’t count at all or hold their primaries/caucuses at the end.

- Tom

I hate this system. I think there should be one or two primary days when everybody votes, and they should use the popular vote to decide.

Throw away the electoral system.

I hit enter before I was done

the delegate system is a good one, it could probably be tweaked but the choices on this poll don’t really represent the issue here

What would Zell Miller say?

Good point

Gawd, that is awful.

Wake me up when Bush and McBush are out of the picture.

And yet that is what they are being urged to do in these petitions. I’m just trying to get an idea of what people think that means.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02…..nmRnmmeXtg

NYT-Al Gore to help broker seletion, If redundant, sorry.

I see what you’re doing jane, you’re determining that even progressives are uneducated when it comes to this issue

we are being played by the media, the republican spin machine and the republican pundits, they are trying to create a desent that should never exist

That was my vote. I argue for consistency. If we say it is unfair to count Florida and Michigan delegates because the rules to exclude them for moving up their primaries was agreed to, then super delegates should exercise their conscience and cast their vote…since super delegates were in play in the rules.

This is the first Dem primary I recall ( memory may be fuzzy) where there is such a neck and neck race, making this situation unique. It brings out all kinds of situational ethics/leanings.

I don’t like the prospect of convention fights and hope the “earned” delegate count will solve the problem before Denver.

Time to change the rules is after the convention, and I hope it will be done. I think there needs to be more uniformity at the state levels. Perhaps a combination of primary votes and caucus votes??

If we did that among the results would be:
A 35% candidate wins OR
The delegate count would be even spread among 3 or 4 candidates with no clear winner, totally brokered convention and back to the back room selections which we’re trying to avoid

The bottomline is, since the Democratic Party (and Republican Party) is a quasi private organization with internal rules, there is no single perfect option available that will satisfy everyone’s desires.

We must not permit this hate, and point taken, I had not thought of it that way

I live in California and have not been able to make it to either Clinton or Obama rallies, and don’t pay much attention to TV ads past the first showing. I base my opinions of the candidates more on the televised debates and what I read on various internet sites. I think most of the electorate does the same thing. So an ad run by Obama or a Clinton appearance in Florida after the primary is’nt going to influence voters that much one way or the other. These folks want their votes they have already taken the time to cast count.

I think they should be eliminated. Let the states decide how they want to handle the vote whether it be primary or caucus, and let the candidates earn the delegates based on the votes by the people.

we are being played by the media, the republican spin machine and the republican pundits, they are trying to create a desent that should never exist

Yep. I posted about superdelegates at my blog earlier this week.

MoveOn and other petitions are asking superdelegates to “respect the will of the people,” but there are many ways to define that

MoveOn is making a huge mistake in getting involved in this..they should be pushing the Liberal agenda and avoid the Party food fights.
With this system, what is the will of the people? Is MoveOn saying Kennedy and Kerry have to vote for Hillary?

Which rules, and whose interpretation of those rules

“I’m still not overly clear on WHY the super-delegate avenue was offered.”

The Party got freaked out by the McGovernites and revolted against the DFH.

Sorry, dakine01 and others, I don’t think I really want the DSCC and the DCCC deciding– They’ll pick Hillary, no matter what the popular vote. The Superdelegates are basically the Party Establishment– which is mostly what is wrong with the Democratic Party at present.

Can I change my vote from “No freakin’ clue” to “Let the contest be decided by popular vote”?

Bob in HI

MoveOn is making a huge mistake in getting involved in this.

Agreed. I was very disappointed when I received a MoveOn e-mail about this. The entire foofaraw about superdelegates benefits the Republican Party.

Bear with me.

The DNC – is that the organization Rahm Emanuel is overseer.

No.

Howard Dean is the current chair of the Democratic National Committee

All of them and the literal interpretation. If someone doesn’t like the rules, then lobby for change after the general election. Being cacophonous and wishy-washy will not get us the White House.

it’s those gottdamned acronyms!

Al Gore FTW. Superdelegate endorsements are a good propoganda tool for early in the process, but if you haven’t joined the fray by now, you should stay out until we reach a decision.

Looks like we need a separate poll about the FL / MI mess. :)

Whatever………..no dscc..no dccc…no bullshit, we want to be represented not pandered to.

We must not permit this hate, and point taken, I had not thought of it that way

Things are still reasonably sane at FDL but if you read comments at other Lefty Blogs, the situation is getting pathological. The differences between Hillary or Obama as the nominee are insignificant compared to McCain. I am really worried that the Dems are “shitting in their own nest.”

Right. I see what you’re saying. Oh, well.

In response to Bobzim @ 30

to be really honest about all of this . . .
wake me up when it’s all over.

Only if you promise to be happy with the results.
Frankly, I’d rather have you awake and fighting for what you think best.

Bob in HI

Bob,
So are you going to start working against Inouye, Akaka, Abercrombie, and whomever? Because that’s who you are saying you distrust.

By the way, one rule is that the DNC credentials committee gets to decide if and how to seat the FL / MI delegates. That’s the rule.

I thought the superdelegates were supposed to be separate/independent of the will of the people. My understanding is these were the original rules. If rules are going to be changed I think that should be before and not during. Everyone has his/her own bias. We try to sway in our direction and give ourselves the edge. Superdelegates are like steroids for athletes. Give me some unbiased help here.

I think using the popular vote is just terrible because, unlike a General Election, the Primary and Caucuses have such different procedures and will have vastly different turnouts.

Caucuses only last for a short while, and people often must go to a few limited locations. Prtimaries have a full day for people to come, and have precinct locations all over. Thus they (and big States like California and New York) will have vastly more voters than any caucus state. In fact I would suspect that two States alone (NY and California) will have more votes alone than all the caucus attendance put together.

Using delegate proportionality, OTOH actually gives the States some similarity to the overall eligible Democratic voters in that State.

There are still lots of issues. Some States allowed cross-over voters (like California) while other States restricted their participants to those actually belonging to the Democratic Party.

I think that by using the delegate counts one will average out that mix, however.

But ultimately what it does is “neutralize” any “decision-making” power the Superdelegates have…since whoever is leading in delegates will win the nomination.

Any other system will make the Superdelegate results one where they shift the results from someone else that potentially won the most popularly elected delegates. That’s bound to promote more dischord. Unless there was some extreme scandal with the candidate late in the contest I would hope that the Super-delegates largely vote proportionately with their State Delegations (not winner take all) or proportionate to the national count.

ot

WASHINGTON (AP) — Hundreds of U.S. Marines have been killed or injured by roadside bombs in Iraq because Marine Corps bureaucrats refused an urgent request in 2005 from battlefield commanders for blast-resistant vehicles, an internal military study concludes.

Mine-resistant, ambush-protected trucks can cost between $450,000 and $1 million.

The study was written by a civilian Marine Corps official and obtained by The Associated Press.

It accuses the service of “gross mismanagement” that delayed deliveries of the mine-resistant, ambush-protected trucks for more than two years.

yes sir..I am confused, I just want my country back, that is all I can think about. Jane is right we are all over the map and my mind is bouncing like a basketball…and this is no slam dunk that’s for sure. My amygdala has been short circuited-is that a good thing?

Bob,
I’m not happy about either of them. I’ll show up and vote because i care about the SCOTUS but I don’t see either of them as the messiah.

Do we know who is on that committee?

I voted for the fourth one

Remove themselves from the process and let the contest be decided by total pledged delegates

Is this not the Democratic Party?

Democracy

The word democracy derives from the ancient Greek dēmokratia (δημοκρατία) (literally, rule by the people) formed from the roots dēmos (δημος), “people,”[4] “the mob, the many”[5] and kratos (κρατος) “rule” or “power”.[6]

I know our government “is a Republic if we can keep it.” And we have a Republic as in “representatives of the people” who can speak for us but I think it should be Democratic (original D) as far as electing those who represent us.

And I actually know a SD and they don’t know how they’ll vote yet

Are the general delegates bound to vote for the candidate they were elected to support?
If so, is this a state by state rule or a general party rule.
If so, is it for just the first ballot?
If so, what would happen if a candidate with a sufficient number of delegates to win the nomination became embroiled in a seriouis scandal one week before the convention?

Al Gore to the rescue? I can’t wait to hear how the republicans will spin that one.

Howard Dean Pushes Back Against The Demonization of Superdelegates

MyDD

In response to bobschacht @ 70

Bob,
So are you going to start working against Inouye, Akaka, Abercrombie, and whomever? Because that’s who you are saying you distrust.

Why should I work against them if I don’t even know who they’re for?
Abercrombie is supporting Obama, I think I trust Akaka, but I don’t trust Inouye because he’s too blue dog and will probably vote for Hillary, no matter what our caucus votes.

Bob in HI

So you’re saying they left a loophole when they ruled that FL and MI delegates wouldn’t be seated?

Thank you for that.
when I get back from my walk, I am going to do some homework and think about this, I am not stupid but in this case I feel truly lost.

The pledged delegates are only for the first ballot at the convention. If there is no nominee after the first ballot, all delegates are free to vote for whomever they like.

I think it healthy to the process to ask questions and see if improvements can be made that are inline with current thinking and concerns.

From Chris Bowers:

169 members of the committee are largely determined by the campaigns according to the proportional breakdown of pledged delegates in the states and territories. 25 others have already been named to the committee by Howard Dean. The most recent estimation I saw of the credentials committee was something like 54 for Obama, 41 for Clinton, plus the 25 named by Dean. There are actual rules governing the composition of the credentials committee, which in the most utterly abstract level is I guess all the campaigns are fighting over right now.

Hi Jane:

I sent you email…(he says, somewhat nervously…)

So you’re saying they left a loophole when they ruled that FL and MI delegates wouldn’t be seated?

I suppose you could describe it that way. :) In any case, they did not strip the committee of the right to seat delegates, so even if it is a “loophole”, it is one that the campaigns were aware of ahead of time.

OT: Late in the day on Wednesday (Feb 13), a Democrat-sponsored 21-day extension to the PAA was voted down in the House. Does anyone know the breakdown of that vote by party? Or, where I could find it? Thanks.

I think it healthy to the process to ask questions and see if improvements can be made that are inline with current thinking and concerns.

that’s why this poll is so great,
Let’s Talk! (cause I have no freakin’ clue)

Delegates elected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good
conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.

My sentiments exactly.

The problem for Al Gore is that the media hates him so much that anyone he endorses will be torn apart by the press. (Remember what happened to Dean in December 2003, after Gore stuck his neck out and pissed off Joe Lieberman by endorsing the good doctor?) I think that Gore recognizes that and doesn’t want his endorsement to hurt the endorsee.

That NYT article had an especially interesting passage in it:

A number of senior Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and three candidates who have dropped out of the 2008 race, former Senator John Edwards and Senators Christopher J. Dodd and Joseph R. Biden Jr., have spoken with Mr. Gore in recent days. None have endorsed a candidate, although Ms. Pelosi made comments on Friday that were widely seen as supportive of Mr. Obama when it came to the process the party should use to make its choice of candidate.

“It would be a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided,” Ms. Pelosi said in an interview with Bloomberg Television.

So per the NYT, Nancy Pelosi’s asking that superdelegates respect the will of the people is tantamount to her backing Obama.

My head hurts.

I KNEW you had a reason for wanting us to do the poll. Also (and sorry if someone has already said this) but just in looking at Ma., the super delegates are roughly divided between Clinton and Obama in a manner pretty close to the election results. I would be curious about whether this is true in other states too.

I disagree with Kos. The point of the supers is to allow a decision to be made when the the primary/causus processes themselves have not shown a clear favorite. That means they have to have some discretion.

If the primaries/caucuses show a clear favorite, then the supers will likely follow those results and there will be no issue to solve. If there is no favorite from the voting, then the supers have to decide. Since the voting will not have settled the matter, even after more primaries/caucuses than ever, I don’t see a problem with that.

I don’t know if it is a HUGE mistake, but it is a mute point at best. For example on Kos the other day there was a post up by a couple of Ma. Clinton supporters insisting that Kerry and Kennedy (two our or SDs) support Clinton beccause she won a majority. Well….hmmmm unlikely at best.

You know the Iranians have a super delegate system too. Its Revolutionary Committes screen the candidates before the election to make sure the candidates are sufficiently devout Shiites.
The Democrats wait until after the primary elections to screen the winner to make sure that he is sufficiently Democratic.
Maybe the Democratic party should take a look at the Iranian way; it might avoid criticisms that its system obstructs the will of the people.

Problem is the cat is out of the bag. Meow crow! We have super delegates for better or worse. Unlike Fla and Mich there were/are no rules about how they are supposed to vote.

I take back my initial suggestion James Baker and Katherine Harris, they would be unable to be fair arbiters because of their political affiliation.

Democrats are needed.

I now suggest a blue ribbon panel headed by Joe Lieberman, Zell Miller and Ron Silva.

-G

Here you go:

http://www.govtrack.us/congres…..e=h2008-54

FL and MI are tainted. They either should not count, or have a re-do. There is no way to work fairly with what happened in either of these states-Period. This is a simple issue. There were rules in place and they were broken. Do rules matter? As Democrats, we have spent 7 years complaining about the rule of law being abused, and Congressional rules be trashed. Are we better than that or not?

I disagree with Kos. The point of the supers

I believe Kos was referring to the pledged delegates from FL / MI, not super delegates.

This is a simple issue. There were rules in place and they were broken. Do rules matter?

The rule that allows the DNC credentials committee to seat delegates from FL / MI (and all the other states) is still in place. If that committee decides to seat delegates from FL / MI, they are following the rule.

I support Obama over Clinton, but I don’t believe votes should be tossed out at this point. I wouldn’t mind FL being seated as is, with MI seating being done through some calculation. Markos’ idea of 50/50 is also OK with me.

Am I wrong in saying that 2 and 4 are essentially the same thing? In either case, if this was a mandatory procedure the outcome of either the final count of pledged delegates nationally would be the same as the final count. But if the Super-Delegates voted by the national vote (thus diminishing the caucus state votes) it would potentially produce a “controversial outcome”…a large population State or a State with an open Primary could swamp the delegate counts of many smaller states, simply because they held caucuses instead of open Primaries.

And then there are States where some delegates are allocated by caucus and others by election. Or where a “beauty contest” election is held (e.g. Washington) where far fewer voters show up than would if the delegates were issued only by Primary.

I think that the Superdelegates are currently given the freedom to decide, but are they given guidelines about the conditions when they are allowed to stray from the district-selected delegates (and what happens when the district splits its delegates). Many Superdelegates are not even associated with a district. Some are (e.g. Congressional Reps.) but others are party hacks, or members of different groups. Do the Superdelegates have to publicize their votes, or are they made “confidentially”. If the latter I can see that there would be no accountability.

Some delegates are clearly going to vote close to what their Districts did (particularly Congressional reps). I can’t see that it would be easy for Congresswoman Waters to vote for Clinton, even though she is an announced supporter, when all of the delegates from her Congressional District are pledged to Obama and the voters overwhelmingly supported him. But Superd’s from more split districts (2-2 or even 3-2) would have to decide. And what about Senators where the delegate counts are close to even?

if the wisdom of the super-delegates happens to align with the (voting) public’s perception of the “winner” then there’s no problem. if it’s the opposite, there will be howls of outrage.

If we want to stick to the rules, we have to let the superdelegates do what they will and leave MI and FL to the Credentials committee.

I remember the hooha that erupted in 1968 when the Credentials committee seated the multi-racial delegation from Mississippi rather than those elected by the White Democratic Primary. That was the right thing to do, but the Democratic party was so torn by so many things (assassinations of Bobby Kennedy, MLK, the war in VietNam, etc.) that we ended up with Nixon.

Thanks, Rob. Very helpful.

Yep. MoveOn endorsing a candidate in a party primary (between two liberal/progressives, not a Lamont/Lieberman situation) was bad enough…but
their new attempt to step into the super delegate pie fight is the last straw for me – I just removed myself from their mailing list.

It’s much too early to start gaming the Superdelegates. They should be sitting on the sidelines and at least waiting for the tally to come in!
They aren’t in the game yet nor should they be and when they come in, IF they come in, they are expected to vote their conscience.

How can one expect to win a Presidency winning only small states, low voter turnout in undemocratic caucus states (compared to Kerry’s numbers in 2004), and in RED STATES. You can hold your breath until you turn blue but you will before they ever will.

Howard Dean’s official statement on the role of superdelegates in the nominating process:

“They are a diverse group of individuals who come from all parts of the country and all walks of life. They are local grassroots activists, county Party chairs, and local elected officials. They include all members of the DNC, all Democratic Members of Congress and all Democratic Governors, and a few former party leaders – all of whom have been elected by the people of their states and districts. Virtually all members of the DNC have been elected by their state party committees or Conventions, who in turn have been elected by grassroots Democratic voters. These members of the DNC have earned their positions by doing the difficult, unglamorous work of building the party organization day in and day out, when nobody is paying attention, year after year.

“Their role is to exercise their best judgment in the interests of the nation and of the Democratic Party. I am confident that they will carry out that duty responsibly and in accordance with the highest values of our democracy and our Party.”

The best way to respect the pledged delegate wishes would be for the superdelegates to just shut up right now and stop talking about switching votes, about the need to “avoid” backroom deals or respecting the wishes of voters. Last time I checked, the wish of voters is still not known.

Keep your eye on the PRIZE. We’ve been bride’s maids far too long!

Actually in ‘68 when the caucasian delegates walked out, they all became Republicans!

Well, I do have a clue, and I choose None of the Above. Options 1 and 2 are unworkable, as we aren’t doing winner-take-all. They would require all SD’s from a state pool their votes; even then, how do you reflect a 52% – 48% split with, say, 5 SD’s?

4 and 5 will turn out to be unworkable if neither Obama nor Clinton have enough delegates to take the nomination outright.

I vote for option three and let ‘em vote for whomever they think is the best candidate to win. It’s what they’ll do anyway and is the theoretical reason for their existence in the first place.

I think this is not only absurd, but it renders the primaries and caucuses completely irrelevant except for TV and MSM interest.

If you take the tack the SD’s get to decide the election, then we sure don’t need the voters in primaries/caucuses do we? We sure don’t need campaigning and answering voters’ questions either.

And yet over 300,000 people signed the MoveOn petition:

“The Democratic Party must be democratic. The superdelegates should let the voters decide between Clinton and Obama, then support the people’s choice.”

There doesn’t seem to be a lot of unanimity about how the “people’s choice” is determined.

I just wonder what the people who signed it thought they were specifically endorsing.

In Florida and Michigan, the only reason Clinton head faked that she would abide by an agreement was that she was told emphatically she would be off the ballot in Iowa and New Hampshire if she didn’t make an agreement.

Obama didn’t put his name on the ballot in Michigan–and he wasn’t “outmanuevered” *g* as someone suggested the other day–who must really think Axelrod and Obama are complete babes in the woods.

Hundreds of thousands of people did not vote in Michigan and Florida because they were fake primaries/caucuses.

Either they don’t count–or DNC pays for a do-oever. One or the other. That prevents the Clintons from trying to steal Florida and Michigan which is their strategy.

Win every coming state by 60% majority which she needs to take the delegate race.

Clinton cannot and knows she can’t come close. When you watch those returns starting Tuesday and in every state after remember–to win the delegate vote she needs to win every state with a 60% majority and polls clearly show Obama closing the gap in the big 3 much closer than that. It’s mathematically impossible for her to win 60% in any coming state:

I just wonder what the people who signed it thought they were specifically endorsing.

They were specifically endorsing the legitimacy of the primaries and caucuses with the exception of the fly into the ground of Michigan and Florida.

How can one expect to win a Presidency winning only small states, low voter turnout in undemocratic caucus states (compared to Kerry’s numbers in 2004), and in RED STATES. You can hold your breath until you turn blue but you will before they ever will.

Are you aware of any candidate doing that? That would oversimplify the actual vote counts in many of the larger states, and also keep in mind that in Texas (I didn’t make these rules) which is not exactly a small state–the percentage of vote for the delegates is going to be determined by Texas voter turnout in the last election.

Texas voter turnout in 2004:

1) Phenomenally low for Hispanic voters
2) Phenomenally high for African American voters

Again, Clinton needs to win 60% of every coming state starting Wisconsin Tuesday in order to win the primary/caucus delegate race. She can’t do it.

How Texas Will Aportion Delegates

The way the delegates will count in Texas is completely proportional to the turnouts in 2004 and 2006.

The delegates in each state Senate district primary will be allocated proportionally among the candidates, with a minimum of 15 percent of the vote required to qualify for any delegates.

Big city districts in Houston, Dallas and Austin with large Democratic turnout in the 2004 and 2006 general election have more delegates to offer than some predominantly Hispanic districts in the Rio Grande Valley and El Paso, which could pose a problem for Hillary Rodham Clinton who has enjoyed solid Hispanic support during earlier primaries.

For instance, a state Senate district in Austin, where 30 percent of residents are Hispanic, will have eight delegates, but a state Senate district in the border city of Brownsville, where the population is 91 percent Hispanic, gets only three.

State Democratic Party spokesman Hector Nieto said Democrats in low-turnout districts have only themselves to blame for the number of delegates they get.

It’s much too early to start gaming the Superdelegates.

Try to tell both campaigns that have had to frantically woo them for survival, especially since one of them knows now she can’t win the election of delegates and would have to use Super Delegates and a big percentage of them to win.

I’m torn. There are valid reasons on both sides.

There are plenty of them, but fortunately you’re not torn about McCain’s many more years of Bush.

Do the Superdelegates have to publicize their votes, or are they made “confidentially”. If the latter I can see that there would be no accountability.

The SD’s do not have to publicize their votes at all.

mostly torn because, while I’m prObama now, I am trying to look at the SD issue in terms of fairness rather than exclusively through the lens of what outcome is more likely to result in his nomination.

Here’s something you’ll never see happen. An agreement in writing by both delegates that whoever is behind after June 7 in pledged delegates drops out of the race.

I’m hoping the outcome that is most likely for his nomination is:

1) pledged delegate win dictates super-delegates and some of the pledge delegates are super delegates

Blue States have many more than purple states or red states.

2) Michigan and Florida. They either don’t count or DNC pays for the do-overs. No head faking by the Clintons allowed in trying to screw Obama with them.

Maybe that’s because, in this poll anyway, people have a strong preference for the popular vote over pledged delegates determining “the people’s choice?”

Blue States have many more than purple states or red states.

no comprendo this part.

I say “tough luck” to MI and FL.

Very well could be. I don’t really think very many people (and blogs like FDL are an exception) but I mean the majority of Americans who are following this election realize that once the popular vote happens, there are so many very complicated ways that these votes get extrapolated to determine the pledge delegate votes. Texas is one example, but there are many others. I hate to keep using the words arcane and byzantine, but that’s what these many different methods seem to me to be.

And every time I look into a particular state, I begin to find out that many of them do have very complicated ways of tabulating/counting the actual delegates that come out of votes–different in different locations–by that I mean districts, or counties however the states each do their divisions.

The superdelegates for some states are not even finalized and have changed within the last week.

I should have qualified this/explained it better.

But when you think about it, here’s what I meant.

Remember that the Republicans don’t have a Super Delegate system in place.

So if a state is a large blue state, it’s going to have the most Super Delegates that extrapolate from its primary/caucus votes.

If a state is more borderline between Democrat and Republican (purple) it’s going to have less by definition.

If a state is homogenously more “Red”, then there will be less people voting for the democratic candidate in the primary–whether there is a situation where anyone can vote in it or you have to register democratic.

In checking, I believe that the Texas delegates will depend on voter turnout in the 2006 mid-cycle election–and 2004 isn’t in play.

The districts for determining previous voter turnout in the 2006 elections used are the 31 State Senate districts in Texas.

I haven’t gone district by district, and maybe someone in Texas can refine this better who has been a regular reader of their newspapers, but according to NYT and WaPo, in the last midterm election, voter turnout was high in African American dominated areas than in predominantly Hispanic areas.

So many media accounts and Clinton’s own campaign has intimated that they hope to garner a huge hispanic block in Texas. For one thing, Hispanic voting experts tell me that they don’t vote homogenously in herd fashion. But that aside, since Texas extrapolates depending on voter turnout in 2006, then to perceive that Clinton is going to grab Hispanics in droves in 2008 and therefore she has a big advantage in Texas, is not necessarily going to be the case.

thanks for the follow-up, however, now I’m more confused than ever!

All I’m saying there is that Republicans don’t have Super Delegates in their primary. Democrats do. So the more democrats vote, or even people who aren’t democrats can vote in a democratic primary in a given state, the more democratic delegates will emerge from that state. If a state is large by definition, it has more Super Delegates–whether they would be party officials or elected representatives because of the proportionality. A large predominantly blue state like New York, is going to have more Super Delegates. A small red state won’t.

I would love to see a do-over in Michigan and Florida. Conventional wisdom of the experts is that those states’ legislatures who make that decision won’t pay for it. If there would be a do-over then, the DNC would have to fund that. I don’t know what the chances of that happening would be. From everything I can read on this subject that is now front and center in the MSM, DNC is hoping that a clear front runner will emerge. And I’m not going to try to make some “authoritative prediction” since I don’t know what will happen, and I’m not in any position anyway to make one, but if there is no clear winner, then I even know less what would happen but sure do fear what would happen.

This has to be in the running as the non-issue of the decade. Freaking out about “superdelegates”? Quick, sit on the floor and put your head between your knees and breath slowly. This outburst of mass hysteria must rival the panic when earth was invaded by Mars. And you know what happened then.

The system is designed to prevent two things: a takeover of party machinery such as occurred in the Republican Party, infiltrated and overcome by the religious zealots; and the nomination of a candidate who is clearly unfit or incapable of winning the general election.

You know what? I don’t care if Barack Obama gets 75% of popularly-selected delegates, when, the week before the nomination, he tells an interviewer about the time space ships landed in his yard and kidnapped his wife, I want him outta there! Call me old-fashioned. And, the same goes for Hillary Clinton, if they find $100,000 in her freezer! The days when Adam Clayton Powell could get elected to Congress while powerboating in Bimini are over.

And the reason for that is simply that hypervenilating, politically unsophisticated naifs are not setting party policy the way the backroom boys would want it to be set.

Get over it. Do your fricking homework. As I often have occasion to tell my chatty 9 y/o, You can’t learn while talking.

Thanks.

mp

I’m very sophisticated at treating hyperventilation–I’ve been doing it for years. And I think, regardless of how your 9-year old is viewing the situation that it’s appropriate to be very concerned about the theft by taking that the Clintons are trying to engineer via Michigan, Florida, and the SDs.

I believe Clinton is clearly incapapble of winning the general. I cannot find one experienced person in my state that is a veteran of politics including the two Senators who are republican who aren’t lusting for her to be the candidate and by the same token are scared shitless of Obama.

The party leaders in those states are arrogant dumbasses and should be fired. If the Dems in those states want to have their say in the Democratic Party, then they should elect leadership that will play by the rules, and kick out the ones that don’t.

I hope the DNC sticks to its position. We need a strong, national party to be effective in the long term. The party leadership in some states has demonstrated that they do not care as much about winning national elections as they do about their own power. That has to change.

Thanks.

mp

The party leaders in those states are arrogant dumbasses

They sure are. I know very few politicians who aren’t but not all are arrogant and many I know aren’t dumbasses–they’re very sharp–even some of the ones who have a horrendous political ideology on the other side. That gets complicated, because you have to know them well before they’ll really let their hair down and air their disagreements with so much of the national party line.

I don’t know what the DNC’s position is going to be, but if you mean you hope they say Michigan and Florida are history and their delegates cannot be seated, I’m really fine with that.

Clinton is distressed when and if that happens, and I’m fine with whatever distresses her until she gets out of the way.

And I believe that this “clearly can’t win” is arrant nonsense. It’s absurd on its face simply because (1) she is a top contender in the Democratic Party, (2) All the polls show her beating the likely Republican candidate, and (3) She already is one of the most publicly-investigated politicians in the United States. There is no more dirt to be flung. She got elected to the Senate partly by doing exceptionally well in traditionally Republican areas of Upstate NY. She not only won election but re-election, as well. Both times by large margins.

“Saying doesn’t make it so.” And you can troll the Republican/Obama talking points all you want, that fact won’t change. Republican strategists will have a field day with their coded racist commentary and Barack Obama will plunge in the national polls the day after the ordination. The notion that Obama doesn’t have any baggage can only be propagated by people who haven’t done their homework or people who are looking forward to trashing him.

Either of these candidates can win in the general, but this line that Barack Obama is just going to walk up and accept the crown without a fight is dangerously nonsensical. It also must be the worst possible reason for promoting a candidate.

My preference for Clinton is based simply on the fact that she has demonstrated she can do the job. All Obama has done to date is run his yap in front of the cameras. Well, when he can’t run on his record — what else can he do? “Trust me — I know what I’m doing.” Yeah, right.

Thanks.

mp

I’m happy to debate constructively with you, but not every one who disagrees with you is a) a troll b) *g* a politically unsophisticated naif c) a “chatty 9 year old d) suffering from the respiratory alkalosis of hyperventilation

I don’t pay any attention to so-called “Republican/Obama” talking points. You’re slash is misplaced. Obama is not a Republican; he’s the future Democratic Candidate.

“All the polls” do not show her beating McCain. They never have. They do currently show Obama beating McCain. There is some time to go before November however, and polls are close as to head to heads. I wouldn’t grab a snapshot of polls at this poinnt in time and extrapolate that they are very definitive–but they are fun to watch. Their statistical methodology however, leaves much to be desired.

I would be delighted to see the ones you have been reading I must have missed linked here though.

Obama Beats McCain in 9/9 Major Polls; McCain Beats Clinton in 4/5; Ties One Currently

4/5 Major Polls Show McCain Beating Clinton currently and one is tiedFifty-two percent in this ABC News/Washington Post poll have a favorable opinion of Clinton, compared with 59 percent for McCain.

Every Republican I know or I’ve seen quoted wants Clinton as the Democratic candidate with the intensity a 15 year-old boy has when he looks at Mily Cyrus–that includes the Republican Senators I’ve seen quoted on the subject that I know.

There is no more dirt to be flung.

There would be plenty of dirt flung against either candidate, and many research crews are being hired by billionaires to do just that. I’m not about flinging dirt at any potential Democratic candidate, and I’m not about flinging dirt at John McCain either. Bush did that and he did it reprehensibly and lied with Rove during the South Carolina primaries last year.

There is plenty of McCain’s record and position to attack, and plenty of time in which to do it now and after June 7 over the summer.

There are many questions Billiary refuses to answer however, and I know you can’t wait to answer them, but you’re going to need info from Billiary first.

LHP said she was all about vetting candidates, but so far her rendition of vetting here has been to vet Obama. She got a lot of response to her methodology here and on dozens of other blogs from lawyers. I eagerly await the vetting of Clinton here, but it has not come forth currently since the vetting of Obama along the lines of Tony Rezko, poker games, and misinterpreted Illinois Senate present votes.

I clarified the “Present votes” here this morning

I also linked ‘Present’ Perfect by Avner Mikvah in today’s Op Ed NYT to do it.

LHP advocated vetting the candidates in her post that alluded to Rezko, poker, and her misperception of what a present vote actually meant in the Illinois Senate.

I’m eagerly awaiting the current vetting of Clinton here with a dozen questions that I’m sure you’re eager to answer that are being asked ofher that she has so far not answered:

A Dozen Questions to Pose to Hillary Clinton (not answered yet/not vetted yet at FDL):

1) What brought about the very sudden appearance of billing records from the Rose law firm in the dining room of the White House that had been subpoenaed 18 months earlier in 1984? You can bet that would be front and center in any hypothetical general election with McCain. I do not see Christy Smith or LHP LHP sitting on their hands if they issued a subpoena when at DOJ and the party refused to answer their subpoena in 18 days let alone 18 months. I’d expect a motion for contempt. None was issued when Clinton was first lady by the Star group, including by Amy St. Eve who was on the team. I would expect that if Judge St. Eve ordered something produced or a subpoena enforced today, someone refusing her order would be shown the jail on the South loop of Chicago forthwith just as Rezko was shown it by St. Eve after Fitz’s motion he allegedly withheld funds.

2) What was the genesis of Hillary Clinton’s miraculous cattle futures trade netting her a sudden hundred grand in 1994?

1 grand to 100 grand No experience in cattle futures by Clinton

3) Where does an examination of where Hillary got the $5 million to loan to her campaign? If it was in fact from her book deal, she doesn’t have a lot left to loan herself–except for the $100,000 speaking fees her husband continues to generate world wide. Was it from something like the mining deal that garnered $31.5 million for the Clinton library, or did it come from the misty, nebulous secret dealings of Bill Clinton and billionaire playboy friend Ron Burkle?

4) An examination of the $400,000 bribe paid by Denice Rich to Bill Clinton in order to get a pardon for her divorced husband Mark who pretty much fits the word “sleazy” that LHP used–at the time the pardon was granted Rich’s husband was an international fugitive on the run from US Marshalls–that’s not quite up to the usual standards of the pardon office at LHP’s old digs–the DOJ. That’s going to be front and center in any attempt of Hillary Clinton to get elected.

It’s the classic defininition of a bribe and a Presidential pardon sold for $400,000.

5) An examination of the recent mining deal that netted Bill Clinton a contribution of $31.5 million dollars described in this article should be vetted. It’s going to be showcased in any hypothetical general election.
Clinton swings mining deal–gets $31.5 million for Secret Library Fund

6) What connections does TonyRezko have to the Clinton campaign or her campaign co-chairman? Two co-chairman took money from Rezko, and have refused to answer any questions about it.

Obama has answered dozens of questions to all Chicago newspapers.

7) Why has the word Rezko not come from Clinton’s lips and why has the accusation of working for slum lords not come from Clinton’s lips since early January in a debate? focal lesion brain/larynz that prevents this? She raised it once and never again.

8) When will Clinton learn to understand the Levin bill and the Kyle-Leiberman amendments she voted on authorizing war in Iraq in the first? Why did she mischaracterize them in the last debate, when she has had the advantage of a Yale law degree which should have insured that she can read a bill correctly? Why did she mischaracterize her vote against the Levin amendment and the amendment itself? Levin has said her explanation had nothing to do withhis amendment that she voted against.

9) Why has Clinton blocked release of over 1.5 million documents relating to a health care initiative she references all the time but refuses to detail at all no matter how many times she’s asked? This would be pressed for in any general election.

10) Why are the Clintons refusing to release the big money donor list to the Clinton library? This is a valid question for anyone who is running for any public office whether it’s a county commissioner or President of the United States. This would be front and center in any hypothetical general election.

11) Why did Clinton vote to table the earmark legislation that Obama wrote and sponsered?

12) Why did Clinton fail to know what a present vote means in the Illinois Senate when she grew up in Illinois and went to high school there as asked this morning on the op-ed page of the NYT?

‘Present’ Perfect by Avner Mikvah Former D.C. Circuit Appellate Judge and White House Counsel to Bill Clinton

13) Why is Clinton White House Counsel Avner Mikvah working on the Obama campaign, and why is former best friend to the Clintons in law school and the coordinator of Clinton’s impeachment defense, Greg Craig of Williams and Connolly LLP working for Obama? Craig’s daughter was a good friend of Chelsea Clinton all through her private high schooling at the same school, and Craig rented the Clintons the first apartment they lived together in at Yale law school for $65 per week.

Superdelegates, by definition, have a job to do. That job is not to be influenced by anything other than their judgement on the best candidate for president. Just as if they have their own primary. They CANNOT make their decision based upon the popular vote. Caucus states are not a representative sample of the popular vote. Caucus’ are results of people who not only have to be motivated by their support of a candidate to participate, but also must be ABLE to participate by the fact that they can attend the caucus event at the particular times that they are held. Some are only for 2 hours on the given day and it is not by secret ballot – 1 vote, 1 person. They are not a fair sample of the electorate. Some of these states have been decided by less than 3000 people. How does that compare to 1.7 million voters in Florida who voted in good faith but are NOT being counted.