Winning the Battle, Losing the War
Primary tabs
With all the fighting over Florida and Michigan, I thought I'd look into the effects of counting and not counting Florida and Michigan. There's been a lot of argument about whether the Democrats absolutely have to have Florida and Michigan and whether not seating these states will hurt the nominee and other democrats in these states in November. Since nobody can predict the future, I start from the proposition that, while not seating the two states does not automatically doom the democrats to losing the presidency and possibly local races in those states, it poses some risks to the democrats' ability to capture the presidency and win local elections in MI and FL. Telling people you aren't going to count their votes rarely makes them more likely to vote for you. Any talk about the importance of protecting the democratic primary schedule must be balanced against the potential risks to winning in November (which, of course, is what this entire nominating process is supposed to be about).
Delegates
Here's a comparison of the current delegate standings without Michigan and Florida, with Michigan and Florida, and with Michigan and Florida giving Obama the uncommitted vote in Michigan:
Notice anything? Obama leads whether Michigan and Florida are included or not. There are 566 pledged delegates at stake in the remaining contests.
Popular Vote
Again, notice anything? Obama leads whether Michigan and Florida are included or not with ten contests to go.
So Why Are We Fighting?
Whether Florida and Michigan are seated or not, neither candidate will be able to get to the needed number of delegates solely with pledged delegates. The winner will be decided by the automatic delegates. Exactly where we are now.
If we count Florida and Michigan, Obama can still win the nomination. Depending on the results of the remaining contests he could still end ahead in pledged delegates and/or the popular vote. However, with the inclusion of Florida and Michigan, Clinton could overtake Obama in the popular vote and possibly even pledged delegates. Without Florida and Michigan, it becomes a lot harder for Clinton to win the nomination. In other words, the only thing gained by not seating Florida and Michigan is an increased probability that Obama will be the nominee. Not seating them does not prevent Obama from winning the nomination.
This is the question democrats must ask themselves, is it so important to ensure Obama gets the nomination, instead of him remaining one of two candidates who could get the nomination, that it is worth increasing the risk he will lose in November? Or as Big Tent Democrat put it the other day, do some people hate Hillary more than they care about the Democratic party?
Delegate counts come from http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/florida-and-michigan-by-numbers.html
Popular Vote totals come from www.realclearpolitics.com. Note for the popular vote totals, I used the count that included caucus estimates and counted the WA caucus instead of primary, although personally I believe the primary results should be the count.
- BDBlue's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
It's called legitimacy
If FL/MI are excluded, Obama might win but he won't have legitimacy.
If only a small percentage of Hillary's spporters in those two states refuse to vote for Obama, or worse, vote for McCain, it will be virtually impossible for Obama to win in November.
But it's not just those two states. I am a Hillary supporter, but she wasn't my first choice. I will vote for the Democrat in November, no matter who it is. But other people don't feel the same as I do.
If Obama wins "fair and square" he can count on the support of most of Hillary's supporters. We're grown-ups, and we understand that every race can only have one winner.
But if Obama is perceived to have cheated or won unfairly, he's going to have a huge problem.
Legitimacy works both ways
If FL/MI are counted as they were conducted, Clinton "might win but [she] won’t have legitimacy."
"If [Clinton] is perceived to have cheated or won unfairly, [she’s] going to have a huge problem."
wtf
I love how you "accidentally" leave out the super delegates that also come along with the "Delegates" in your misleading table. Sure it adds a net of +10 delegates to Clinton and adds another 35 undeclared super delegates, but it doesn't make your table look as nice.
Sure, let's just pretend they don't exist.
I'm getting sick of these less than honest posts that only talk about "pledged" delegates and totally forget about supers.
Re: Wtf
Oh, we wouldn't forget the superdelegates. Hillary has made no secret of the fact that her continuing candidacy is staked solely on their enshrined-in-the-rules authority to ignore the popular mandate as expressed in the pledged delegate total.
Of course, that instantly shows up her rhetoric about "disenfranchising" MI and FL as the cynical BS that it is. But it's a perfectly legitimate strategy.
What I can't wait to hear is how she plans to convince the uncommitted SDs to cast their lot with her. Unlike the SDs she started her lead with, these are mostly elected officials who would be playing Russian Roulette by going against the will of their constituents - even if they agreed with her dubious claims of being more electable.
"If one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope." - Bill Clinton
If Hillary was perceived to have won unfairly...
... she'd have an even bigger problem.
Because the majority of Democratic voters wanted the other guy.
Oh, I know. You want to count Florida (where an unguessable number of people stayed home after having been told their votes wouldn't matter) and Michigan (where she was the only one on the ballot) - while not counting the caucus states where the popular vote wasn't recorded. But when you leave Hillaryland and enter the real world, things just don't work that way.
Fortunately, these considerations are all moot:
1. By Hillary's own admission, she'll finish behind in pledged delegates.
2. Which means Obama will control the credentials committee that decides what happens with FL/MI.
3. Which means he can handcraft whatever compromise will maximize the appearance of generosity while still insuring the nomination.
Stomp your feet and shout "NO NO NO!" if you think it appropriate. But those are the facts of your situation.
"If one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope." - Bill Clinton
False, False, False
I won't say lies, lies, lies, b/c you may just be incorrect instead of deliberately misleading, though you've been corrected on this before.
False, all breakdowns of the exit polls show MORE Democrats voted for Clinton. Full Stop.
There was a ballot initiative to ensure paper ballots, which drew more support to the polls, and it balances out. There was no abandonment of the top of ticket. Almost just as many people who voted for the ballot initiative voted in the primary.
No she was not. Full Stop. There were four other candidates on the ballot, just because Golden Boy wasn't on there, doesn't mean she was alone. And the fact that Obama wasn't on the ballot is b/c Obama chose not to be. And, don't forget this whole argument would be moot if Obama hadn't impeded the revote.
And this resolves the situation how? I understand it resolves the nomination for Obama, but that is not the big picture here. Our concerns are not as limited as Obama's, we'd like to win in '08. Seating FL & MI after the nominee is chosen, when there votes could have affected the outcome(which is obviously what they wanted, the did go overwhelmingly for Clinton), will not solve this problem.
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
Re: False, False, False
1. "all breakdowns of the exit polls show MORE Democrats voted for Clinton"
And you're looking at exit polls rather than tabulated votes... why exactly?
If it's the "Limbaugh factor" you're concerned with, he commanded his drones to vote for Hillary, remember? Looking at the actual votes only works in her favor.
2. "Almost just as many people who voted for the ballot initiative voted in the primary."
I can only barely glimpse what you're trying to say here. As best I can tell: something about how this initiative brought out everyone who would have voted anyway?
If so, that's pure speculation.
3. "just because Golden Boy wasn’t on there, doesn’t mean she was alone"
Point taken. I shouldn't sleight the other candidates that way. But the reason Obama took his name off the ballot is because both he and Golden Girl signed pledges not to participate. Remember that?
Of course, since then we've all been shown what a Clinton pledge is worth.
4. "I understand it resolves the nomination for Obama, but that is not the big picture here"
Fine. Then it's all about electability and only the superdelegates are smart enough to decide who has it.
Then please tell me what was the point of your voting in the first place. Or why you are arguing with me about who turned up in Florida.
"If one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope." - Bill Clinton
Who's to blame?
Howard Dean
Super Delegates Are a Separate Issue
They are not tied to the votes in either state and, in fact, Obama has Super Delegates, which are more accurately called automatic delegates, from Florida and Michigan. Also, the automatic delegates may end up being seated even if the pledged delegates aren't. They currently have an appeal before the DNC because the DNC charter provides for the automatic delegates to be seated and the charter trumps the DNC rules, much like the U.S. Constitution trump statutory law. So there's a good chance the Super Delegates from Michigan and Florida will be seated even if the pledged delegates are not.
Why Can't Obama Supporters Read?
This is a serious question, the number of times I read a post that says X and all of the Obama folks scream about Y is amazing to me. Ribo, I specifically counted the caucus states in my vote totals. Which I think is the right way to count the popular vote because I'm all for the broadest count possible. I don't even object to giving Obama the uncommitted in Michigan, even though I know a percentage of those voters were Edwards people. The only caucus I wouldn't count is Washington because there was a primary where more than 20x the number of people participated.
Ah, there it is
I apologize for not reaching the very last line of your not-short post. When I saw no mention of caucuses in the place where you actually, you know, posted your popular vote count, I just assumed the worst.
But while we're on the subject: How do you get from "personally I believe the primary results should be the count" in your post to "I specifically counted the caucus states in my vote totals. Which I think is the right way to count the popular vote" now?
Or does my confusion result from not being able to read?
"If one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope." - Bill Clinton
I know BDB's perfectly capable of answering this
I just wanted to jump in to show you how bad your reading comprehension is.
In the line preceding the part about the Washington primary he said he wanted to broaden the popular vote as much as possible. That would require using the Wash. primaries, since 20 times more people turned out to vote.
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
monkey see
Hahaha. There is only one jerk around here is appears to be doing this. Can anyone guess who.
No
And you’re looking at exit polls rather than tabulated votes… why exactly?
B/c those reveal who were really Democrats voting in a Democratic primary. Is it your reading comprehension again, or are you just dumb?
If it’s the “Limbaugh factor” you’re concerned with, he commanded his drones to vote for Hillary, remember? Looking at the actual votes only works in her favor.
Obama started the Dem for a Day, Limbaugh continued it, and I am disgusted with both of them, regardless of who it "helps". I have principles, unlike many Obama supporters.
both he and Golden Girl signed pledges not to participate. Remember that?
No, the removal of names from the ballot was a totally seperate pledge, than the ones the candidates took to not campaign. So, no, Clinton broke no pledge by keeping her name on the ballot(which she did so she would not deny any of her supporters the opportunity to voice their support, makes you wish Obama had the same respect for his supporters, who can be manipulated however it benefits him), though Obama did, he ran ads in the state.
Or why you are arguing with me about who turned up in Florida.
B/c you said
I was demonstrating this isn't true, turn out in FL was on par with the other states. Could it have been better? Probably, but you can't argue that untold millions didn't show up, b/c the vote counts disprove that. But go ahead and come up with another reason why FL shouldn't be counted as is. I'll knock that one down too.
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
"come up with another reason why FL shouldn’t be counted as is"
Your charm rivals that of Hillary herself. How could I not accept your delightful invitation?
When Bill started running in 92, he did have to campaign in places to make himself known and get his message across, yeah? You couldn't have expected him to fairly compete against the superior name-recognition of Brown and Tsongas without even appearing anywhere. [Of course, he became very famous very shortly - in a way that set the tone for the remainder of his public life.]
So only in the pretzel logic of a Hillary supporter could the original contest be considered an accurate measure of the voters' response the candidates.
But arguing about the Florida vote is just a continuation of the shell game Hillary and her supporters have been playing since Super Tuesday.
If you can't win the pledged delegates, you'll say the popular vote is what matters.
If you can't win the popular vote, you'll say the superdelegates are what matters.
If you can't win the superdelegates, you'll call them misogynists.
I'd encourage you to grow up and take responsibility for the gross failings of your candidate. But I'm a realist.
"If one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope." - Bill Clinton
Not Quite, Ribo
You couldn’t have expected him to fairly compete against the superior name-recognition
Obama is only the most nationally hyped Dem ever to burst on the scene(How many other Senate Challengers were given prime time spots at the 04 convention). Once again, candidates never come through my state, all I learn is what I glean from the news. Yet, somehow I still manage to select a candidate.
Next!
I’d encourage you to grow up and take responsibility for the gross failings of your candidate.
Oh, I don't disagree. Clinton has made some huge mistakes during this campaign. And the recent moves by her campaign have shown that she has learned from these mistakes(she's winning more now!). Obama is the one who refuses to learn from his mistakes, so why don't you encourage him to grow up and take responsibilities for his gross failures as a candidate.
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
Of course, the SDs could take FL/MI into account
Jeralyn:
Yep. Oh, now I see why the Obama Fan Base wants to only the pledged delegate count to matter. They want to disenfranchise MI and FL Hillary votes even in the minds of the automatic delegates.
Nice. Change! Transformation!
NOTE Nice of troll ribo to let the rational veneer slip with the Clinton hate. Elegant:
The Clenis, I assume. Or what were you burbling about there?
And as far as Hillary's charm: She apparently posseses it, at least in greater degree than the "glib and aloof" Obama, who actually managed to get into a fight with Elizabeth Edwards on health care when seeking the Edwards endorsement. Rookie mistake.
Like the PA truck driver said: What part of the Clinton years do they hate? The peace? Or the prosperity?
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
I apologize for injecting hate into your well-mannered site
If it hadn't been for me, I don't think the commenters here would even know what it was.
"If one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope." - Bill Clinton
ribo
Remind me again, are you Hope or Unity? You represent everything despicable about wingnuts. Everyone here is open to facts, debate, discussion, while you are only interested in talking points and twisting discussions.
No, the removal of names
No, the removal of names from the ballot was a totally seperate pledge, than the ones the candidates took to not campaign.
Actually, there was no pledge to remove anyone's name from the ballot. Obama, Edwards, Biden and Richardson (and Kucinich, but he missed the deadline to withdraw) withdrew all on their own initiative. There's been some retroactive justification because the pledge said "campaign or participate," but "participate" was never defined ("campaign," however, was).
If you can’t win the superdelegates, you’ll call them misogynists.
And if Obama can't win the superdelegates, you'll call them racists, so we appear to be at loggerheads here.