Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
The Pelosi Test
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi just said onABC's This Week that the nomination process is: "a delegate race" and she compared it to the general election as an electoral college votes race.
http://abcnews.go.com/thisweek
It would be helpful if some other prominent democrats like Howard Dean or Al Gore came out and made the same statement so we can stop these attempts by the Clinton campaign to move the goal-post while the game is in progress and suggest that only the popular vote counts or tht only wins in certain states are indicative of a nominee's strength,etc...
Now, one could make all kinds of very valid arguments about the democratic deficit of both the delegate race and the electoral college system. But those arguments or that re-jiging of the process should not impact an ongoing race. Otherwise it leaves the impression that the rules are being changed to favor the Establishment candidate.
Comments (14)
The Pelosi Test is nothing but an Obama surrogate pushing his campaign talking points.
This party has used proportional representation in every contest to date. To claim now that a simple majority should decide the nomination is nothing but re-writing the rules.
Obama can and should win this nomination fair and square. There is no reason to believe he cannot.
Anything else is a fraud.
March 16, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
majority rule of delegates is the whole point. That isn't re-writing the rules. It is the rules.
March 16, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
No it isn't. I challenge you to read the rules and post a link here that says anything about the majority of pledged delegates deciding the nomination if no candidate achieved 2,205 threshold.
March 16, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one said anything about pledged delegates until you did.
March 16, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't tell if you are disingenuous or simply uninformed. There are two kinds of rules at play here.
First, there are the formal rules that indicate that the candidate with the majority of total delegates -- both pledged delegates and super delegates -- at the convention will win the nomination. Nothing in the formal rules requires superdelegates to confirm the result of the pledged delegate race.
Second, there is an informal rule of sound political practice which dictates that the elite (superdelegates) use its power to determine an outcome at odds with the expressed will of primary and caucus voters -- in the form of pledged delegates -- only under extraordinary circumstances, for their actions could spark a full-scale revolt within the party if the few overrule the verdict of the many. This second rule is reflected in the comments of Speaker Pelosi.
The fact that Hillary Clinton feels entitled to be the Democratic nominee despite her failure to secure a majority of pledged delegates does not qualify as an extraordinary circumstance. Obama has won this race fair and square. Clinton should put her own ambitions in check and acknowledge that Obama has won for the good of her party.
March 16, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "entitlement" nonsense has been tossed around for more than a year now.
Hillary has campaigned and fought for the nomination like anyone else. Her campaign's had ups and downs, as have others. But show a quote where she claims she's somehow "entitled" to the nomination or presidency. It's this kind of insidious crap that's been so hard for her to shake off, what with all the other mythology surrounding Obama. I'd suggest renting "The Man Who Would Be King" for what happens when the aura wears off a God. It rolls out pretty quickly.
March 16, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "entitlement nonsense" was the explicit strategy of Mark Penn to convey the impression that her nomination was inevitable because she was running as a quasi-incumbent. She had the name rec, the big money and the endorsements from the Democratic establishment. The Clinton campaign was devoid of any other major message or theme. They were so confident that reality would conform to their vision of a Clinton Restoration that they assumed the race would be over on Super Tuesday. When they found that Obama had fought them to a draw on Feb 5, they were caught flat-footed and lost the next 11 contests in a row. By then, it was too late. The inevitability factor had shifted to Obama as he amassed a huge lead in pledged delegates that Clinton cannot overcome.
March 16, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, then I must say I think you are both ill-informed and disingenuous.
Pelosi and Dean are two top leaders of the Party. For either of them to come out and say that the Party will be damaged if the superdelegates do not vote a certain way is the same as either of them saying superdelegates must vote a certain way.
Bush said if the country didn't vote for him, there would be another terrorist attack. Remember?
March 17, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
No I am not an Obama surrogate and I certainly have no talking points to push. I am an Obama supporter who was merely reporting a piece of news that I think favors my candidate.
I don't think that Pelosi was saying a simple majority should decide the nomination. She was answering a question on which variable (i.e. popular vote, states won, delegates,etc,...) should dictate who the nominee should be.
Right now the threshold is set at 2,025 and it unattainable by both candidates given the remaining contests without the super delegates.
Those delegates can pick who they want based on a array of variables of their choosing. Pelosi simply said in her eyes it is a "delegate race" and I agree. And yes on that basis, barring a last minute collapse, Obama should in this fair and square.
March 16, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pelosi knows she will not be Speaker should HRC win the Presidency. Ms. Pelosi is respected, not liked in the House, she backed Murtha over Hoyer who supports Clinton. There is only one Queen Bee and the girls will go at it if Pelosi puts her facelifed neck out there or plays in the background.
March 16, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Marginal Player:
Your comment:
"There is only one Queen Bee and the girls will go at it if Pelosi puts her facelifed neck out there or plays in the background."
is just another chauvinistic, sexist comment...! Some of you never get tired of putdowns.
March 16, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The contest is based on delegates, pledged & super.
Clinton trying to sway the supers by bringing up popular vote is meaningless.
It's a last ditch effort by a losing campaign.
The supers will clearly gravitate to the delegate leader (as Pelosi is saying)
To try to include a popular vote tally would be changing the rules. You cannot possibly use popular vote as a yardstick due to the many states that use the caucus system. (The ones that Clinton is losing)
If you notice, the requirements are for the nominee to get to 2025 delegates, not XXX number of popular votes.
END THE DRAMA - VOTE OBAMA!
March 16, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, JohnDoe!
March 16, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo, Pelosi -- You go girl!
I'm glad someone in the DNC has some backbone against the selfish slash-and-burn Clintons!
March 17, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment