Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
One Wo/Man One Vote?
If the super delegates decide to give Hillary the nomination, you can bet that many will be outraged. Some will use the over turning the will of the people argument.
It seems unlikely that the super delegates will have the courage to vote for Hillary if she is behind in pledged delegates and in the popular vote.
But the popular vote argument being pushed by the Clinton camp is important because there is still the possibility that she may over take him in the popular vote count while loosing in the pledged delegate count.
Leaving the accurate popular vote count argument for another time, the pledged delegate count is not based on a one wo/man, one vote concept. Smaller states have disproportional delegate representation. It is based on a concept of "fairness".
Ben Smith ( I know you all hate him) points to an article about DNC rules that illustrates how pledged delegates do not represent one wo/man, one vote.
<blockquote>In a comprehensive, and funny, article detailing how tweaks to party
rules have shaped the presidential campaigns, Josiah Lee Auspitz highlights a delegate quirk that Obama has been able to exploit:
In the least populous jurisdictions, Wyoming and the District of
Columbia, each delegate stands for about 4,000 and 5,000 Democratic
presidential voters respectively, whereas in Ohio and Florida a
delegate represents about 17,000 Democratic presidential voters.
Obama’s accurate claim that he has won “more states” and “more pledged
delegates” must be tempered with the fact that his tally, assuming he
wins upcoming races in South Dakota and Montana, will include eleven of
the twelve most “over- represented” states on a one-person, one-vote
standard. Rhode Island is the only such state in the Clinton column. Of
the twelve most “under-represented,” Obama has won only four.</blockquote>
Comments (32)
If the SD's step into this before the Convention I will be livid. More than livid. This has to play out to its conclusion. Stealing it for either Candidate cannot happen now no matter what happens in the final primaries.
April 23, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I feel like they have to consider every metric possible such as MI, FL and popular votes before they award the nomination. If they simply award Obama the nomination based on the fact that he is ahead in number of states won and pledged delegates, I would not be happy!
April 23, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Over half have already announced. Why should the others have to wait until the end?
April 23, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why should Obama have to pay the penalty for MI and FL breaking the rules? He's played by the rules set up for the candidates and changing the rules in the middle of the game is unfair. You can't use the popular vote totals from MI and FL, you can't even use their total delegates because they broke party rules. The measurement that was agreed on to win is when someone gets 2025 delegates. If supers decide to endorse now rather than later, that's their decision.
April 23, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one has changed any rules. Its clear that the current counts from MI and FL will not be counted. But I don't think anyone is arguing for MI and FL to be ignored. At least not publicly. The fact that they will be counted leaves us with the question of how and when. As far as I'm concerned, sooner the better. But the SD should keep that as a consideration.
If Clinton gets thru IND and NC they better give FL and MI serious consideration or else it might go to the convention whether the party likes it or not.
April 23, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Currently, most of the ones have "stepped in" have stepped in for Clinton. Would you prefer that they step back out? (A few of the super-delegates who previously supporter her, have actually gone back to being neutral.)
April 23, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand how superdelegates jumping in for Obama constitutes stealing? If there were no superdelegates, the race would be over already. Clinton cannot win the pledged delegate count under any realistic scenario. Obama could publicly check himself into drug rehab, and he'd still probably win the pledged delegate count.
So intervention by superdelegates is the only hope that Clinton has. They can't take away a win from Clinton. They can only give her a win that she wouldn't have without them. Thus, there's nothing they can steal from her.
April 23, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't want to speak for louisville 1975, but I think he means that the perception would be, and rightfully so, that Obama is stealing the SD vote if
all is not considered before (if), they go to Obama. Before such things as resolving MI and FL.
April 23, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would it be different if they stepped in equally for Clinton and Obama? Of course, this still ends up giving the race to Obama, but so far Hillary has actually gotten more SDs than Obama, so it's hard to argue that they're stepping in prematurely for him. At least, so far.
April 23, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
SDs don't have any obligation to wait for anything. Over half have already announced. The other half is entitled to announce their vote as well. They are allowed to endorse whomever they want, and do it on their own time table. They are completely independent.
April 23, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no argument about that. But if they use the will of the people argument, they must consider all of the metrics to gauge who the winner is.
April 23, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no argument about that. But if they use the will of the people argument, they must consider all of the metrics to gauge who the winner is.
And by most of those metrics, Obama is ahead and (short of a major Obama campaign meltdown) will still be ahead. Hillary may pull slightly ahead in the popular vote, especially if she continues to insist on counting the votes in Michigan where Obama wasn't even on the ballot. But why should a superdelegate find that impressive enough to let it override everything else?
I agree that it doesn't boil down to any single metric, but even in optimistic projections how do you picture her ending up with an argument that will convince a large percentage of the remaining superdelegates to go her way? Even with optimistic projections she needs to get a very large percentage of the remaining superdelegates to go her way. So she needs a very compelling argument, and I don't think that squeaking out a small lead in the popular vote is going to do that.
She started out with huge name recognition, more money, expectations all on her side, and nearly 100 superdelegates committed to her even before the first primary. She's squandered all of that. If Obama is a weak candidate, after coming from behind to hold a lead over Hillary in delegates, votes and dollars, then what does that say about Hillary?
April 23, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm thinking that a lot of the remaining SDs just need a reason to go one way or the other. Obviously the IND and NC are going to be big. If Hillary does pull out a victory in IND and keep it close if not win in NC, I cannot see the SDs just going to Obama. It will just highlight the electability argument and MI/FL.
April 23, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
More fool her for not campaigning hard in those "insignificant states." She could have had this wrapped up ages ago if she worked for it.
April 23, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, that was a mistake.
April 23, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
A 50-state strategy woulda been a good idea, if she'd had enough money. Too bad she spent all her money before Feb. 5. The inevitability plan didn't work out, so she was left with the Giuliani strategy. To her credit, it worked out a lot better for her than it did for him. But, as it turns out, the "fighter" can't afford to contest the last big prize -- North Carolina.
April 23, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spade - this is a fair point. She would have done it if she didn't make the mistake of Iowa loss and post-Super Tuesday strategy. But this also underscores the point that Obama is ahead because he was able to capitalize on her mistakes, not because he's some kind of one-in-millenium candidate.
April 23, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her mistake was not a stupid blunder, as I tell people who think that she ran a poor campaign. She took the conventional route that others have done before her. Obama took an unconventional route that proved very successful. That's one of the things that makes his campaign stand out.
Of course, any time someone makes a better strategic choice than an opponent, you can say that he/she capitalized on the opponent's error, but then you've ruled out the possibility of brilliance altogether.
April 23, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
airwon, I don't disagree that pledged delegates do not represent one-person-one-vote. Neither does the Electoral College and certainly not the Senate.
If Clinton really does win the popular vote properly, as in not counting FL & MI and counting estimates of the caucus states, and the superdels push her over, I won't feel that they have defied the will of the voters. But her chances of doing that are little better than the her chances of winning the pledged delegate count.
A word to Obama supporters: Please recommend this post even though you don't agree with it. It's much more interesting and thought-provoking to have posts from both sides on the list.
April 23, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks Genghis, I appreciate it.
But I do have to say that not counting FL and MI in a re-vote will always be hard to take for any Clinton supporter.
April 23, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd be cool with a re-vote in both states, but that's not happening. I don't know why they defied the party in the first place, and I don't know why, if they cared so much about having an early say in the primary, they couldn't put their resources behind a re-vote. Honestly, I think that the politicians in both states have behaved like spoiled brats. That has worked to Clinton's disadvantage, particularly in FL, but I don't know what there is to be done about it. The only thing I take comfort in regarding this whole sordid mess is that Obama is up 150 pledged delegates and will almost certainly will be up more by the end. Even if the states re-voted, Clinton couldn't catch up. So in that sense, it's academic.
April 23, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think a lot of us don't have a problem with counting them in a revote. (I really, really wish there had been a revote.) It's just that neither the vote in MI or FL as they currently stand really represented the will of the people. MI is obviously a glaring example since his name wasn't on the ballot, but even in FL, due to Clinton saying the day before the vote (or maybe it was the day of) that their votes should be counted heavily slanted the vote in her favor. (I've explained why this would be so in the past. But if you missed that discussion, I'll gladly explain the selection bias at play there.)
I wish the Obama campaign had worked harder to make the revote happen.
April 23, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Though I ultimately blame the state leaders.
April 23, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry but i don't agree with you. Winning a popular vote means that people voted for you. The FL/MI issue is not the popular vote, it's the seating of the delegates.
April 23, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's leave aside FL because I think its debatable. But you really think the MI vote, on which Obama wasn't on the ballot, represents the will of the people?
If it had been Obama on the ballot instead of Clinton, would you be arguing that it should count? Honestly?
April 23, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
In retrospect, its easy to be an armchair strategist. I don't think anyone expected Obama to do as well as he did. But it was a mistake to not have a back up plan. But give your candidate more credit for doing well rather than blaming Hillary for doing bad.
Regarding money and NC, it will be uphill for Hillary but who is sounding arrogant now?
April 23, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a reply to scofflaw
April 23, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh, yeah, I probably do sound arrogant. Put it down to my bitterness at the fact that my candidate lost last night :/
I was late to the Obama bandwagon (I liked Obama, but thought Edwards had a better chance. I jumped aboard after doing some poll monitoring on Super Tuesday) -- but part of what I loved about Obama's campaign was the 50-state strategy, the idea of growing the Democratic party, and appealing to voters with a liberal message that resonated across the spectrum of race, class, age, geography and party. Also, the Obama supporters threw a really good party on Feb. 5.
April 23, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's funny. I just offered an identical response to Lalo.
April 23, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's really going to be over after May 6th. She will most likely be further behind in the popular vote and pledged delegate count than she was before PA. It's highly unlikely that she'll end up with the popular vote even if you count FL & MI, and it's almost impossible for her to end up with the popular vote without them.
April 23, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was supposed to be a reply to rabbit.
April 23, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm thinking that a lot of the remaining SDs just need a reason to go one way or the other. Obviously the IND and NC are going to be big. If Hillary does pull out a victory in IND and keep it close if not win in NC, I cannot see the SDs just going to Obama.
Yes, that would get some of them to go for Hillary, no doubt. But even with strong victories for Hillary in every remaining primary, Obama still has more pledged delegates, more add-on delegates, and enough superdelegates that Hillary needs to do more than just get some of them. She needs to get upwards of 75%, and that's in scenarios that are extremely optimistic for her.
April 23, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment