PROPOSAL FOR DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION 2012

1. Until December of the year before election year: Early campaigning, fundraising, debates
As before, all candidate declare their intentions, do fundraising as usual, and so on. Their focus is on wooing the superdelegates and stacking the polls, in anticipation of the convention. Candidates also agree not to raise funds for the general election —
for primaries only. All general election donations must be made to the DNC at this point.

2. December Convention:
a.) Last debate of all candidates
b.) Candidates make closing 1-hour speeches
c.) Existing superdelegates publicly vote to narrow down candidates to 4 using approval voting, marking all that they are willing to support as the nominee.
d.) The top 4 candidates debate
e.) Existing superdelegates publicly vote to narrow down
candidates to 2 using approval voting, marking all that they are willing
to support as the nominee.


Superdelegate votes do NOT carry over.

3. VP agreement due
Both candidates declare their willingness to be on each other's ticket by December 31.  This is not an agreement to choose each other. It is just an agreement to be willing to be chosen. This agreement is binding and irreversible.

4. January 1 - June 15: Biweekly Debates and Primaries
DNC selects debate sites and formats before January 1 with the option to cancel them. Timetable for voting is completely up to the states. Only rule: Election year. Note that the process below makes late-voting states important — there is little incentive to move up the primary!

5. Ballot format.
In each state, the ballot shows four and only four options:

Choose 1 option below:
• No Preference between A and B

• Candidate A
• Candidate B
• Write-in ___________

6. Points for each state:
Each state is awarded 1 point for each 100,000 residents based on population of the state according to the last census. The U.S. population is about 3,050,000 now, so there will be roughly 3,050 points available. The nominee is the candidate with the most points.

7. Point Allocation in each state:
Candidates earn points based in proportion to the electorate. For example, Massachusetts has 6,349,000 people, worth 63 points. Here are hypothetical results:

50% No Preference = 16 points each

30% Candidate A = 19 more points
15% Candidate B = 09 more points
0.4% Blank = 0 points
4.6% Write-in = 3 points

Note: Rounding may cause the total points to be between 61 and 65. That's fine.

8. Party Unity Day: 7 days after final primary.
Preplanned celebration event organized by the DNC in which the loser endorses the winner. If s/he refuses, the event is canceled.

9. August Convention.
VP nominee due 1 week before convention. No votes for president needed since the delegates will have already done their thing. Only the VP vote is cast. Other typical convention events.

10. Withdrawal Clause
In the event that a candidate withdraws during the primary process, superdelegates will vote at the convention to confirm the remaining candidate. If a 2/3 majority is not reached, a new round of approval voting takes place, with the highest vote getter becoming the nominee.

What do you think? Serious discussion only. Please be to-the-point, referring to steps/clauses by number for clarity.

Before I decide for myself how the delegates should be split, I need
better background. Now, I am tired of listening to posters—on both
sides—shoot their mouths off. I will decide my own opinion, but I want facts first:

Rules:
A.) Number your answers. You can quote the question, too.
B.) Answer only questions for which you have facts. If you don't cite a credible, factual
source, you are speculating and I will discount your information until you prove it.
C.) You may NOT discuss here how the delegates should/will be split—do so in OTHER threads.

Questions
1. Why did the DNC decide that MI and FL could not move their primaries up, but that Iowa, NH, and SC could? (Apparently, all three moved up several days, ahead of DNC sanctioned dates.) Didn't the DNC know it was going to disenfranchise voters by creating and enforcing such rules?

2. Why did Edward and Obama voluntarily remove their names from Michigan's ballot? What evidence is there that it was or was not political maneuvering? Why should we believe that it was 100.00% to punish Michigan?

3. Why didn't Obama and Edwards ALSO remove from Florida's ballot? What made it okay to stay on Florida's ballot, but not Michigan's?

4. Why did Clinton decide to keep her name on Michigan's ballot contrary to her opponents' decisions? What did she actually say, verbatim, about whether or not Michigan should count BEFORE the primary?

5. What rules, if any, did Clinton break with regard to MI and FL? Cite both the rule and the infraction.

6. What rules, if any, did Obama break with regard to MI and FL? Cite both the rule and the infraction.


7. Is it possible that some people who voted "Uncommitted" in Michigan
actually had no preference?


8. What are the established rules for translating "Uncommitted" primary votes into delegates?

Greg or Eric... Feel free to repose this.

Guam Democratic Party Chair Pilar Lujan has endorsed Clinton

“After
taking a close look at the candidates in this race, I was more
impressed by Senator Clinton’s ability to meet the challenges of the
presidency: end the war, re-invigorate the economy, and provide
universal health care,” said Lujan. “When she becomes the first woman
president, she will think of the people of Guam and their aspirations.”

Lujan had previously pledged to endorse the winner of Guam's primary. Obama won that primary by a mere 7 votes. A recount was proposed but withdrawn. Perhaps this is why—the only effect of the recount would have been on Lujan's endorsement, which is going to Clinton.

I am just curious. What, officially, was the punishment for a candidate who ran ads, talked with the press, campaigned, or whatever in Florida?

If the delegates were never going to count, then what punishment was there?

I have been thinking about this debacle, and it occurs to me: the SUPERdelegates are the party leaders for the state. It is THEIR fault for not coming up with a better solution for the people of their states before the primaries were moved.


I have no clue whether they favor Obama or Clinton, but I think that THEY are the ones who should be punished with no vote.

As for the pledged delegates—the people voted, and their opinions stand as being on record. I think both states should be certified 100%, with all of Michigans "Uncommitted" votes going to Obama, since Edwards (the other guy not on the ballot) has now endorsed Obama.

Being a superdelegate means being a leader. These people failed as leaders, and should not be awarded votes. However, the will of the people should be represented in full.

This is not important at all—the race was a tie, for all intents and purposes—but I was curious what the outcome of the recount was.

It turns out that Joe Cameron, who called for the recount, withdrew his request at the last minute. The results were certified as is.

http://www.kuam.com/news/27785.aspx

I saw her this weekend, and tonight's speech is her best yet. And the audience... It was AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!  So loud and vibrant!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24604728#24604728

The video should be available on CNN.com.

It should be noted that her biggest loss recently has been among women voters.

This should help her immensely both with one of her strongest bases of voters and with fundraising. Moreover, her campaign is expecting very high turnout for her Mother's Day fundraising event this weekend in NYC.

You know, last night, I was really rattled. Those polls really got my hopes up! But today, as I look again at the numbers from the day after PA, I think to myself: We never expected to come close in NC, and a win of 4 delegates in Indiana is less than was predicted—but not much less. A win of 8 or 9% was supposed to only get us about 6!

Let's pretend Clinton drops out before WV... We all know that voters don't necessarily change their minds. Here are possible headlines for the next three voting days—and they make Obama the nominee look really, really bad:

May 13: Buyer's Remorse? Clinton big win against Obama in WV"

May 20: Remorse continues: Clinton wins big again in KY; Obama gets the booby prize in Oregon."

June 1: Puerto Rico tells Obama 'No puede." Clinton wins again.

Be very careful what you ask for, Obama supporters.

I found this article surprisingly refreshing!!!

Here is a link to a Youtube clip of the REAL video, added 2 months ago, before the drama started today by yet another jerk trying to play the race card against Clinton.

Watch his lips and listen with your own ears, starting at 4:42. Now compare to what I wrote below. Here is a transcript:

Look at Indiana—wait wait—Look at Indiana... 42-40... It doesn't matter if we win. Those people are shitting..."

He realizes he's on camera, and turns to the cameraperson, and says "Excuse me [something else]". Then, completely aware there's a camera on him, he continues his sentence with Carville:

...in the White House"

How would you like to be...

Then he leans over to George Stephanopolous, and it's not clear what he is saying, but regardless, he is not talking about Indianans at this point, and what he says is shorter than the awful things people say
he is saying.

George nods his head and says "and Texas", so Kantor
moves back and says to Carville "Look at Texas".

The people who have spread this little prank should be ashamed of themselves. This is a completely innocuous video, and I am embarrassed that fellow Democrats on this site would spread this kind of libel, regardless of who started it.

Some of you may have seen a doctored-up video being spread by Obama supporters. It isolates an excerpt of the documentary film The War Room (1993) in which 1992 Clinton campaign chair Mickey Kantor expresses excitement that Indianans are leaning toward Bill Clinton over White House incumbent George Bush. The altered video features a fake caption with a racial slur against Indianans (who vote next week), in an attempt to guide viewers into thinking that Kantor actually says such terrible words.

Even the The Huffington Post, which has leaned in favor of Obama, has posted this article refuting this shameless ploy:

The sound suggests, if anything, that instead of saying "How would you like to be a worthless white n****r?" Kantor says, "How would you like to be in the White House right now?"

I haven't seen anybody report this yet, but I was up late last night and saw it develop—and the chronology of TPM reader posts will verify this: Before they dreamed up the racial slur, the Obama supporters who made the video were actually focusing on twisting Kantor's first comment: "...look at Indiana. 42-40. It doesn't matter if we win; those people are shit." The posts here on TPM insinuated that Kantor was calling Indianans "shit" when Kantor was clearly referring to the incumbent Bush administration, not Indianans. Of course, when you don't see the whole conversation, you might not catch that, but the video and documentarian himself both put that to rest, too.

Discussion Questions:
1. Why are Obama supporters spreading this doctored up video both here on TPM and elsewhere? Don't they realize that libel makes them look desperate?

2. Of all things to choose, why did the person who doctored up the video choose a racial slur? That pot does not need to be stirred.

3. Do you think that the people who doctored up this video think that they were actually going to get away with this antic?


I call for TPM to take down the LIBEL.

All the fretful Obamabots on this site thought that this interview would be Wright Wright Wright for "20% of the interview"... Well, wrong wrong wrong. O'Reilly only managed to make it last for about a minute, and Clinton successfully changed the topic, ending it by sticking up for Obama!

Like every troll, he made the money stuff all about him, but she handled it BRILLIANTLY by emphasizing over and over that rich people need to think of someone other than themselves. Check her out:   Part 1   Part 2

Afterward, Team Obama sent two supporters to do counterpoint to Hillary, but they simply gushed repeatedly over Hillary.

Enjoy the video! The second half of the interview broadcasts tomorrow night. Keep giving that jerk hell, Hillary, and keep winning over those Independents and Republicans!

P.S. You are all going to LOVE what she said when he claimed that Fox News
was doing the best job of showing no bias in favor of Obama at her
expense. Very funny delivery.

There are still 2 unpledged superdelegates...

I am not counting the governor, who has not yet resigned, but is in so much hot water in the past month with the law that he can't even leave the island without informing the authorities. (Besides, the Obama campaign kicked him off their team anyway.)

I found this analysis of the rules VERY interesting. I have not yet found the current delegate tallies though.

Officially, Clinton, Edwards, and Obama should each get half of their won delegates. This would result in approximately:

Clinton: 53

Obama: 37

Edwards + Kucinich (uncommitted): 15

But, unfortunately, Obama could get penalized further, and get as few as 0:

The DNC rules also prohibited public appearances and electronic advertising before the polls closed by candidates in states that had jumped the approved primary calendar. Barack Obama made a public appearance in Florida in September 2007, talking to reporters after a fundraiser. His campaign also bought television ads on cable news outlets that ran throughout Florida before its renegade primary.

Strictly speaking,[..] Obama would receive none -- the penalty for violating the campaign ban.