And again: Who was it that voluntarily withdrew his name from the ballot, denying the voters a meaningful choice? Who blocked a revote? That’s the question you’re not answering here.

Why should Clinton be penalized because Obama wanted to play political games? Why should the voters in those states who *did* come out to vote (and 2.3 million of them did) be disenfranchised because Obama played political games and Donna Brazile and the DNC inexplicably went nuclear on their state parties?

and

And the funny thing about *your* argument is that you’re conveniently forgetting that Obama does not clinch the election just by being *ahead* in pledged delegates. You’re conveniently forgetting that *neither* candidate gets to the magic number (2025 or 2209, depending on how Florida and Michigan are counted) without the involvement of superdelegates.

The supers decide this, and the supers are not bound by any rules whatsoever. None. Nada. So they can decide it on pledged delegates, they can decide it on popular vote, they can decide it on momentum, they can decide it on who they think has the better shot in November, or they can simply flip a coin.

and i think you are misunderstanding what i am saying. i’ll try one more time:

this is a race for delegates. 80% are pledged, 20% are not (the so-called super-delegates). as you point out, superdelegates can choose a candidate based on whatever criteria they want. they aren’t required to vote any way at all.

obama has an unbridgable lead in the pledged delegates. but his margin isn’t wide enough to win without the superdelegates. and so one pitch that some clinton supporters are making to the superdelegates is that they should support whoever has the most support of democratics overall, not just the person who happens to get the most pledged delegates.

but that brings up the question: how do we measure who has the most support of democrats overall? the polls flip-flop practically every day, never leaving the margin of error. so that’s where the popular vote in the primaries and caucuses that have been held so far comes in. it is the method for measuring the preference of the people.

and what i’m saying is that when you have a race with none of the other major candidates on the ballot except clinton, where the people are told before hand that their primary vote won’t count, where the fact that there were more republican votes than democratic votes in the only two states that had “non-counting” primaries suggesting lower turnout than would have otherwise occurred, where exit polls showed that a substantial percentage of voters preferred candidates who were not on the ballot and who had not dropped out of the race and that, in fact, a portion of clinton voters preferred other viable candidates who were not on the ballot, i submit that means the MI vote is not a good measure for the preference of the people. FL too, although admittedly for not as many reasons as MI.

the fact that obama may have made a bad choice in taking his name of the ballot has nothing to do with the preference of the people. if you’re using the democrats as a whole’s real preference as a pitch to superdelegates to vote a certain way, you need to find a way to measure the preference of voters that isn’t as falty as the MI (and FL to a more limited extent) votes are.

that’s what i mean. and that’s what i meant by “funny” above. obama’s choice to remove himself from the MI ballot is about as relevant to the “follow the majorities preference” pitch as the fact that the state of MI was stripped of all of its pledged delegates. both are technicalities that weren’t good decisions at the time but have no bearing on who the people in MI actually want as their presidential candidate.

as i’ve said many many times before, i would have preferred that MI and FL didn’t have all their delegates stripped from them, and once they were stripped,i wanted to have a rerun in both states. unfortunately that’s not how things went. but the fact that they didn’t go that way doesn’t make the flawed MI and FL votes unflawed. they still are not a good way to measure the actual preference of the democrats in that state.

I hope that somewhere in your delusions that you don’t actually think that you do your candidate any favors.

David Parsons:
Major Premise: Bob pointed out the ballot in MI only had one name - Clinton
Minor Premise: Bob pointed out the resemblance to elections in communist Cuba where only Castro is on the ballot
Conclusion: Bob said Clinton is a communist

Btw - extra points for working the word “sexist” in. Yeah - it’s clear as could be that I’m being sexist by pointing out only Clinton’s name was on the ballot.
I would provide a syllogism for that but seeing as it’s a laughably ridiculous claim I’ll just let it go. And get back to making sexist arguments about Comrade Clinton.
A few times in the last few days I’ve used the phrase “grasping at straws” – thanks for not making me bad on that.

And the funny thing about *your* argument is that you’re conveniently forgetting that Obama does not clinch the election just by being *ahead* in pledged delegates. You’re conveniently forgetting that *neither* candidate gets to the magic number (2025 or 2209, depending on how Florida and Michigan are counted) without the involvement of superdelegates.

The supers decide this, and the supers are not bound by any rules whatsoever. None. Nada. So they can decide it on pledged delegates, they can decide it on popular vote, they can decide it on momentum, they can decide it on who they think has the better shot in November, or they can simply flip a coin.

Please stop acting as though Obama is entitled to the nomination when he can’t win outright.

How much time is the question. The Illinois legislature meets only four months out of the year, and for the first seven years, his party was out of power. Has he released those legislative records yet?

There was a property-tax measure on the ballot, so it wasn’t a pure primary.

And beyond that, 1.7 million Floridians came out to vote in the primary, which smashed prior turnout records for the primary. Are you going to tell them that their votes don’t matter one whit? After 2000, you’re going to tell them that?

In addition, the counting or not counting of their votes (really a misleading characterization, since the only thing the votes might not count for would be for delegate selection) was then, and remains, very much an unsettled question because the Florida Dems were in the process of fighting the nuclear-option decision by the Rules Committee when the primary happened, and they’re currently preparing to bring their case before the Rules Committee, and, failing that, the Credentials Committee or the Convention itself.

because a vote with only one candidate on the ballot is not a valid vote. especially when exit polls show that many voters actually wanted to vote for obama.

There wasn’t only one candidate on the ballot; there was also Gravel, Kucinich and Dodd. Obama shot his own self in the foot on this one; if many voters wanted to vote for Obama, he should have stayed on the ballot so they would have a chance to vote for him.

the bottom line is that this is a race for delegates, not overall votes. if you’re trying to use votes to sway superdelegates, you need a stronger case than the clinton-campaign’s spin where not counting all votes in MI is horrible and yet disenfranchising obama supporters in MI is just fine.

Once more, with feeling: Obama made the choice to take his name off the ballot in Michigan. He doesnt’ get to just count every vote that wasn’t cast for Clinton because a number of those uncommitteds were likely Edwards supporters.

In a primary, it’s often the case that there are states or parts of states in which certain candidates’ names don’t appear on the ballot. And this is usually due to financial constraints or inability to comply with fairly onerous balloting rules. That doesn’t make the results any less valid for those whose names are *on* the ballot.

Face it. Obama rolled the dice, and now his choices are coming back to bite him on the ass. He made a decision that had short-term benefits in Iowa, but is now coming back to haunt him.

If you’re just going to phone it in, it’s kind of pointless to argue. At least you’re just another guy on on a weblog instead of someone with a newspaper column, and nobody cares if you make ridiculous claims in support(?) of your candidate. The people in the press who are making the same sort of (unfounded, ignorant, and sexist) claims may not get any more traction than you’re getting, but it’s shameful to know that this sort of institutional petulance is now the norm for the forseeable future on the mainstream press.

as i said before in another thread, an election where voters are told before hand that their vote will not count is not a real election. i’ve gotten union elections overturned for the very same reason. there’s no question the press about how the contests wouldn’t count seriously depressed turnout. FL and MI remain the only contests so far (out of the 40 plus) where republican turnout was more than democratic turnout

Why should Clinton be penalized (or, more importantly, why should the voters who voted for her be disenfranchised0 just because he lost a game of political chicken?

because a vote with only one candidate on the ballot is not a valid vote. especially when exit polls show that many voters actually wanted to vote for obama.

but the funny thing about your argument is that you’re acting as if the total number of votes is what this contest is about. it’s not. it’s a race for delegates. the popular vote comes into it only as a pitch to superdelegates to convince them to go to your candidate. essentially it’s saying to the superdelegates: you should honor the preference of the majority of the democrats when making up your mind. but because MI and FL were billed as non-counting votes and because the turnout was depressed, they simply are not good methods for measuring the preference of democrats in that state. that’s doubly so for MI where democrats who prefered obama weren’t permitted to show their preference. you can’t exclude obama supporters in michigan on a technicality when your argument is more of a moral argument than an argument about the actual process for choosing the candidate. it makes no sense.

and yes, it also makes no sense under the “moral argument” to not count michigan or florida democrats at all. i agree with that. but that just means that moral argument itself is weaker. the bottom line is that this is a race for delegates, not overall votes. if you’re trying to use votes to sway superdelegates, you need a stronger case than the clinton-campaign’s spin where not counting all votes in MI is horrible and yet disenfranchising obama supporters in MI is just fine.

Correction: he’d have had to have withdrawn it from the ballot in the general election, not Michigan. Michigan didn’t have such a rule.

Bob, you really need to read the pledge and the DNC rules. Obama didn’t have to withdraw his name from the ballot; all the candidates pledged to do was what they were already bound to do under the DNC rules (20.C.1.b if you bother to look them up), which was not to “campaign” in any state that broke the timing rules, as that term was defined in the rules.

If the pledge required candidates to withdraw from the ballot in any state that broke the timing rules, why didn’t Obama do so in Florida? Answer: he never had to, just as he never had to do so in Michigan. Plus, under Florida election law, if he withdrew his name from the primary ballot, he’d have had to have withdrawn it from Michigan.

Mind you, far from following all the rules, Obama’s press conference in Florida may very well have violated the ban on campaigning, which means that the DNC is within its rights to strip any Florida delegates from him even if they seat the state delegation.

Also, I wonder if you’ve given the slightest consideration to how all these bloodcurdling screams for Hillary to drop out BECAUSE SHE’S DESTROYING THE PARTY!!!! even though she’s still competitive and no other candidate in history has ever been pushed to drop out no matter how far behind he was look to women? Because it’s not like women have never been told to step aside for a less-qualified man before.

The DNC can’t simply discount vote totals certified by Secretaries of State. Its remedies are limited to stripping delegates. The votes are out there, and they’re valid, no matter whether Florida and Michigan are seated at the convention.

As for Michigan: Yes, absolutely, those votes should count. Obama voluntarily removed his name from the ballot. Why should Clinton be penalized (or, more importantly, why should the voters who voted for her be disenfranchised0 just because he lost a game of political chicken?

I do not think this is likely to be any more successful than insults and calling Ms. Clinton a Republican has been.

I didn’t call you young and naive (perhaps we’re the same age, for all I know) and I didn’t imply that you don’t understand real politics. C’mon, don’t put words in my mouth. All I’m saying is, there are a lot of people who want to cast votes for Clinton for a variety of reasons, including the fact that feminism really matters to them— so let the race go on and let the chips fall where they may. Sounds like democracy to me.

Clinton has not called Obama “totally unqualified” or an “elitist racist”. Her campaign has at times gone more negative than I would wish, but frankly both campaigns have attacked one another, and this is all to be expected in a political campaign. Obama has been questioning Clinton’s character and judgment since the beginning of the campaign– again, fair game for such a contest, I think. In any case, Clinton has made it very clear in recent days that Democrats should rally behind the nominee. However, it seems that until she totally falls on her sword, some people will stick with the “she will do anything to win” narrative rather than consider alternative possibilities (like, that she has constituencies who deserve the opportunity to voice their support through voting).

actually, she doesn’t. or, at least she only does if you count both FL and MI, and don’t give obama any votes from MI at all and if you don’t fully count all the caucuses. if you count all the contests where both clinton and obama were on the ticket, obama is ahead by about 300k votes and clinton is unlikely to make up that difference in the remaining contests.

and IF pigs had wings they still couldn’t fly.

Someone would have to be completely stupid not to realize the details of MI (where the dude stupidly removed his name from the ballot so of course he didn’t get any votes). FL was the same for both completely ignoring that he ran ads in FL and actually talked to reporters after a fundraiser last November in violation of the party rules but nevertheless…

In terms of votes cast…Hillary is leading. You can put any spin on it that you wish but all it does is deny the truthfulness of that statement.

Those numbers include all published counts of both primaries and caucuses.

I could just as easily bring up the fact that if the Democrats operated by the Republican rules (winner take all), this primary would be over and Hillary would have closed Obama out but of course that is not the rules that we are going by.

More to the issue, when you’ve got democrats rejecting Obama’s endorsement (MI), Obama tanking in white voter support (last Survey USA had him at 30% in NC), Hillary clearly demonstrating greater strength against McCain (electoral-vote.com and the latest AP/IPSOS poll), it’s clear who the stronger candidate will be in November.

I was under the impression that Dems actually wanted to win this time.

actually, she doesn’t. or, at least she only does if you count both FL and MI, and don’t give obama any votes from MI at all and if you don’t fully count all the caucuses. if you count all the contests where both clinton and obama were on the ticket, obama is ahead by about 300k votes and clinton is unlikely to make up that difference in the remaining contests.

nd the only thing keeping Mr. Obama competitive in the delegate vote is his vote suppression in Michigan and Florida?

that’s not true either. if FL and MI had counted (and estimating the obama vote in MI using the % of people who say they favored obama in the exit polling), clinton would still be over 100 pledged delegates behind. it’s a proportionate system. clinton’s “big win” in PA barely netted her many delegates. the bottom line is that obama got an insurmountable lead when he swept 11 contests in a row in february. FL and MI wouldn’t change that, which is all the more reason that i am disappointed that obama didn’t get behind a revote for FL and MI.

Zon @ 11:Are you arguing that I and other like-minded women should be deprived of the opportunity to make that symbolic vote?

No, by all means, make your symbolic votes. It would be nice if Clinton could run a campaign for those symbolic votes without calling the likely Democratic nominee totally unqualified and an elitist racist, but hey, I’m young and naive, and don’t understand how the REAL politics works.

David Parsons @ 14:The two candidates are basically tied right now (Ms. Clinton has a tiny edge in the popular vote, Mr. Obama has a slightly larger edge in the delegate vote) so it’s not going to be as simple as that. [BREAK] …the only thing keeping Mr. Obama competitive in the delegate vote is his vote suppression in Michigan and Florida?

People won’t take you seriously when you say things like that. I won’t respond to the “substance” of this charge, as it’s pretty obvious to all but those most inebriated on the Clinton kool-aid.

white_n_az @ 16: The problem with Obama is that he is tanking big time. He is not electable. [BREAK] I think that if Obama wins the nomination but gets crushed in November (my expectation), that scenario would be extremely damaging to the party.

I’d like to stress my sincere belief that BOTH Clinton or Obama could defeat McCain in November. All the fraidy cat Democrats who see shadows of Rove everywhere they go notwithstanding, Bush and the Republicans are horribly unpopular for obvious reasons. Once we have a nominee and train our fire on John McSame the white house is ours.

And to Susie in the post above this, telling us all to “grow the fuck up” for expressing concern about a group ostensibly out to register single women (who, as Bowers noted earlier, are not actually a core Clinton demographic) were calling African Americans in Virginia and North Carolina telling them that they needed to vote…after the deadline. Yeah, nothing to be concerned about there, just move along!

Have you listened to the “Lamont Williams” phone call? That’s not a legitimate robocall. Besides the incompetent targeting and missed deadlines, the call doesn’t identify the organization.

I’m beginning to think that “Clinton Derangement Syndrom” doesn’t mean what you all think it means…

The problem with Obama is that he is tanking big time. He is not electable. He may win NC in a squeaker but he’s got a 35% head start but he will go down in Indiana by double digits, big double digits in WV, KY and his only prospect of any brightness remaining is OR.

I think that if Obama wins the nomination but gets crushed in November (my expectation), that scenario would be extremely damaging to the party.

The Superdelegates are anti-democratic–but then so are caucuses, and rejiggering delegate counts on the basis of how loyal a district has been in the past, rather than allocating them according to the strict divide of the popular vote. I’m all for abolishing the Superdelegates–but this year, this is what we’re stuck with.

You can dream up scenarios that set up a straw man against one candidate or another, then claim that nominating the straw man will tear the party apart, but those scenarios are just dreams and should not influence either candidate’s decision to pursue the nomination up to the moment where they start taking the vote for the party nominee at the convention. Either of them can win. They both have convincing narratives to sway the superdelegates to their side. The ongoing wall of sexist revulsion from the media about having A! Girl! sullying their dream narrative of Manly Man™ vs wimp (with the Republican old white guy as the Manly Man™) is not, and should not be, one of those narratives.

Let me offer another possibility: I take Clinton seriously because she is the first ever viable female candidate for president. I respect that, I respect the work she has done on behalf of women and families, and I wanted to support that with my vote (even though I know she won’t win). I think a lot of other women feel that way, and they are voting for her in large numbers. Are you arguing that I and other like-minded women should be deprived of the opportunity to make that symbolic vote?

Did we read the same article? He made the point explicitly that no one ever has been asked to drop out before they’re ready, regardless of whether they have a realistic chance of winning.

I’m sure people *thought* that Jackson or Kennedy or Hart should have dropped out because they had no realistic chance of winning. But the point that Boehlert is making is that there was no concerted media campaign to actually get them to quit. So why should Clinton be treated any differently than Jesse Jackson or Gary Hart?