Someone once said this:
“If she wins Texas and Ohio I think she will be the nominee. If you don’t deliver for her, I don’t think she can be. “
Well the final results are in, and Obama has won Texas, by 5 delegates. Of course, the person who said the above should be discounted. After all, you know what those rabid Obama-bots are like, right?
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
Wins Texas Delegate-wise.
The candidate that wins the most delegates wins the nomination, not the candidate that receives the most raw votes. This is the same as the fact that the team that scores the most points wins the football game, not the team that gains the most yards.
Jason is right. Delegates - meaning all delegates not just pledged delegates.
And since Obama supporters are so adamant that it is perfectly ok to undemocratically reverse the "will of the people" of Texas who clearly voted for Clinton because they are just "following the rules" and successfully gamed the undemocratic Texas delegate selection process …
And since Obama supporters are so adamant that that it is perfectly ok to undemocratically disenfranchise the voters of MI and FL by blocking revotes in those states, because they are just "following the rules" that everyone agreed to on those states…
Then I am sure that the Obama supporters will have no problem when the superdelegates reverse the pledged delegates plurality in Denver and vote their conscience or preference. After all, they will just be "following the rules" that everyone understood and agreed to for the Democratic nomination process.
Seriously - Congrats to the Obamites for winning more delegates in Texas in flagrant disregard for the will of the Texas voters.
Just one thing…. No whining when we get to Denver.
Dream on, MW.
Superdelegates care most about having the most viable candidate possible. That is out of self-interest, not ideology — they are the likely beneficiaries of a Democratic victory (i.e. cabinet positions) and they will not be Hillary’s surrogates just because she treats them as her slaves.
After months of her repeatedly reconfirming the very worst suspicions of her many critics, Hillary can no longer make a case that she is the best possible candidate for the Democratic Party. Her constant exaggerations of her resume, abuse of opponents and her constant treatment of actual and potential supporters as nothing more than flunkies to be ordered around has backfired on her, fatally.
Good riddance.
Furthermore, the superdelgates are not likely to behave as you suggest for the simple reason that doing so would make it almost impossible for Hillary to win the presidency anyway. For them to claim the nomination away from the candidate that leads in both pledged delegates and the overall popular vote would be perceived (with some legitimacy) by Obama supporters as either blatant racism or just pure Clintonian corruption. And huge parts of that base would refuse to support Hillary in the general after such a stunt. McCain would win in a walk, and the superdelegates know it. They won’t take that risk to their own political futures just to assuage Hillary’s ridiculous sense of entitlement.
P.S. It is really funny to see Hillary supporters whining about the “will of the people” when she also trails in the overall popular vote!!!
By the time we get to Denver, after Pa, IN, PR, KY etc. she won’t be. Because those were real live democratic voters that that walked into real polls and cast real live votes for Clinton in MI and FL. And by blocking the revote, the Obamites have given permission to include those voters in the popular votes cast for Clinton - For the purpose of arguing her case to the superdelegates. Just "following the rules" my friend. Undemocratic? Yes. Just like MI, FL, TX and all causcuses. So - No problem.
Pledged delegates have no claim to the "will of the voter". The very best you can say, is that some pledged delegates represent the will of some of the voters.
I love it when a plan comes together.
Its not like Hillary has clean hands in MI and FL, MW. By promising not to campaign or be on the ballot only to renege later, she engineered a way to make sure that she was the only one available to vote for. In short, she cheated. You want to reward her for that. I don’t. “Following the rules”? Hardly. Hillary Clinton is basing her last desperate appeal on what amounts to “I broke the rules, now reward me for it”. Pathetic.
Anyway, your "plan" to be saved by the superdelegates is laughable. It will never happen. I’d put money on it because Hillary’s desperate appeal would ask the superdelegates to deny their own SELF-interest in order to act as her slaves-on-demand. They won’t play along, especially after seeing how she has treated her surrogates in the past. And even if it did happen, it makes Hillary into exactly what she deserves to be — political dead meat. But I guess if it gives Hillary and her dwindling ranks of followers a chance to pretend that she is Rocky Balboa, or something, there is at least some continuing entertainment value for the rest of us in it.
Now, do any of you anti-Obama types have the capability to debate substance? If so, I’ve never seen it. And you’re going to need it to make the best case for McCain in order to persuade those among us Obama supporters that might be convinced to support McCain. Because if you keep up with nothing but more Obama-bashing, you’ll reap only backlash.
Of course! He STOLE those delegates by uhm… hypnotizing the Texas Democratic Party! Yeah, and then he ran away with them!
Gawd.
He won the caucus. Guess who decides caucuses? Real live VOTERS! Are you ready to say that Nevada doesn’t count for Hillary because it was a caucus? Naturally I assume that the decision of the nearly ONE MILLION people who attended caucuses in Texas (the biggest in history) don’t count at all then? Clinton didn’t seem to have any trouble with the rules as they stood until she started losing. She NEVER complained about caucus votes before, but suddenly she sees that Obama gets more enthusiasm in them and calls foul?
Guess what? Obama wins the popular vote even counting Florida. Hell, Obama is even ahead counting Florida AND Michigan, where he wasn’t even on the ballot (a very fair situation of course). Clinton herself said these states "didn’t count" and never cared about, until she started lagging behind.
Personally I think the whole system is far too complicated and I dislike the entire notion of superdelegates. However, the system is as we see it today, and here’s the thing, it’s there for BOTH candidates. Clinton was very content at the system because she was sure it would work for her, which is why complaints at this point sound a little hollow.
Amen, Claudia! (sorry for the excitement; we’ve been disagreeing so much lately, I am happy to find an area of agreement…)
Pat, hey, it had to happen some time! I like puppies, kittens and babies too, if that helps up the tally any
Love them all, but allergic to cats and kittens, so we’ll up the tally by 2 1/2 out of 3…
Hey Claudia, I’m not complaining. I think its fine. It is all by the rules, and that is great, just like superdelegates making the decision Denver is by the rules. It just adds to the argument that the Clinton campaign will make to the superdelegates, and since Obama cannot win any big states except IL, the best argument to the super delegates is what decides this nomination. Its just true.
There was a real vote in Texas. Texans voted for Clinton. Caucuses reversed that. These are just facts that cannot be argued - but it is not a problem, it just undermines the credibility of pledged delegates and provides more ammunition for that crucial argument to the superdelegates.
BTW - I don’t know if you are aware of this, but the popular vote total today is not as important as the popular vote when we get to Denver. Here is a projection and additional support that might interest you folks. If she gets that popular vote plurality, plus wins all the big states, plus the credibility of the pledged delegates represnting the will of the voters is undermined by TX, MI, FL, and caucuses in general - that is a pretty strong argument.
In watching this campaign, I have found no better indicator of an impending big Clinton win, then when Obama supporters and msm start saying the race is all over. It happened right before NH, it happened before OH/TX, and it is happening again now. Very encouraging.
Because those were real live democratic voters that that walked into real polls and cast real live votes for Clinton in MI and FL.
You should actually read what Clinton said about MI & FL before their primaries, after the DNC made their ruling, and after the States voted, and after she discovered she was not up to the task to win.
Interested, I agree.
Stipulated: Clinton is a conniving politician who will use the rules to her advantage when it is convenient and she is every bit as bad as Obama in that regard. That’s not the point. Here is the point:
If it goes to Denver, there is going to be a tally of the popular vote, and there will be only two numbers. One number will be the sum total of voters who put a check mark by Obama’s name, and the the other number will be the sum total of voters who put a check mark by Clinton’s name. And the superdelegates are just not going to care that Michigan and Florida are in that total. Those Floridians and Michiganders are still people who walked into a voting booth and checked her name, so they are part of her total.
If you believe Michael Barone’s analysis (author The Almanac of American Politics - linked in earlier comment) - Clinton is going to have more popular votes by the time we get to Denver. And if you don’t think that is going to get superdelegate attention, well - I don’t know what you are thinking.
I am just trying to be helpful and prepare you ahead of time, so there will be no whining or crying when we get to Denver. We are all playing by the rules here. And the rules are - superdelegates decide.
Umm no, Playing by the rules is not something Clinton is interested in at this time. She was interested before she was measured up as not worthy.
Oh. I can see this is going to be traumatic for you.
For the few Hillabots still in denial and claiming that Hillary won Texas, I’ll tell you the truth. Even with Clinton receiving over 140,000 votes from Republicans who fraudulently voted Hillary just to screw the party over, when you look at the total number of votes by adding up the primary votes AND the votes cast at the caucases, it is OBAMA WHO IN FACT WON THE MAJORITY OF TOTAL VOTES IN TEXAS AND THE DELEGATE COUNT IN TEXAS AND THE ENTIRE STATE OF TEXAS.
But let’s be pragmatic here, winning a state simply means winning the majority of delegates to the national convention.
Some states distribute delegates through a simple primary vote, other states allow for discussions and hold caucases. Texas assigns delegates through both and then adds them together for the final determination of who won the state. Clinton barely won the primary portion and Obama strongly won the caucas portion, resulting in Obama undisputedly winning Texas.
See, now you understand. Now please go convince all the other Hillary supporters to unite together under our party nominee which is Obama. Each day this infighting continues, the odds of us doing another 4 more years of Bush/McCain increase. For the sake of America and our troops in Iraq, join us and let’s defeat McCain together.
You do realize you contradict yourself in terms of what is acceptable do you not?
No - I think you are not getting it. I am making the point that it is Obama supporters who are contradicting themselves - First defending the "rules" against the the "will of the voter" when it is convenient in TX, MI, & FL, but getting on their high horse about defending the "will of the voter" vs. "the rules" when that is more convenient and the subject is superdelegates at the convention. Can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y?
Ryan,
Help me understand your math. Are you saying that none of the caucus attendees voted in the primary? Or are you saying that Obama voters should be counted twice?
Caucuses show party enthusiasm and campaign organizing skills. Both good things. But caucuses disenfranchise people who cannot dedidcate 4 hours to two weeks (in the Texas case) just to cast a vote. You know, like people with jobs and kids. But I guess the Dems won’t need that demographic in November.
You’ll be happy to know we are in agreement on your final point, but I’d like to put in my own words:
"See, now you understand. Now please go convince all the other Obama supporters to unite together under our party nominee which is Clinton. Each day this infighting continues, the odds of us doing another 4 more years of Bush/McCain increase. For the sake of America and our troops in Iraq, join us and let’s defeat McCain together."
mw, so according to you superdelegates should discount the opinions of the voters in:
Iowa
Nevada
Alaska
American Samoa
Colorado
Idaho
Kansas
Minnesota
North Dakota
Texas caucus voters
Nebraska
Washington
Maine
Hawaii
Wyoming
Guam
and instead count in their tally both Michigan votes (of which Obama gets zero, because his name wasn’t on the ballot) and Florida. Additionally they should consider that Clinton won big states like New York and California, never mind the fact that the likeliehood of those states going to McCain is virtually nill.
Yes I’m sure that’s really probable. I mean, it’s such a logical proccess, no way it would cause a civil war within the party is there?
It’s a nice fantasy, but very, VERY improbable. The superdelegates are not that dumb. I concede that Clinton, while she has virtually no chance of catching up in delegates, does have a slim chance of getting ahead in popular vote (which is a very important marker), but she’d have to do amazingly well in all the remaining states, including North Carolina and Oregon, states where Obama is favored.
Claudia (pardon me for answering your comment directed at someone else): I think we need to take a look at some polls in, say, New Jersey (where McCain leads Obama).
As for me: I don’t believe anything you suggest. I believe that superdelegates should vote for the person they consider to be the best candidate (for the party). Some will think it’s Obama, others Clinton. Either way; that’s what it should depend on, their expertise.
And what the ‘people’ think is irrelevant to superdelegates.
If they just do what the people say, superdelegates are irrelevant and they might just as well get rid of them.
No, let them make up their own minds.
I actually like the system; it’s a check on Democracy.
We should do that with normal elections as well.
By the way: MW is right, in my opinion, about divided government. If I were American, that would most certainly play a role in my decision making process. A Democratic president with a Democratic Congress wouldn’t be something I’d favor, but we’ve seen that both branches ruled by Republicans isn’t exactly a party either.
One last comment, then - since its her post, and I’ve overstayed my welcome, I’ll leave the last word for Claudia (or anyone else).
I did not say that caucuses should be discounted completely, they are indicative of a campaign’s ability to organize and generate enthusiasm in the base, both useful and important factors for Superdelegates to consider when selecting a nominee. They are just very poor or (like in Texas) wrong indicators of the "will of the voters" for their states. Caucuses can and should be determinative if a candidate can pile up enough pledged delegates to make the supes moot. But Obama did not do that, and since he failed to do so, it is wrong to claim that a pledged delegate plurality is a a proxy for the the "will of the voter". It isn’t. That is my point, not that pledged delegates from caucuses have no value, just don’t claim they are something that they are not - like the will of the voter. To repeat myself, the best you can say is that some pledged delegates represent the will of some of the voters.
Since Obama will apparently fail to close the deal despite outspending Clinton 4 to one, it will boil down to the best argument to Superdelegates. And there are no Dem Party rules on what or who can be counted in crafting an argument to the Superdelegate judge and jury.
If Clinton can show a popular vote plurality by Denver (it will admittedly be tough but is very doable, and not as improbable as Claudia suggests), has all the big states, and end of game momentum, she’ll have the best argument in Denver and will get the nomination.
And there will be no civil war, because the price that the Supes will extract from Clinton for their vote, will be putting Obama on the ticket. That is exactly what the superdelegates will want.
And Obama will take it, because (unlike his supporters image of him), he is fundamentally just another very ambitious, very smart, very savvy pol who knows that 4 or 8 years as VP is an automatic ticket to the next party nomination.
Michael, Thanks for the kind words, but I disagree about the Dem process and Superdelegates. I think it is a terrible system and they should get rid of it before the next election (but probably won’t).
It is too late to do anything about it this round, it is what it is. The system was designed to make the nomination a trial by superdelegate if there is an effective tie. That is the situation we have. May the best argument win.