Thu, 05/22/2008 - 12:27am — lambert
Here.
Which explains why Obama doesn't want to count all the votes, doesn't even want to talk about it, and also why our famously free press is trying to help him drag the dead Unity Pony over the finish line by trying to suppress the vote in the remaining primaries. Eh?
Although the non-secret-ballot caucus states that Obama does so well in don't seem to release their counts. Anyone know why that is?
»
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
we all know why that is
Although the non-secret-ballot caucus states that Obama does so well in don’t seem to release their counts. Anyone know why that is?
I'm skeptical that you actually want an answer, and I'm not gonna tell you anything you haven't already heard at least once, but here it is:
Because the nomination process is a contest for delegates, not votes. Caucus sites did not keep an exact count for the same reason they did not keep a record of every voter's height: it was not necessary for delegate apportionment.
If Clinton feels this is unfair or undemocratic, she should have said so before the beginning of the nominating process.
I can see the merits in wanting to have a count that reflects the will of the people but that count will only ever be symbolic in a process where candidates campaigned not for votes but for delegates. If you nonetheless think this count is important, your 'will of the people' should include all people, even those in states whose democracy-hating state parties have chosen to caucus. Approximate numbers are available and would certainly more closely related to the 'will of the people' than leaving those states off the count completely(and thus "disenfranchising" the voters in these states. States that, unlike FL & MI, Clinton agreed should be counted from the beginning).
But of course if you did that Hillary would not be leading.
I don't expect that was the answer you were looking for, so I'll leave to your obtuseness.
No, I did want to know
As we know from Bio and Mario Cuomo -- summarizing brutally and correct me if I am wrong -- certainly the SDs and also the pledged delegates can do whatever the fuck they want. Those are, in fact, the rules.
What I want and have wanted is for the voters to be made whole. I want the delegates, when they make their judgment at the Convention and vote, to have as much good data as possible. A harder figure for the popular vote is better than softer estimates. Hence, I wish they could be released, so asterisks could be removed from the figures.
Now, I understand that for some reason the Obama faction isn't all that into counting all the votes -- which would be why they caused the current trainwreck by refusing what would have been a just solution for all, the revotes -- but that is not my problem. If the arc of history bends toward justice, then Obama's trying to bend the arc the other way; Democrats extend the franchise and count votes. Or so I thought.
Thank you, however, for implying that I have no intellectual honesty. I guess that's today's way to be "nice"? It will be a pleasure to work with you in the general....
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Here's another
Person who needs to learn the difference between a rule and a ruling.
I have to agree with Zuzu.
Le Sigh.
Did you all just get the astro-point this morning, because it has been popping up all over the place?
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
very interesting link
though somewhat tangential to my comment. But yes, I will conceed the error in wording. So: if the Clinton campaign felt any of the rules or rulings were unfair or undemocratic they had the time(and were possibly unique in having the pull) to object and perhaps change them before the nomination process began. I'm sorry if you think this is an "astro-point," but most of the other people I've spoken with find it to be commonsense, including Clinton supporters and people who never read blogs. So brace yourself, its going to continue to pop up all over the place.
As to the main thrust of my point, if you're going to argue for the legitimacy of the popular vote you need to include the estimates for caucus states. What you oughtn't do is imply some shady antidemocratic conspiracy out of IA, NV, ME & WA. The reason there isn't a certified popular vote count from certain caucus states is because that is not metric used to ascertain the will of the people in the democratic nomination process. Everyone knew that, and everyone agreed to it until quite recently. To borrow Zuzu's words, there's nothing terribly nefarious about it. Le Sigh indeed.
...and for what its worth, I think Bill would have made a great first First Dude.
Project much?
Harry, having the rules/ruling argument, shifts to another, and writes:
What you oughtn’t do is imply some shady antidemocratic conspiracy out of IA, NV, ME & WA.
I wrote:
"Seem to" because I wanted the data, which I did not have. Therefore, I asked for it. Harry introduces "conspiracy"....
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi