I've never been an expert in delegate counting. Is this right?
Hmmm, now we know why the RBC did what they did. She had over 100 delegates from Florida and 73 from Michigan. If he got zero from Michigan and both states had been able to seat with full strength, she could have added over 86 delegates and he would have lost 59. Hmm, that brings her total to 1725 and Obama’s to 1707. Day-um! I wouldn’t concede either.
Looks to me like the SDs did their job in the sense that they exercised their judgment, and awarded the nomination to Obama.
That doesn't make their decision illegitimate, I suppose, modulo legal challenges (although awarding delegates to Obama that he didn't earn goes down sideways).
But the system that structured process that enabled decision? About as legitimate as the system that enabled Bush v. Gore in 2000. Start with the undemocratic nature of the caucus system, and end with stealing votes, and it's hard to see how, over time, people -- other than Villagers and the "creative class" [cough] can hold their noses hard enough or long enough to avoid the stench of decay.
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
That's why she has to resign right away
It's a palace coup, there's little actual legitimacy to his claims. All rivals must be exiled or neutralized.
They thought giving Obama the nomination was the same
as getting the keys to Obama's money machine. I recall reading about some fighting at the DNC between Dean and others (including Clinton) not so long ago about Dean's lack of focus on long-term fundraising for the DNC. I guess the people with their heads on the proverbial chopping block if Clinton won were thankful when the media fell for Obama like a ton of bricks. They had a candidate the media openly lusted for who was bringing in eye-popping amounts of money. They think they will be able to bring the same kind of money with almost no effort.
It was never about electability, principles or anything else, just money.
Chris Cillizza (consider source) wrote article which blames Dean
for not being able to get the big money donors to make donations to the DNC. Yesterday, NPR said the RND had $40M in the bank and the DNC had $4M. Cillizza has different figures, but still not great.
Election finance expert on WNYC this morning said DNC was not getting big donors who supported Obama, bcz Obama had told them to funnel everything through him and not to give to the DNC. Part of the takeover strategy?
Commenter I came across and can't recall well said that presidential campaigns which raise huge amounts for insurgent types do not result in party building monies coming in to the DNC. But, iirc, the Congressional D committees are doing much better than the R committees.
But, yes, money talks.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...
For those reading unnested, this is a reply to oceansandmountains on Fri, 2008-06-06 10:20.
I guess I don't understand the assumptions behind this
but I would like to see the calculations that preceded Riverdaughter's statement.
I always knew that if FL & MI delegates
were added, the race was neck & neck for pledged delegates. So, as she kept winning (and winning big) the chances were good that she'd actually overtake him.
I'm done being a "party regular" I'm not saying I'll never vote for a Democrat again but, they'll never be able to count on my vote as a given again.
I can hold my nose for a lot of things. But, this (as Paul explained today) is way over the line.
I'd like to see that cross-posted here, Paul
The record needs to be set straight, and the issues need to be addressed. And the story is not being covered elsewhere.
[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
Is there someone who understands delegate counts
and willing to expand on or confirm or refute the Clinton 1725, Obama 1707 claim? I can't understand what's being said, especially the part about Obama losing delegates.
Policy not party!
Two Ways Obama Could Lose Delegates
It appears that the -59 would come from stripping Obama of his Michigan delegates. Obama got four that would got to Clinton and 55 to uncomitted. While on the face it would change "the Math", I don't know as a practical matter how much the 55 to uncomitted would make a difference since most the delegates selected through the Michigan process who are "uncommitted" support Obama. A few are truly uncommitted, but most are not.
You could also argue that under a strict reading of the rules, Obama campaigned in Florida by holding a press conference after a fundraiser (probably didn't realize that was campaigning so I don't think this would count) and, better argument, bought national ads before South Carolina, which was also right before Florida, that aired in Florida. Under DNC rules, anyone who campaigned in Michigan and Florida was to get no delegates from that state. Odd that while the voters in Florida got punished for their awful rules violation, I've never heard anybody from the DNC address Obama's, including to deny it was campaigning.
The other argument for counting all Florida votes is that Florida should've qualified for the safe harbor. No time to go find specific links now, RL calls, but BTD did a number of posts on why Florida should've qualified under DNC rules. He also pointed out that Michigan jumped in response to NH jumping and the DNC's refusal to say whether or not it would enforce its rules against NH (NH was supposed to go third, not second). So, NH is the first to screw up the schedule and MI gets punished. Probably because NH has all those electoral votes.
Actually, I forgot to add his Florida delegation
Still, it would put her within 100 delegates of his. Yeah, I think the DNC was getting really nervous that she was getting too close. The momentum was definitely with her.
She had to be stopped. Voile! Extra delegates for Obama and Hillary's get cut in half.
On another note: I had to eat my lunch in the cafeteria with Obama doing some stupid rally blaring on the TV's all around me and I suddenly had the same sensation in the pit of my stomach as when I hear Bush delivering some speech. Obama's voice is like nails on a chalkboard for me. I can't stand it. I'll be eating lunch in my office until he is defeated.
Come together at The Confluence
Come together at The Confluence
I'm not seeing it...
From CNN's pledged delegate count, which list the number needed as 2118, so MI/FL are included at half votes:
Obama: 1762.5
Clinton: 1639.5
(Real Clear Politics lists Obama at 1766.5, but this difference isn't relevant to my point.)
Take away the half delegates of Michigan, as assigned by the RBC:
Obama: 1762.5 - 29.5 = 1733
Clinton: 1639.5 - 34.5 = 1605
Take away the half delegates of Florida, as assigned by the RBC:
Obama: 1733 - 39 = 1694
Clinton: 1605 - 52 = 1553
Add back in the full delegates, from the MI/FL election results (i.e. no uncommitted to Obama):
Obama: 1694 + 0 + 78 = 1772
Clinton: 1553 + 73 + 104 = 1730
So these numbers are much closer than the reported results, but it doesn't put Hillary ahead.
Joe, you are correct
Or at least correcter than me. I forgot to add his Florida delegates. Now, it's possible that the uncommitted delegates would have gone to Obama but let's think about how the ruling would have affected the last three primaries: suddenly, Clinton doesn't look like the inevitable loser. Maybe more people would have shown up in PR, SD and MT. She got pretty close to sweeping the last three. It may not have been enough to close the gap but it would have been sufficiently close that her claim to being the popular vote winner would have been validated.
I'm not sure the SDs would have flocked to her but they'd have had a harder time making excuses.
Come together at The Confluence
Come together at The Confluence
why trust anyone
as ugly as chris cillizza?