Popular vote popular vote popular vote...
Hey, don't worry. Let 'em rant on about the popular vote all they want, the superdelegates are smart enough to figure this out. Especially the ones from the caucus states- I'd imagine this argument goes over like a lead balloon to them.
Women belong in the house... and the Senate... and the White House.
Only if they win the elections that qualify people for such positions - including the nomination of their party by their party's rules.
Hillary Clinton will not, in all likelihood, be successful in that endeavor this year.
You explained it beautifully.
And those who need to consider your argument will, sadly, probably ignore it.
what idiot came up with a nomination system that does not reflect either the will of the people or the methodology of the GE?
I think after this election the party will have some soul searching to do....
But I hope we can come together to kick John McSame's ass.
That's a great question. I'd be happy to support an effort to fix this madness.
After we're done with this one. Not because it'll help the candidate I prefer, but because that's the only fair way to do it.
Caucuses are time-honored traditions that worked well until the foreign candidate you support did poorly in them. Cheaper and easier to do than primaries, and supposedly a check and balance- if you've got the support of people fired-up to hit caucuses, and can win in primaries, you're in good shape, no?
You're telling me Clinton didn't have any supporters who were fired up enough to participate in caucuses? From what I've seen around here, she had plenty. She played the game badly and lost, for all the money she spent and talented people supposedly on her campaign.
I hear ya! The thing is that before this primary started everybody agreed what that delegates would decide the nominations. I think their should be retooling of the rules AFTER the primary is over.
Typo city! I better get to bed!
The delegate system reflects the electability of each candidate much more accurately than a mere popular vote system. It also permits states to use less expensive caucuses when funds are not available to pay for a full-on primary election. My comment below elucidates this issue in more detail.
It's a partisan nomination, not an election.
A party with an ideology - it's perfectly reasonable that such an entity wouldn't rely on straight popular vote...
The winner of the nomination makes no laws and has no power. It's not a democracy. It's a party.
I certainly wouldn't support a caucus or some sort of nominating process for a general election - but that's because elected positions carry power, and in such a case - I very much believe in the one vote principle.
But in a partisan, two party system?
Well... as a Deaniac, the one lesson I learned from 2004 is that you don't complain about what the party did or didn't do.
You take over the party.
You out organize.
You network.
You donate.
You register.
You build your numbers.
You convince others.
A lot of us wanted a change - a real change - in the Democratic party in 2004. Our standard bearer stumbled. We have one this time who hasn't.
Obviously - I can't speak for all Deaniacs... but I know a lot of Deaniacs, and this nominating process and its probable outcome feel like a validation of four years of hard work to all of the ones I know.
Bingo!
"Our standard bearer stumbled."
actually no he didnt. the media simply did to Dean what they did to HRC and Gore before them.
That's still stumbling. You've got to be able to deal with the media's narrative or you have lost.
whatever gets you through the day ;)
Trying to derive different weighting schemes in order to come up with an analytically defensible popular vote theoretical outcome is simply false precision that is, or should be anyway, meaningless to the superdelegates.\
The popular vote from blue states that will remain blue states regardless of the nominee doesn't matter.
The popular vote from red states that will remain red states regardless of the nominee doesn't matter.
Both sides realize they have different paths to achieving 270 EVs. Clinton's path goes through Florida. Obama's doesn't.
The popular vote totals do not demonstrate electability. A far better measure of electability would be to consider where each candidate is in the swing states they need to carry, and where each candidate is likely to be in those states come November.
Barack is 40 million in the black.
Clinton is 20 million in the red.
This 60 million differential says a lot about which candidate can mount a campaign to carry his or her swing states.
being rubbish.
I'm not certain that I agree with you that the lone purpose of the primary is to determine electability though.
I voted for the candidate I thought would make the best president.
And I'm also not sure about your method for showing the most electable candidate.
ANd I would argue that Obama does well in states that he campaigns in to counter his relative lack of familiarity. He hasn't campaigned in Florida yet. Isn't that a little unfair?
Both Florida and Michigan were beauty contests, buzz polls, name recognition contests, whatever your label. J Ro a few weeks back posted an article showing how Obama closed the gap in every state he campaigned in, often substantially. The Clinton supporters who advocate the popular vote metric conveniently ignore this when they assert that Florida and Michigan could be counted (and that Obama should receive no votes from Michigan because he took his name off the ballot!).
Ridiculous.
ANd I see that I misread part of your comment.
Sheesh. Time-O for bed-O.
Very well said. You spell out perfectly why the popular vote spin has carried so little weight with the SD's.
I honestly can't figure out who people pushing this idiocy think they are fooling.
Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.
Coming from a caucus state that voted 75% for Obama (Alaska), I take extreme offense in claiming a majority of so called popular votes, when my state's votes are disregarded in their phony argument for a phony metric.
The dishonesty of ANYONE claiming that Hillary has a lead in popular votes is something I would expect from a neocon Republican.
See, Clinton supporters? In your quest to find anyway to get Clinton a few points in trying to gain the nomination, look at all the bridges you're burning?
But don't you realize he doesn't count because he's from a red caucus state?
Get with the program!
:)
Please, I'm a she from a red state that has a very good chance of going for President Obama this year in the GE
I apologize regarding my mistake on your gender.
As to the rest, it was meant as humor. I sure as hell want us to contest Alaska! There's a Senate seat, I believe, and I know a House seat up (of course).
Obama helps you guys downticket anyway.
You're right, we have a good chance of kicking two crooks out of Congress, Senator Stevens and Congressman Don(the Moron)Young.
Best of luck! But don't be surprised if you don't get many takers to fly up to Alaska in late autumn to go door to door...
Yeah but the poster was from Alaska, his bridge goes to nowhere ;-)
Back in Feb, Move On thought the will of the people ( popular vote ) was important enough to have a petition."The Democratic Party must be democratic. The superdelegates should let the voters decide between Clinton and Obama, then support the people's choice."
http://pol.moveon.org/superdelegates/
Then you agree... Move On are hypocrites.
Agree with what? What the heck are you talking about?
Wow. I forgot that McCain lost the primary there. That's great.
50 states, here we come!
Yep, I'm excited about this one. It's the election I've been waitin' for.
ANd not because of Obama, but because of the stuff we've been working for since Dean is starting to pay off.
And bush being the biggest idiot in the history of our nation....
Apart from that part where he was our president for 8 long years, Bush was the best thing that ever happened to the progressive movement!
Very sleepy.
The problem with screaming "popular votes" at this point is that if our system of nomination and election relied solely on popular votes we wouldn't be wasting time on Iowa, New Hampshire, West Virginia and Idaho. Candidates would spend ALL their time in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, Texas and maybe North Carolina. Obama and Clinton would be running up totals in the big states and truly ignoring the small states.
But the rules were based on delegates apportioned by primaries and caucuses. Obama knew the rules. Mark Penn didn't.
Talking point talking point talking point talking point talking point talking point talking point talking point talking point talking point talking point
Isn't that how its done?
No, it's done this way:
sore loser sore loser sore loser sore loser sore loser sore loser sore loser sore loser sore loser.
yes, you are
If causus states want their votes to have weigh. They need to change to a primary. Running around bragging about winning caususes in red state will never win the election in Nov. It's all about who is electable.
bragging about winning CA and NY doesn't get you much either since both will surely go to any democrat in November.
I guess we ought to just have 3 or 4 primaries then. Hold them in OH, FL, and PA. Winner takes all; screw the other 47 states.
great diary. Eloquently put. We need to keep debunking the lie that the popular vote is a legitimate metric.
The popular vote talking point is a dangerous one, I think, because it seeks to delegitimize the victory that Obama will have fairly won.
1. Your conclusion that the popular vote "penalizes" caucus states is unfounded. If anything it only shows that caucuses punish voters by minimizing ability to participate. Caucuses unfairly grant exorbitant amounts of delegates based on the will of a slim minority.
2. Your math on the Nebraska hypothetical primary is outlandish. You assume he would win the primary at large by 36% as he won the caucus. In the statewide Nebraska primary (which is nonbinding) twice as many people voted and he won by 2%. Caucuses are biased heavily in favor of Obama. Had those states held primaries, not only Hillary would be ahead in pledged delegates.
The system has allows Obama to exploit the loophole in democracy that is the caucus system. He got his delegates and no one now is arguing to remove them from him. He does not however get imaginary popular votes from imaginary primaries that never happened.
Hillary has the PV and after Kentucky this Tuesday, that will be abundantly clear.
It was intended to be somewhat outlandish, though it is in some ways a conservative estimate.
The real point is that there is no legitimate way to include the caucus results in the so called "popular vote" total. Everyone can have a different popular vote and there are no agreed upon rules to make any of them official. Oh wait, I'm wrong, there is such a set of rules, that your candidate agreed to: the seated delegate count.
ANd I agree that if HRC's "popular vote" is successful, it will "punish voters" just as you say. I agree with you entirely.
Just wanted to add this:
There is an argument here I appreciate: HRC doesn't do as good in caucuses so if it had been an open primary she would have done better than in the caucus.
The problem is it's impossible to control for other factors that may have effected this correlation.
The truth, that you have to agree to, is that without a total new do-over election to test the hypothesis, it remains just that: an unproven, unprovable hypothesis. Not a worthy reason for to question the prearranged, agreed to method for determining the "will of the people," the seated delegate count.
Unless you can explain why it's justifiable to change the scoring system after the game is over and use a method that's not methodologically defensible.
I think you missed the point. I explicitly said no one is arguing to take Barack's caucus delegates away.
Now, it seems you are asking me to make an argument for removing the delegates or redoing the elections in caucus states. (!)
FYI, the Obama caucus skew is neither hypothetical nor unproven/unprovable. Circumstantial evidence is equally as legitimate as direct evidence. Ask anyone who has prevailed in an employment discrimination suit...
I don't think I did, but I think you missed my point.
The delegates are simply a symbol. Like money. No?
According to the rules of the primary, they are the currency that represents the vote in each state contest.
It was agreed upon because it provides a common currency for exchange.
Under the current rules, without homogeneous contests, they are the only reasonably valid metric of the "will of the people."
According to the rules of the contest the seated delegate count IS the representation of the "popular vote."
By throwing out the agreed upon currency of the election and making up a new currency called "popular vote" that is methodologically far less valid a way of measuring this so called "popular vote," you ARE indeed taking votes away from Obama that he won.
Think of it like money. If I agree to a price to sell you a pie, then give you only half the pie because I argue the price and the "actual value" ("popular vote") are two different things, and the "actual value" is more important, what just happened?
You're assuming that I'm arguing that delegates will or should abandon other metrics and anoint the popular vote the sole determining factor. I have said no such thing.
Barack Obama currently has more pledged delegates and superdelegates who have publicly said they would vote for him at the convention. He is likely to be the nominee.
The fact remains however that he will have lost the popular vote by all objective standards.
FWIW, I do think "actual votes cast" is a more reliable indicator of popular will than "delegates apportioned" which is adulterated by variables such as past voting behavior in a district and the unfortunate "tyranny of the minority" factor in the caucuses.
Also, I do not share your premise that a discrimination suit and a primary election are a fit comparison. Would you like to make that argument for me?
FYI, I just heard a former professor of statistics (now journalist) at the Chicago Green Festival speak about Republican election fraud in the 08 election. He said that due to the number of uncounted provisional ballots in the Indiana contest, the percentage of provisional ballots being given to African Americans, the percentage of African Americans voting for Obama and the percentage of provisional ballots unfairly (illegally) contested, (and then he added that PV's weren't the only statistical factor that favored Obama)
Obama really won the election in Indiana pretty soundly, so he said.
Do we really want to go second guessing the rules after the game is over? Is that fair?
You missed the point about primaries v. employment discrimination suits. It's not a comparison of the two. Rather it relates to the power of circumstantial evidence. Most employment discrimination cases are decided based on circumstantial evidence because they relate to a defendant's state of mind, which is almost never directly expressed (except in rare plaintiff-favoring cases where there is a written memo ascribing an intent to discriminate on the basis of a protected class). Circumstantial evidence is also basis enough to sentence a citizen to death in the United States.
The circumstantial and arguably direct (in the cases of TX, WA, NE) evidence of a heavy Obama skew in caucuses is real; it is not hypothetical or fanciful as you suggested earlier.
"provisional ballots unfairly (illegally) contested"
That doesn't make sense; if the ballots were unfairly contested they would have been counted. Perhaps they violated Indiana voter ID law. You can argue the law fails on a moral level here but not on a technical one.
Look, you keep trying to say that you don't want to take the Seated Delegates away and now you concede that Barrack will likely be the nominee, so what is your goal here? What are you trying to accomplish?
Here's the possibilities I see:
1. An academic argument. Fine, but I still don't think any statistician is going to be impressed with using raw vote totals in this contest as a meaningful measure of anything.
2. Help your candidate by invalidating the results of the seated delegate count which was designed by the party in part to demonstrate the "will of the people" in state contests, as well as a few other mitigating factors that the party agreed upon.
3. Hurt the party by attacking it's primary process.
Your basic assumption in all of these is that the party's rules for measuring the "will of the people" is less legitimate than a new metric made up after the game is over called the "popular vote" that the contest was never intended to validate. It's just not valid. It's like a baseball team arguing that they should be the real winner of a pennant series because they had more total hits, or more no-hitter innings in the series than the other team that actually won all the contests. The rules of the game established a rubric for which team was better. Arguing that they're somehow less valid after the game is over is silly.
The rules of the election established a rubric for who won the "popular vote." That's the seated delegate count.
I just can't see how this argument can help anyone but the Republicans.
And my initial point still stands, that both sides could make these sorts of claims about the results of the caucuses and the "popular vote" and that they cannot be reasonably proven without a new homogeneous "do-over" election.
As it stands, in this silly argument, the Obama side has direct statistical analysis of the outcomes of the elections.
You have your circumstantial evidence based on a few cherry-picked factors that you assume apply in other caucus states.
But you simply can't control for other factors including:
--time, the results of the unfolding election including the increasing negativity of the campaign, --state preferences, --differences in state demographics, --size of state and distance from polling stations --differences in campaigning --on and on and on....
There are just too many factors to eliminate for without a do-over election.
And without doing something to account for these differences, just adding the raw vote totals of caucus states into the mix is just ludicrous.
So on one hand we have the seated delegate count--the result of rules designed in part to demonstrate the "will of the (party affiliated) people" in state contests. And on the other, we have the "popular vote" which is meaningless balderdash and the SDs know it.
And HRC is shooting herself in the foot by arguing that the Democratic Party is not democratic.
It's difficult for me to imagine why you are so ardently questioning my motives in discussing the state of the primary race on a political discussion forum.
The primary process was a disaster. There is no sense turning a blind eye to that fact because ignoring the problem precludes any attempts to fix it in the future.
When you have a system that anoints the popular vote loser with the nomination, the system will rightfullly come under scrutiny. In 2000, calls to abolish the Electoral College were rampant. The problem there is that it could only be undone by constitutional amendment, a move that would fail because too many small states would oppose its ratification out of their own self-interest. This bizarre result from the primary on the other hand should serve as an impetus for the party to clean up its own mess for 2012 and beyond.
If it seems that the popular vote total serves to deny Barack Obama a clarion moral victory that he and his supporters would enjoy, so be it. The system was a mess and his prevailing here is anything but a mandate.
No, no, I'm sorry, I was not questioning your motives and I've appreciated your discussion with me. Thank you. I only wanted you to consider what the likely consequences are for your continued pushing of a talking point that is invalid and that you nor anyone else on this site has ever tried to explain why it should be a methodologically valid (in terms of statistical analysis and polling) metric for determining the "will of the people."
I still do not share this assumption that there is such a thing in this election as a meaningful "popular vote" apart from the spin of HRC supporters.
And so I do not agree that "the system" will "anoint" a nominee who lost this imaginary "popular vote" metric. There STILL was no homogeneous election with a valid and meaningful "popular vote."
And so I not think that anyone within the party will be moved to change the system on the grounds of this argument.
However, I do think it can serve to question the legitimacy of our Democratic candidate who won the election based on the only truly valid, pre-arranged and agreed upon metric.
It inaccurately and unfairly paints the Democratic party as entirely undemocratic.
On the other hand, I will be the first to admit that the rules were far from perfectly democratic. The "front loading" election was designed by party insiders to coronate the insider favorite (HRC) not to "provide an early presumptive nominee" as they claimed. Didn't work. Don't ever say Obama ain't smart.
The rules for the primary should and will change. There will always be insiders with agendas who need a new set of rules and the validity of a "fixed" system. I just won't be holding my breath for a more democratic system. Democracy is so dern inconvenient.
Thank you for the clarification and courtesy in the beginning of your comment.
It's difficult to argue that the byzantine delegate apportionment system accurates gauges popular will. Voters in districts with Democratic voting history have more numerically influential voices. That's fundamentally unfair, even while it advances the party's interest in "rewarding" historically Democratic precincts. The caucus system is a travesty as far as gauging popular will goes. Time and again, we've seen drastic pro-Obama skews in caucus results and we even have three instances for direct comparison: Texas, Washington, Nebraska. All subjectivity aside, it's impossible to defend the idea that a 36% win among 250,000 people is more telling than a 6% win among 750,000 people. Clearly, the caucus appeals only to one segment of the electorate, and it happens to be the most partisan for Obama.
The system isn't "entirely" undemocratic, so point taken there. Votes play an important although not entirely dispositive role in choosing the winner.
Whatever flaws the popular vote has, and yes there are some, they pale in comparison to the flaws of the pledged delegate metric in gauging popular will. This is especially true now that pledged delegates are (legally) exercising their own discretion independent of votes cast.
Finally, right now arguments over including the four caucus states may be crucial in determining the PV winner, but my analysis anticipates a growing lead for Clinton after Kentucky and Puerto Rico weigh in, with comparatively little offset from Oregon, South Dakota, and Montana.
My rough predictions are:
Kentucky-270,000 Clinton (30% spread with 55% turnout) Oregon-60,000 Obama (12% spread with approx. 65% turnout)
Montana-Under 5,000 either way South Dakota-Under 5,000 either way
Puerto Rico-200,000 Clinton
ANd finally, I wanted to add this because your language is truly very persuasive:
Hillary won her share of the delegates and no one is arguing to remove them until it's clear she's lost (at least no one I'll defend.) She does not, however, get to "win" an imaginary "popular vote" in an imaginary contest that did not take place under the pre-arranged and agreed upon rules of the primary. If this contest for the popular vote was ever intended to take place, the election would have been a homogeneous contest with a single set of election rules across states, agreed to in advance. NOt ad libbed after the contest was over.
Also, there's a lot of confusion regarding Hillary and Michigan and pledges and intra party disputes. Although Hillary is advocating for including those states, the actual parties in the hearings are the states of Michigan and Florida themselves.
It's the strategy to win in the General Election stupd!
Hillary is more favor to win the general election than Obama!
STRATEGY, Strategy... that the (nObama) Democrats supporter obviously lacks!
