Which measures would that be? Most States? Matters just as much or as little as Most Big States- in other words- mostly meaningless. Popular vote? A virtual tie. “Pledged” Delegates? Meaningless.
The only thing that matter is most delegates, and yes, Obama is ahead there.
The thing is Obama-ites are very anxious to say “OK, my candidate now has more Delegates, so stop the election, he’s won. Hillary has to quit now- for the good of the party”. :rolleyes: :dubious: That’s not part of the rules, and if it were, Hillary would have pulled it when she was ahead. When you get 2,024 delegates, you win- not before.
E-Sabbath*Is it 2,024 votes, if Florida and Michigan aren’t counted? * Good question. Yes, it is. That could be changed, as well as those states could be seated. But as the rules stand now, it still is 2,024 and those states delegates won’t be seated.
Howared Dean was on Meet the Press today, and he says he’s going to do everything he can to make sure the supers commit before the convention. He also says he will do everything he can to seat the FL and MI delegates in some way at the convention. Neither is an easy task, and neither is something he can just mandate. But I think his position is important, being the head of the DNC.
Since this is essentially the same thing you said two days ago here, let me repost my rebuttal from that same thread, that same day, to which you have yet to respond:
No, it’s not. You’ve already made that claim, been rebutted, and failed to offer a response.
I guess you can keep on making the same claim, but there’s no reason for anyone to take it seriously.
Pledged delegates are meaningless?
In that case, what’s the big deal about FL and MI? The big Hillary argument there is that the voters’ preferences must count. The voters’ preferences, in this system, are expressed in terms of…yes, that would be pledged delegates.
You’re right - considering “the good of the party” isn’t part of the rules. A candidate does in fact have the right to harm the party and the prospects of its likely nominee in order to preserve some small chance of becoming its nominee instead.
Yeah, the only way that Clinton comes out ahead is to count all her votes in MI and give Obama zero for that state. I don’t think think that is a meaningful scenario, even though there is no one true way to count the popular vote. I can see using the FL votes, since both candidates were on the ballot, but neither Obama nor Edwards (who was still very much in it at the time of the MI primary) were on the MI ballot, so those votes for Hillary are extremely suspect. I wouldn’t assume that no Edwards or Obama supporters voted for Hillary there. Especially Edwards supporters.
But the popular vote is only meaningful in that the superdelegates might use it to sway them one or the other. Let’s also remember, though, that the general election in Nov won’t be one where the popular vote matters either, so I would think they would really look at it state by state to see how it plays out in the EC. That’s how I would do it.
Just had a thought. Next time Sen. Clinton gets on a pledged-delegates-aren’t-really-committed kick, someone should respond, “You’re absolutely right: the delegates pledged to you are free to vote for Sen. Obama on the first ballot if they wish”, and see how she responds.
The problem is that no one’s demonstrated a decent correlation between who wins the primary, and who’s got the better shot in that state in the general. If someone had done some competent number-crunching that demonstrated such a correlation, I’d be more likely to buy into this approach.
Yes, that’s an important point. Just because Hillary or Obama wins the Democratic primary in a given state doesn’t mean shit about who is going to win against McCain. But that’s all Hillary has. She’s losing, and there is nothing to demonstrate that more clearly than her calls for more debates. The person losing always want more debates, and the person winning wants fewer. She knows she’s losing, even if she still does have a remote chance of winning.
Why respond? You said it yourself “The difference between RCP and you is that RCP proffers no value judgments on the different ways of counting.”. Nor did I offer any value judgements. All 6 methods have some validity,and what’s good about the RCP figures is that RCP *doesn’t *offer any value judgements. None, repeat NONE are the “one true right way”. All are as valid as any. Now, I take the golden mean and the middle road of all six scores to show that Obama has a teensy lead which eqates to a virtual tie.
“Pledged” Delegates are meaningless. What counts is total Delegates and when they count them, they care not whether they are pledged or Super. Each one gets one vote, no more no less. If someone came into the Convention with 2,023 pledged delegates and the other person had 2,024 Superdelegates, the one with 2,024 would win (yes, I know there aren’t 2,024 supers). The type of delegates means nothing just the total numbers. The Obama camp had propagated some BS about Supers being less democratic when Obama was way behind in Supers and tyhus total delegates and they desperately needed something, anything to show that Obama was still in the race.
Sure it’s meaningful- sort of. Do not the Obama-ites say that Fla & Mich Choose to move their Primaries, thus they must live with that Choice? Thereby, by that logic (and it’s not very good logic, but still, it’s their logic ) then Obama Choose to remove his name from the MI ballot thus he must live with that Choice.
In fact the logic is even more dubious that that- as Obama made the choice for himself, and the voters of Fla and MI got their choice made for them by their State legislatures- where there’s majority in the GoP, not the DNC. In other words, the GOP (mostly) choose to disenfranchise the Dem voters. Nice.(yes, I know, by and large the DEM legis went along with the GOP. So, they are dumber than a bag of hammers… If in the present case Rove made the decision for Obama, I suppose Obama would have a legit complaint.
Still, the logic in both cases is rather suspect to me.
Of course you made a value judgment. In order to claim the ‘virtual tie,’ you had to give at least equal weight to the votes from the MI primary, which (as I’ve said) is ridiculous if you’re trying to use the primary votes to measure actual popular support.
OTOH, as I’ve also said, it makes sense if you’re simply trying to come up with a way of ‘scoring’ the primaries that favors your candidate.
The former is true. The latter isn’t. I’ve explained why. You do not rebut, you just reassert.
Just to clarify, DrDeth, when you say “all are as valid as any,” and include the Michigan numbers in an average to support a conclusion that the two candidates are in a ‘virtual tie’ with respect to the popular vote, the value judgment you are making is that it makes as much sense to count Michigan as to not count Michigan in determining their comparative popular vote totals.
RCP offers the numbers without comment or conclusion. It does not say whether one is as good as another, or whether one is better than another, or what the numbers mean for the relative standings of the two candidates. Adding such things involves value judgments.
IF Hillary had a popular vote lead, it won’t survive next Tuesday anyway. I think NC will offset PA because Obama’s margin will be bigger. Of course, Hillary will always have a way to spin it such that she has won.
) then Obama Choose to remove his name from the MI ballot thus he must live with that Choice.