[QUOTE=Shayna]
Oh, and the new Superdelegate tally for today: Obama 3, Clinton 0 Drip, drip, drip. . .
[/QUOTE]
I appreciate you keeping track of both candidates SDs Shayna, it presents a much better picture than getting just one side of the equation.
Shayna, it’s great to see Kalyn Free’s name on the Obama list. She’s a great advocate for all Indian nations.
[QUOTE=DigitalC]
I appreciate you keeping track of both candidates SDs Shayna, it presents a much better picture than getting just one side of the equation.
[/QUOTE]
You’re welcome (although I can’t really take credit for reporting Hillary’s supers except as they relate to Obama’s ;)).
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Shayna, it’s great to see Kalyn Free’s name on the Obama list. She’s a great advocate for all Indian nations.
[/QUOTE]
Did you read her full endorsement?
(I don’t believe there are copyrights on public endorsements, so I hope it’s ok to have posted it in its entirety. If not, please advise and edit as necessary, and I’ll make more snips in the future.)
Inspirational! And just plain true. Thanks for sharing that, Shayna.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Shayna, it’s great to see Kalyn Free’s name on the Obama list. She’s a great advocate for all Indian nations.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed - And there’s South Dakota’s primary sewn up as well.
In the realm of celebrity endorsements, Tom Hanks is pulling for Obama.
[QUOTE=ArchiveGuy]
In the realm of celebrity endorsements, Tom Hanks is pulling for Obama.
[/QUOTE]
That beats the crap out of that creepy endorcement video Jack Nicholson did for Hillary.
Could someone baby-talk to me about this “Nuclear Option” that I’ve heard about before and came into prominence once again as I ran into this article at The Huffington Post:
Clinton Camp Says It Will Use The Nuclear Option
What exactly are we talking about here? Best I can discern is that Hillary will try to use her extensive connections via the SD’s in order to disrupt the previously agreed-upon rules. And if I am right, beyond whatever Pyrrhic “legal” victory can be found in doing this, how could this not finally put terminal a fracture between what I’ve come to see as two very different strands of that Party. The DLC status-quo and the rest…
Would someone elucidate further on this issue? Not sure I see the upside of this maneuver. I mean how could she possible win the race to the WH after pulling such a stunt?
Hint hint RT, Shayna, Lib, John…
From here: Viking Pundit
Hillary’s nuclear option - From Swamp Politics: “If Clinton does well or outright wins in Indiana and/or North Carolina this week, if her argument for electability takes hold and if enough party activists are willing to withstand the revolt that would ensue, Clinton could force a vote of the party’s bylaws committee to seat the disputed, Clinton-rich delegations of Florida and Michigan and overtake Barack Obama’s delegate lead.”
Correction if I may. When I wrote “SD’s” I was really thinking of the PTB in charge of the Democratic Party, from Dr Dean on down. Because, conceivably, they are the only ones that can change the rules in mid-stream, correct?
[QUOTE=Liberal]
From here: Viking Pundit
Hillary’s nuclear option - From Swamp Politics: “If Clinton does well or outright wins in Indiana and/or North Carolina this week, if her argument for electability takes hold and if enough party activists are willing to withstand the revolt that would ensue, Clinton could force a vote of the party’s bylaws committee to seat the disputed, Clinton-rich delegations of Florida and Michigan and overtake Barack Obama’s delegate lead.”
[/QUOTE]
Thanks, Lib, that helps. But then again, who/what is this “bylaws committee”? I’ve never heard of them before. Are they outside of the Party structure? As in beyond Dean and whomever else runs the Party?
That’d be really really odd as a Democratic concept, IMO.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
I know I don’t always express it, RT, but I do appreciate your cleaning up behind me on this kind of stuff. I really do admire how meticulous and informed you are about it.
[/QUOTE]
No prob, Lib. This is a pretty good team to be hitting cleanup for, anyway. 
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
The truth is, there are explicit DNC rules governing which votes are valid. Plugging your ears and la-la-la-ing until the sun comes up will not change that.
[/QUOTE]
Cite? There are explicit DNC rules governing which Delgates are valdi, but do you have a cite which sez the DNC doesn’t recognize the Popular vote in Fla (for instance)? Or one that sez the DNC does recognize RealClearPolitics estimates of the popular vote in the Caucus states? :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=RedFury]
Thanks, Lib, that helps. But then again, who/what is this “bylaws committee”? I’ve never heard of them before. Are they outside of the Party structure? As in beyond Dean and whomever else runs the Party?
[/QUOTE]
No, they’re within the Party structure - if I’ve got the story right, they’re the same people who sanctioned MI and FL in the first place (see photo caption).
The thing that’s changed since they sanctioned FL and MI, of course, is whose ox is gored by it.
At RedFury’s link, Tom Edsall, citing DemConWatch’s superdelegate endorsement list, says that a majority of the committee are superdelegates who’ve endorsed Hillary. DemConWatch could only find 12 committee members (out of 30) who’d endorsed her, with 8 who’ve endorsed Obama.
Here’s the Rules and Bylaws Committee Regulations (biggish PDF).
[QUOTE=RedFury]
But then again, who/what is this “bylaws committee”? I’ve never heard of them before. Are they outside of the Party structure? As in beyond Dean and whomever else runs the Party?
That’d be really really odd as a Democratic concept, IMO.
[/QUOTE]
The full name is the Rules & Bylaws Committee, and they’re the DNC members who voted to strip Florida and Michigan of 100% of their delegates as opposed to 50% of their delegates, for bucking the agreed-upon primary calendar (which was established by a different committee).
Co-Chairs
Alexis Herman (co-chair, Washington, D.C.) - U
James Roosevelt, Jr. (co-chair, Massachusetts) - U
Members
Harold Ickes, Jr. (Washington, D.C.) - H
Donna Brazile (Washington, D.C.)
Donald Fowler (South Carolina) - H
Allan Katz (Florida) - O
Elizabeth Smith (Washington, D.C.) - H
Mark Brewer (Michigan) - U
Ralph Dawson (New York) - U
Hartina Flournoy (Washington, D.C.) - H
Carol Khare Fowler (South Carolina) - O
Alice Germond (Washington, D.C.) - U
Jaime Gonzalez, Jr. (Texas) - H
Janice Griffin (Virginia) - O
Alice Huffman (California) - H
Thomas Hynes (Illinois) - O
Ben Johnson (Washington, D.C.) - H
Elaine Kamarck (Massachusetts) - H
Eric Kleinfeld (Washington, D.C.) - H
David McDonald (state of Washington) - U
Mona Pasquil (California) - H
Mame Reiley (Virginia) - H
Garry Shay (California) - H
Michael Steed (Washington, D.C.) - H
Sharon Stroschein (South Dakota) - O
Everett Ward (North Carolina) - O
Jerome Wiley Segovia (Virginia) - U
Sarah Swisher (Iowa) - O
Yvonne Gates (Nevada) - U
Martha Fuller Clark (New Hampshire) - O
I’ve placed an H or an O after those who’ve publicly endorsed one of the candidates as of today, and a U for those who haven’t. You might notice a few familiar names on that list, most notably Harold Ickes, Hillary Clinton’s Chief Strategist. Yes, he voted with the majority to strip FL and MI of their full slate of delegates. Of course now that Hillary didn’t wrap the nomination up on Super Tuesday as they all expected, he’s singing a different tune.
Interestingly, he only ‘nay’ vote came from the Obama supporter from Florida.
You’ll also notice the current imbalance of Clinton supporters (13 declared) vs Obama supporters (8 declared) with 9 undeclared, which is probably why she thinks she’ll be able to get them to rule in her favor.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
That was per what you said at post 1027.
If you don’t believe your own words - or even take them seriously, apparently - why should anyone else?
[/QUOTE]
I said nothing of the sort.
My post #1027 contained nothing but a cite. "http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo…-pennsyl-1.html
After Pennsylvania (2)
I’ve been maintaining for months that the most significant metric in the Democratic race will ultimately be the popular vote, even though the official, by-the-rules determinant is convention delegates, elected and “super.” I maintain this because the popular vote—i.e., the votes of actual human beings—has more democratic (and Democratic) legitimacy than the votes of constructed or mediating entities.
Back on February 21st, I did some complicated (for me) math, based on Gore’s half-million-popular-vote victory in the 2000 general election (a Station of the Cross for Democrats), and decreed as follows:
In this year’s Democratic primaries, the equivalent of Al Gore’s national popular-vote margin in the 2000 general election would be around 125,000 votes. So if the final difference between Clinton and Obama is more than that, it will be awkward, to say the least, for the superdelegates to take it upon themselves to reverse the voters’ choice.
Awkwardness has made big strides since then. Post-Pennsylvania, the RealClearPolitics popular-vote count is, shall we say, problematic. Depending on what you count, somewhere between 28.5 million and 30.7 million votes have been cast so far. What you make of the results depends on—well, it depends on what you count.
…In other words, Clinton would have a case. Obama would have one, too—he’d still be a little bit ahead in the popular vote according to to the rules everybody agreed upon in advance, and he would definitely be ahead in elected delegates. She would have a popular vote lead in all the count-Florida-and-Michigan categories. But neither candidate could any longer plausibly claim that he or Bottom line: the whole damn thing will be roughly a tie. And I do mean roughly.
In which case it really will be up to the Supreme Court, I mean the Superdelegate Court. At that point, maybe the best solution would be for the supers to abstain on the first ballot in Denver and then everybody can have a free-for-all. Here’s what would happen next, according to a mystifying non-explanation on the Democrats’ mystifying “Convention 101” Web page:
If neither candidate reaches a majority of delegate votes on the first ballot for president, the nomination and the race for delegates becomes competitive."
Of course, by one count, the margin is more than what this writer (not me, a political pundit) accepts as “ahead”. But that’s one count and even this pundit said “What you make of the results depends on—well, it depends on what you count.”
The popular vote is now a virtual tie. Stick you rhead in the sand and say to yourself “No really, my candidate will win” all you want. True Obama does have a nice lead in delegates.
[QUOTE=Shayna]
You’ll also notice the current imbalance of Clinton supporters (13 declared) vs Obama supporters (8 declared) with 9 undeclared, which is probably why she thinks she’ll be able to get them to rule in her favor.
[/QUOTE]
Not if she pulls that shit on them, they won’t. Although it seems to me that many voters are not tired of Hillary’s brand of politics, the supers are. A double digit loss in either of these two primaries or even a single digit loss in both will be the last straw for them, I think.
But if Hill wins IN and pulls within 5 in NC, they will pull their punches. I hope I’m wrong about it, but I think that’s what’s gonna happen.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Cite? There are explicit DNC rules governing which Delgates are valdi, but do you have a cite which sez the DNC doesn’t recognize the Popular vote in Fla (for instance)?
[/quote]
This is just plain stupid. The DNC recognizes the popular vote in a state as a means of allocating the delegates from that state. In Florida’s case, the popular vote decided how to allocate all zero delegates from Florida. That’s how the DNC recognized Florida’s popular vote: it multiplied it by zero. All gone. Bye-bye.
That would be ‘estimated number of participants’ in the caucus states, since in theory, a caucus is a substitute for a popular vote. And this bullshit about popular vote has no official standing before the DNC anyway: it’s all about considering (and inevitably demonstrating the futility and/or stupidity of) yet one more Team Hillary argument about how they’re really winning, despite getting their asses kicked in the only officially recognized tally, which would be the delegate count.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
I said nothing of the sort.
My post #1027 contained nothing but a cite. "http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo…-pennsyl-1.html
[/quote]
OK then: when you quote excerpts from what some other writer says, in the future we should just ignore them.
And here I had the crazy idea that you presented that argument because you agreed with it.
Now I know you were just posting random shit, that meant nothing to you. No rebuttal necessary.
Got it. I’ll remember that in the future.
OK, do you mean it this time, now that you’re posting it without quote tags or italics?
I mean, if you’re going to say stuff, it’s kinda silly for me to have to ask if you mean it before I bother to respond, but that’s what it’s come to, apparently.
Not according to you.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Cite? There are explicit DNC rules governing which Delgates are valdi, but do you have a cite which sez the DNC doesn’t recognize the Popular vote in Fla (for instance)? Or one that sez the DNC does recognize RealClearPolitics estimates of the popular vote in the Caucus states? :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
Irrelevant.
:rolleyes: back atcha.
Regulations of the Rules & Bylaws Committee For The 2008 Democratic National Convention
The rules only recognize the popular vote for the purpose of allocating delegates. It is not necessary for the Committee to include a rule that specifically excludes the popular vote in Florida and Michigan. The absence of any rule that recognizes the popular vote for anything other than the allocation of delegates means your idle speculation carries no weight whatsoever. If the rules deny Florida and Michigan delegates seats at the convention, then the popular vote in those states is moot.