Friday, April 18, 2008

Howard Dean weighs in on superdelegates

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com

Tells CNN "I need them to say who they're for starting now"

11 comments:

dhvibe said...

Interesting. I am glad that there is some mention of real issues like the economy and the job market. It is such a long wait! America needs to get on with moving away from Bush's politics. What a mess that man has made.

s.b. said...

Well three of them obliged him and wieghed in for Senator Clinton.

Not what Dean the Scream hoped for I'm sure.

Mike in Maryland said...

s.b.,

?

Which three superdelegates announced for Clinton since yesterday afternoon?

Mike

Yamaka said...

The net effect is Sen Obama is leading Sen Clinton barely by 18 delegates.

This will change after PA next week!

Cheers.

Mike in Maryland said...

Yamaka said, "The net effect is Sen Obama is leading Sen Clinton barely by 18 delegates."

??

Obama leads in pledged delegates by 163 according to The Green Papers. Clinton leads Obama by 22 to 25 superdelegates, depending on which site you go to.

163 minus 25 (worst case for Obama) equals

Drum roll

139 delegates.

Now, yamaka, please explain how you came up with 18.

Oh, and until the Michigan and Florida situations get sorted out, no one knows how they will be included, so you cannot include them. Including them is making an ASSumption. Of course, if you want to assume - well, you should know what comes next.

Mike

Yamaka said...

Please go to the last box in the left and read, "If you include FL and MI". The numbers are self evident.

This is what I always follow, and in my view the most relevant number.

I believe in Full Democracy, not the Partial.

Counting ALL votes polled is the superior doctrine in vibrant Democracy. It trumps any badly implemented "Day Rule" of DNC.

My magic number is 2208, not 2024.

If you don't agree, it is not my problem!

:) :) :)

s.b. said...

Yeah Howard Dean's 50 state strategy is now a 38 state strategy, most of them Red States and caucus states.

Go Dean!

It's like the Democrats are trying to lose in Nov.

David said...

Yamaka:

As Mike already pointed out, those are *not* the most relevant numbers. We don't know how MI and FL will get counted. My guess is that they get counted proportional to the election results, but with 50% delegates.

Also, you're assuming that the 55 uncommitted MI delegates split evenly. That's just not going to happen. I doubt the Obama camp will accept any proposal that doesn't give them all 55 of those delegates.

At that point, the worst case for Obama has him ahead by 18+55=73 delegates. Clinton is not going to gain 73 delegates on Tuesday.

David said...

Also, where is the assumption that Dean is for Obama coming from (s.b.)? Last I checked, Dean still hasn't answered his own call: he's unpledged.

Wish CNN had pushed him on that!

J said...

"I doubt the Obama camp will accept any proposal that doesn't give them all 55 of those delegates."

But they weren't votes for Obama, so it's his (and his campaign's) own fault for taking his name off the ballot...

"It's like the Democrats are trying to lose in Nov."

It's been like that for months...

David said...

Me: I doubt the Obama camp will accept any proposal that doesn't give them all 55 of those delegates.

J: But they weren't votes for Obama, so it's his (and his campaign's) own fault for taking his name off the ballot...

Me:
1. As even Clinton has pointed out, Obama's campaign was working hard to get people to vote "uncommitted." (She made that argument as a reason the MI vote should be considered valid.)

2. Clinton's name *was* on the ballot. *None* of those uncommitted delegates should go to her. If they don't go to Obama, what do we do with them?

3. If we're going to use the "it's their fault that they're in this mess, because they didn't consider the consequences" argument, why don't we just say the same thing about MI and FL for jumping the schedule? They were warned that their primaries wouldn't count.

(Note: I'm not proposing that we should use that argument. I'm just saying that it's a double standard to use that argument against Obama and not use it against the states.)