WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com
With Al Wynn's resignation this weekend, there are 4,233 delegate votes. From MSNBC First Read:
Also note, Maryland's Al Wynn's resignation takes effect this weekend. That means technically the number drops to 2,117 for at least a couple of weeks until Donna Edwards likely fills his seat. We contacted the DNC to see if it would reduce their number. They are not, so we will keep the number at 2,118, which is what it will eventually be at convention.OK. According to the DNC and MSNBC, Obama needs 2,118. But since there are only 4,233 delegate votes, that leaves 2,115 for Clinton. So instead of requiring Obama to win by the least margin possible, they are requiring him to win 2,118-2,115. That doesn't seem quite fair to us.
But some will say, well, OK, but it will be correct in a couple of weeks, when Edwards wins the Special Election, right?
Again, from MSNBC:
so we will keep the number at 2,118, which is what it will eventually be at convention.Lets see. 4,234 votes. Half votes are pretty common now. Seems to me one could secure a majority with 2117.5 votes, winning 2117.5-2116.5. I guess the DNC is making Obama play by ping-pong rules - have to win by two: 2,118-2,116.
And the worst part? The Obama campaign is agreeing to this higher standard, saying it needs 2,118 to win. Maybe they'll also say they need 271 Electoral Votes to win the election. Who knows. It must be this "new math" stuff.
Oh. And we won't even go here.
del.icio.us
31 comments:
eek, I'm having 2nd thoughts about you dems now... confused much ?
I'm gonna go there. I found this quote to be interesting:
"That’s a question we’re going to be considering," Clinton said. "Because obviously I still believe, I was pleased that the electoral results of the primaries were accepted that was the basis for the decisions that were made which is something I've been arguing for months as you know. And I was also pleased that Florida was fully seated but the half vote penalty I think is unwarranted under the circumstances and I thought Michigan was in violation of the rules so we’re going to decide how to proceed and depending upon what the outcome of that decision is we will either mount a challenge or not but obviously it would have an impact on the number of delegates necessary to pledge the nomination."
Notice how many times she said I. "I still believe..." "I've been arguing..." "I think is unwarranted..." "and I thought Michigan was in violation..." and so on.
Did it occur to you, just maybe, that Obama has aplenty of Supers already waiting to endorse so that it won't matter if the magic number is 2118 or 2128 or whatever?
He would not have chosen a rally planned for tomorrow night to kick off the general election "season" if he would not be 100% sure that he will be able to announce that he is the nominee of the Democratic Party.
So i suggest we just relax and let the things unfold and by tomorrow night it will all be official.
Speaking about vote counting math--Look at how "popular vote" Dis-Counts votes:
Under the Democratic nominating process, concentrating on popular votes would disenfranchise Minnesota and other caucus states.
Equating primary vote totals to caucus vote totals is mixing apples and oranges. For example, Wisconsin is the 20th most populous state and Minnesota is 21st. However, Wisconsin’s primary had over 5 times the “votes” (1,100,805) as Minnesota’s caucus (211,103). Minnesota historically has the top voter turnout in the nation. If Minnesota had a primary, the popular vote would have been substantially higher. In fact the net margin of popular vote to Obama in Minnesota alone would have likely been over 350,000 votes instead of 73,115. Wisconsin has 74 delegates to the Democratic Convention and Minnesota has 72. Under the “popular vote” math Hillary Clinton is advocating, Wisconsin is over 5 times more important. Is that a fair way to count the votes of all 50 states?
Since the Democratic Primaries proportionally allocate delegates, they already act as a representative tally of the popular vote in primary and caucus states. The only fair way to compare caucus and primary states is by counting delegates through the very carefully considered system everyone agreed to before the nominating process began. Obama won all the caucus states except Nevada. Clinton’s math would disenfranchise caucus state voters by cutting their vote to about one-fifth. That is not counting the votes!
2,118 makes sense. Furthermore, Obama will go way over 2,118, so it doesn't make any difference.
robert in mn,
Good point, except you can't just extrapolate the caucus results to arrive at a hypothetical primary popular vote margin. In a primary the Obama spread would narrow. Look at WA and TX, which had primary and caucus events. In WA, Obama won the caucus 67-31 but only won the primary 51-46. In Tx, Obama won the caucus 56-43 but Clinton won the primary 51-47.
his part of the article is scary:
"All of which is to say - Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, may reach 2,118 this week, but Clinton may assert that doesn't mean anything."
It was said of Hitler's philosophy, "people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it."
Sadly, Hitler's words seem all to familiar with HRC...
Maths for dumbs
Will be lunched soon targeting Clinton’s supporters who need’s to recount the votes to finnaly understand that Obama is the winner.
Yeah, it ultimately won't make a difference. By your own math Obama needs 42.5/228.5 delegates to win. He's going to take about half of SD and MT, and I can't see at least half of the remaining supers supporting the pledged delegate leader. So when he ends up approaching 2200 total delegates it's not going to matter much if its 2117.5 or 2118.
Can anyone explain to me that while Huckabee was considered a joke with his "I didn't major in math, I majored in miracles." Clinton is still considered a sane and rational politician? Her argument is boiling down to "If everyone spontaneously decides to vote for me at the convention I can win."
She needs 88% of the remaining delegates. It boggles my mind.
I think we'll discover, late tomorrow or on Wednesday, that the 'Pelosi Club' has a lot more 'members' than the official 6 superdelegates. Once Barack has Montana and South Dakota in his bag, the 'Pelosi Club' will endorse him as the winner of the majority of pledged delegates, and the contest will be over.
(Except for Hillary, who will have to decide between standing as an independent, or waiting till 2012).
Donald, I don't disagree with your points, but it is just as wrong as to say caucus votes is representative of a state's popular vote. Minnesota and 12 other states use a representative government model to choose delegates. 37 states use primaries. Both are valid means. The only fair way to equate the two is through the present delegate counting process. If for example we Minnesotans would have known we were counting popular vote, we would likely have demanded a primary. That is why we don't change rules mid stream.
Robert in MN,
I definitely agree with your main point that only delegates counts. My only quibble was with the one sentence "In fact the net margin of popular vote to Obama in Minnesota alone would have likely been over 350,000 votes instead of 73,115." I was just trying to say that if we wanted to go through the experiment to see what the popular vote would have been if every state had a primary (again this doesn't matter since only delegates count) it wouldn't be as simple as extrapolating the caucus results, i.e primary results = caucus percentages * estimated primary turnout.
While the substance of the article is correct, the comparison of this to the Electoral College is not the best to be had. I don't believe there is any fair comparison to be had, as the Electoral College is already a joke.
HRC's "popular vote" argument has staying power because the concept of one-man-one-vote is such an important principle to fair-minded people, most of whom are Democrats. But previous postings have made it clear there's no fair way equate a state's actual caucus numbers to the primary vote numbers that MIGHT have resulted if that state had held a primary instead of caucuses. Luckily, the party leaders considered this dilemma in advance. In their wisdom, they formulated the delegate system that all the candidates agreed in advance to observe and respect. Apparently HRC must have had her fingers crossed behind her back.
And before HRC decides to challenge the RBC's Michigan decision, I would like to know how anyone can prove none of the votes she received would have gone to other candidates if their names had been on the ballot too.
Obama isn't Irish, his name is spelled without an apostrophe. What's more, the idea that those who voted uncommitted would have gone 50/50 is complete nonsense, as most of those were Obama supporters, who were told to vote for uncommitted since he didn't campaign or run in that election. On the other hand, Clinton's supporters voted for Clinton, because her name was on the ballot.
Obama probably just wants to make sure that he doesn't declare victory until he's absolutely certain. He doesn't want the same thing as when he overtook Clinton with supers, with different organisations declaring that he had achieved it at different times due to different counts.
Sad jallen, just sad. Florida and Michigan voters don't get your version of "equality" because their states failed to abide by the rules agreed upon by the democratic party. They get to be counted at 50%, as that is what the rules state, and anything other than that is not fair to the 48 states who followed the rules correctly. Rule breakers don't get to have full equality, the same way that convicted felons don't get to vote. If that bothers you, go complain to the elected officials who changed the dates in the first place. They'r ethe ones to blame. Not Obama, or his campaign, or anyone else, and frankly, Michigan and Florida should be happy that they got as much as they did. Especially Michigan, because the primary there wasn't even remotely valid.
Further, there was no "hijacking" or stealing of anything. The 69/59 compromise in Michigan was arrived upon by studying exit poll data and other independent research. It has the backing of the state democratic party. And unlike the primary in that state, the polling data may actually be accurate and reliable, because it was presented in a fair way that at the very least included the names of both candidates. So if you're going to call "hijacking", when by any reasonable metric the compromise was a more accurate reflection of the will of the electorate than the primary was, and when Obama's solution of just splitting the delegates 50/50 on the grounds that the primary wasn't fair or valid was perfectly reasonable, then I submit to you that you care far less about fair and accurate reflection of the will of the electorate than you do about making sure that the candidate you prefer gets the largest number of delegates possible.
And to try to fault Obama for where his staff placed a couple of portable toilets is just stupid. Further, if the police didn't want portable toilets placed on their memorial, then they shouldn't have made their memorial a flat paved thing on the ground. They should have made it 3-dimensional in such a way that it is obviously a monument. Looking at the picture, I would have placed the toilets there also, because the area is flat, nicely paved, and easily accessible. Was that seriously the best complaint you could come up with? If so then all it shows is what a great candidate he really is, because people have such a hard time digging up any real dirt that they have to resort to nonsense about toilet placement and whatnot.
And who cares if Obama has Irish roots from the 1700's/1800's or not?
Matt:
if the bar is at 2,118 per DNC & MSNBC per your 1pm post, why is the DCW bar still set at 2,117?
1. Obama didn't place the toilets. His staff did. You can't be mad at him for a decision that he probably had nothing whatsoever to do with.
2. Nobody was crapping on anybody's dead relatives. Portapotties don't work like that. At best they were crapping *above* the dead relatives, and onto the plastic floor of the portapotty.
3. Ignoring that the toilet placement thing has nothing at all to do with Obama's judgement, his primary campaign argument has nothing to do with who has the better judgement. It has to do with who is most able to bring about change. Clinton was the one who tried to pitch the judgement argument.
4. And yes, you most certainly can claim to be a democrat while at the same time holding the citizens responsible for the actions of incompetent politicians. The citizens are the ones who elected the incompetent politicians, so they are just as responsible for their actions as the politicians themselves. That's called accountability. The elected officials screwed up, and because of that, the people that elected them screwed up too. The same way the entire nation screwed up by electing Bush. Everyone is responsible, not just the elected representatives. And that is what democracy is really all about. The idea that the people take responsibility for their own destiny. The people, and not just their elected representatives.
5. All Obama ever said with respect to Michigan and Florida was that the rules should be enforced, as agreed upon before the primary season was even started. Hillary Clinton was the one who played things like a politician, by trying vehemently to get the rules changed in her favor after it became clear that she needed those states to have any chance at winning. If people acting like politicians bothers you so much, you should be complaining about her, not Obama.
Hey Jallen:
So are you going to pay for the memorials for the 3200 MORE American soldier McCain gets killed in Iraq? So you've respect for the dead but what about respecting the living enough to give them a chance to stay living?
What is he talking about do you ask?
Five years so far in Iraq, averages out to 800+ dead American soldiers per year (not to mention contractors and residents of Iraq). So McCain claims victory in Iraq is possible in another 4 years, simple math 4 X 800 = 3200. This assumes his time frame is accurate which I seriously doubt. So what about these 3200? You are going to vote to have them killed? Make no doubt about it, that is one of the "side effects" of voting for McCain.
Now you say people like McCain have died for this country etc... Your paragraphs in and around here suggest that only republicans are willing to do so. The problem here is that you (and we) KNOW that is a mis-statement.
Finally, "incompadent", "hypocrit", "democrate"? May I make a suggestion? If you are going to try to get a point across in writing, do two things. Learn how to write correctly and PROOFREAD! You'll be taken much more seriously if you do.
Thralen
Thralen:
Thanks for bringing up the inconsiderate lack of grammar. It has been just shy of painful reading Jallen's comments
Jallen:
However much you may want to say that "Maybe he should spell it O'bama", that is not his name. Up to this point, I have never seen anyone on this blog post a comment about the candidates criticizing their names, and it is incredibly disrespectful of you to continuously call him O'bama when you have already been corrected (I don't care about his Irish roots. His name is his name. It's just that simple).
Now on to your points of conversation here. So essentially what you are saying is that you would rather vote for McCain in the GE than Obama because he put some portajohns in a place that made you feel insulted by? I understand that this is simplifying the issue, but keep reading, please (I am going through points one by one). Perhaps you do not understand how a large-scale campaign works. A candidate travels to and from several places during the course of a week with only a few of his main staff travelling with him. The type of staffer that organizes this kind of event only ever meet with the candidate during his short time in that spot (if at all). While I know that this may not convince you, what you need to understand here, is that the campaign did actually issue an apology, but Obama did not do so directly because he had nothing to do with the problem. This kind of mistake is very common in these campaigns and when they can be handled without immense media involvement, they are.
Now, onto the idea that Obama will "discriminate the 'typical white person'"? For starters, that doesn't even make sense (please speak something that resembles proper English, please). Secondly, I have no idea how you came to this conclusion. Nowhere in any of his speeches, debates, or Q&A's could I find any language even covertly suggesting this. If you mean that blue-collar white voters don't want to vote for him, then you are barking up the wrong tree. I would say that suggests the opposite of HIM discriminating. That would be voters discriminating, which is fine, because that is their right as voters, but to suggest that he is being racist here is just a load of crap.
Finally, let's talk about these associations that you feel seem to speak volumes about Obama's judgement. With the exception of the pastors at Obama's church, none of these associations that the Clinton and McCain campaigns have attacked him with have any weight. Don't believe me? Well the reference that McCain and Clinton used regarding Hamas is just mudslinging at its best. Obama has never supported Hamas, and has clearly stated that he has no intention of doing so. The whole Ayres issue: Do me a favor and look up the facts surrounding that. Check out the year that Ayres was ACCUSED of the bombing (NOT CONVICTED). Do a little math here, and you will realize that Obama was a little young at the time (8 years old). Now, I know what you're going to say about this. You want to say that he should hang around with better company during his political life. Maybe you are right about that, but in that case, I have a question for you. When you make a new friend, do you go digging into their past? Once again, you will probably answer that he is a politician. He should be looking into the past of all of his friends. In response, I say to you, "HE IS A HUMAN BEING". politician or not, I think it is slightly unreasonable to suggest that he know every event in which every person that he comes in contact with was ever involved in. That's a little much, don't you think? Regarding the pastors, after he learned of Pfleger's remarks, he quit. Is that any different from McCain turning down endorsements right after learning that they had made inflammatory remarks?
okay guys, it is quite obvious that our friend Jallen here is a republican posing as a democrate to try to make us feel insecure about our soon to be democratic nominee. The issues that he is referring to lack any substance and he is obviously very misinformed or just plain ignorant. I don't understand how any true democrat could support a republican at this moment. With the economy on a total downfall and more and more troops dying in Iraq it makes me ill to think that what seems to be prejudice from this guy would actually cause him to vote for more of the same and watch more people die and others not able to afford to live. What a sad day, when people place a higher standard on their own insecurities than the lives of their fellow American sisters and brothers.
Sorry, I think I put an "e" on democrat too. It was from reading all of Jallen's posts ;)
HAHA!!! It's ok Obama Supporter. Completely understandable. I hope that you are right about Jallen. I don't like these kinds of attacks that lack substance, and I hate having to write a whole, long defense of stupid arguments.
Jallen:
let me start by pointing out that blogger automatically spell checks for you. If it is underlined in red and is a commonly used word, you've most likely spelled it wrong.
Secondly: The popular vote, which count do you want? If you include the caucus states that don't actually keep a record of the popular vote (and many means to estimate it have been provided online in various places) then HRC doesn't have the popular vote at all. Go look at realclearpolitics.com they have a popular vote option that you can look at. It specifies which states are included (or not included)and how it works out. As it stands currently, depending on how you count, HRC has 3 of the options and Obama has the other 3. So please, please don't beat that tired horse any more.
If you don't want to vote for Obama, that is fine. I do wonder why you are rationalizing it for us though in your messages.
But, as stated, it is a democracy. You can vote for whomever you want. I, myself, do not want to vote for someone who will toss away the lives of American soldiers in a foreign country that we never should've invaded in the first place.
Thralen
Thralen, well said. Jallen, simply put, I don't care why you don't trust Obama, or why you would put a vote down for John McCain, but in answer to your question of "who else is there to vote for???" There happens to be a very simple answer. BOB ***** BARR!!! THAT'S WHAT THE THIRD-PARTY CANDIDATES ARE FOR!!! If you truly hate the Bush presidency as much as you say ("I've stomached George Bush for 8 years") then don't vote for McCain. Either vote independent (like a couple million other Americans), or don't vote at all (Like several tens of millions of Americans). It is people like you who vote for the candidate that you hate the least that put George Bush into office 8 years ago.
If you are going to do the same thing again this year, at least try and come up with some better reasons. I am actually very accommodating to the views of most other people, and reading your comments is on par with hitting my balls with a rubber mallet. You try to make political arguments out of nothing, instead of from platforms and ideas. I have dubbed this kind of voter the "American Idol" vote. Congratulations and thank you.
I refuse to even get into the popular vote. It's not because I agree with a losing side, but I feel that with broken contests in MI and FL, along with only estimations in the caucus states, it is not possible to get an accurate number in this metric.
And Jallen, one more little side note. Hillary has not been through very much ridicule. If you admire her because you think it's been a rough campaign season for her, let me remind you that a lot of fourth graders go to school every day and face more ridicule (something tells me that you were probably one of them). The ridicule that Clinton endured (which was pretty negligible), was absolutely nothing compared to the skeletons that are still in the closet of the Clinton family.
How stupid is America? Honestly, all 3 of these candidates are horrible. Obama is not a good candidate in the least, he just happens to be the lesser of three evils. I don't really understand what the American public sees in him because frankly he's no different from every slimy corrupt politician out there, he's not going to fight the big corporations to help out the struggling American people. He can promise change as much as he wants but will he do anything to bring about the winds of change once he gets in office? Probably not. I was hoping to see a candidate this time around that had some balls, all I see is a bunch of pansies.
McCain is a joke, it's basically like having Bush again for another 4 years and I'm pretty sure nobody wants that. Then again, we're dealing with the same American public that was too stupid to formulate their own opinion and voted based on what their preacher told them to vote, which is a horridly silly concept anyhow.
This election should interesting, especially with all of the morons from the bible belt voting for McCain. Maybe one day Americans will give a shit again because we certainly don't right now. One would think that since we've been in a war for almost 7 years now [that we had no business getting into in the first place], that there would be some sort of uprising to remove the troops, similar to what was done with Vietnam in the late 60's. America is apathetic, plain and simple. We turn a blind eye to the truth and to reality and let lies cloud our judgment.
Go ahead and flame me you Obama freaks, I'm only bringing the truth to light.
Show me a candidate who could have run a race without ridicule, without inconsistancies, without making a mistake here and there. Some of you act as if you live error proof lives. I don't know anyway who has entered a relationship with someone to later find out that they were unworthy of your time, or stated something the wrong way and had to later correct it. You all act as if you expect these candidates to be gods or something. Without mistakes without making a bad choice here or their without inconsistancies. I personally understand human error. I fall short often, but I hope that people can see the greater good in me. Not necessarily by some of the terrible relationships I've had or by some things that I may have mistakenly said under pressure or during a high stressed situation when I may have been tired or fatiqued. As a human being I try to look at others the way I hope that people look at me and see the greater good. If I blatantley tell a lie about getting off of a plane and having to duck and cover thats one thing but a mistake is just that a mistake. When you make choices in the world you have to choose from the best of what you have. Mr. Obama is obvioulsy the best of what we have right now. And no I am not an obama freak but I definetly am an Obama supporter. Because every one knows that the media has searched every aspect of this man's life to try to discredit him and they can't. We are still waiting for Hillary to show her tax returns as well as other things. Every body in the campaign took it light on her and tried not to expose her too much unlike the insignifigant things that they coughed up about Obama. Some portapoties, what a preacher said...this elementary list goes on and on and on. Show me where Obama himself has said or done anything that is conflicting with his platform.
To Jaillen
When the hate is so grate you loose your reason.
Post a Comment