Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bill Clinton: Now all of the delegates don't count - only popular vote - move those goal posts

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 01:48 AM
Original message
Bill Clinton: Now all of the delegates don't count - only popular vote - move those goal posts

After Iowa it wasn't going to be the number of wins - "Its the number of delegates"

. . . Obama pulls ahead in delegates

Then it was Super Tuesday - "Whoever wins Super Tuesday is going to be the nominee of the party"

. . . Obama wins Super Tuesda

Then it was "February was a good month for Obama, but March will be a good month for me"

. . . .Obama wins more delegates in March

At the same time Bill is saying "She has to win Ohio and Texas and she will be the next nominee of the party"

. . . Obama narrowly loses in Texas, wins the caucus and wins more delegates in Texas

Then we had a brief interelude where delegates were split up into new cateogires - automatic delegates, elected delegates, caucus delegates

. . . Frankly didn't really get beyond the laugh stage- of course it could be that everyone was too lazy to re engineer their spreadsheets.

Well now all talk about delegates is gone - now who ever wins the popular vote will be the next nominee - of course this means that all of the caucus states are out because the turn out is much lower for a caucus than a primary. I guess they want to do away with delegates completely and simply have a popular vote decide it.

I wonder if that means that they are going to cancel the primaries that occur after Pennsylvania if HRC finally sneaks by Obama in popular vote.

I guess we can cancel the convention in Denver, the delegates are no longer needed.


(Moving the goal posts comes at 2:00)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xWuVc-xkwE










Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 01:49 AM
Response to Original message
1. Got a link
to a quote? I doubt he said what you claim.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 01:58 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. too lazy to hit the you tube link?
"I believe that by June she will have the popular vote . . and be the nominee of the party"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:55 AM
Response to Reply #2
9. So that's not what you claimed he said
There's nothing wrong with arguing that the popular vote winner should win. Most of us felt that way in 2000.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phrigndumass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 06:25 AM
Response to Reply #9
15. Most of us felt that way *in the general election* in 2000
This isn't a general election, it's the contest to pick a Democratic nominee.

However, if one candidate wins pledged delegates and the other wins "popular" votes, it's logical to think they will split the superdelegates 50/50. If you add 50% of the superdelegates to a majority of the pledged delegates, you get a nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 06:33 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. No, it's not "logical"
there's no reason to think that way, other than that it benefits your candidate so you really really want it to be true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phrigndumass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. Let's step into your shoes for a moment ...
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 08:58 AM by phrigndumass
How is this logical?

"Obama may win the pledged delegates, but Clinton will win the popular vote. Since Clinton will win the popular vote, she will earn the endorsements of at least three-fourths of the remaining superdelegates."

This seems to be what you're implying, without taking into account the numbers, and it's absolutely ludicrous.

Here's why it's ludicrous (and I'm being "kind" to Senator Clinton's figures):

If Obama wins pledged delegates 52% to 48%, that would be 1,694 pledged delegates, or 331 short of the goal. He already has about 213 superdelegates endorsing him, leaving him 118 of the remaining 333 superdelegates to endorse him for the nomination, or roughly 35%.

If Clinton wins "popular" vote by 52% to 48%. With 1,533 pledged delegates, or 489 short of the goal, she already has about 249 superdelegates endorsing her, leaving her 240 of the remaining 333 superdelegates to endorse her for the nomination, or roughly 72%.

:wow:

Edited to say: Her campaign can't even win a primary by that much, so what makes you think logically that she can win the remaining superdelegates by that percentage?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
styersc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. Neither candidate can hit the magic number so popular vote
is a perfectly reasonable means of choosing the candidate. I can't believe you are sitting there trying to devise a way of getting around the will of the majority of the voters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phrigndumass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Show me where "popular vote only" gets you the nomination
Bill Clinton's argument was that Hillary Clinton will win the popular vote, thus garnering the most superdelegates needed to win the nomination.

You have to be a complete idiot to think that "only popular votes" (and no delegates whatsoever) will be what it takes to win the nomination, because the rules require a delegate system.

Just in case you don't know how primaries work, here's a link to the rules:
Link here from democrats.org:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/3e5b3bfa1c1718d ...

Go ahead, click it. I dare you. Relieve yourself of your utter stupidity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phrigndumass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. Just in case the first link doesn't work ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #21
26. He's saying...
quite reasonably, that the superdelegates ought to align with the person who got the most votes.

It's astonishing that people are opposed to that idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rufus dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #26
30. save this one Monkey
Because I think it will be Obama!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phrigndumass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #26
31. I understand that, but ...
But it would still require 72% of the remaining superdelegates endorsing Senator Clinton for her campaign to win the nomination.

Are you suggesting that winning over 72% of the remaining superdelegates is probable? Her campaign hasn't even won one single contest over 70%.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. of course it's possible
If it's determined she'll be the better candidate in November, of course they will. And remember, the superdelegates that have already "pledged" are free to change, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phrigndumass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. The word was "probable", not possible
Superdelegates are free to change their endorsements, yes, but it works both ways.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phrigndumass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #32
34. definition of "probable"
probable

probable - Pronunciation
adjective

1. likely to occur or prove true: He foresaw a probable business loss. He is the probable writer of the article.

2. having more evidence for than against, or evidence that inclines the mind to belief but leaves some room for doubt.

3. affording ground for belief.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laugle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #32
55. Thanks for some
sanity...........I'm to tired to re-hash this..............
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krkaufman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #26
47. What is astonishing is that Democrats are rationalizing the disenfranchisement ...
... of all the voters in the states that conducted caucuses. Basing the choice of nominee on the primaries only is ludicrous.

The candidates are running to become the nominee of the Democratic Party, not the nominee of the Democratic Primaries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krkaufman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #20
46. The *only* fair measure of the will of the voters is the elected pledged delegate count
If some other metric was to be used, I'm sure those states that opted for caucuses would have preferred to have been informed of this change before the nomination process was begun.

The popular vote is *NOT* a reflection of the will of the majority of voters, as it is almost entirely weighted according to how those states that held primaries voted. Basing the nominee on the popular vote would be wholesale disenfranchisement of the voters in every caucus state.

The candidates are running to become the nominee of the Demcratic Party, not the nominee of the Democratic Primaries.


p.s. And don't you find it ironic that the Clinton campaign is decrying the "less democratic" nature of caucus-derived delegates as their argument for overriding Obama's pledged delegate lead using the most undemocratic of delegates, the superdelegates?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #9
38. since they all went in under the same rules and followed them,
wanting to change them now is bullshit
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 02:04 AM
Response to Original message
3. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:57 AM
Response to Reply #3
11. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
greguganus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 06:03 AM
Response to Reply #3
13. I see the Secret Service having to constantly pry Bill and Hillary from the White House gate
after Obama is elected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinOneAlready Donating Member (39 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 02:08 AM
Response to Original message
4. I think Obama said the same thing about the popular vote
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 02:15 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. lol who did you used to be? lol
no there would be little reason for Senator Obama to want to move the goal posts since he is actually winning.

See trying to change the framing of the spin is only critical when you have lost.

When you have the

most delegates
most primaries
most caucus wins
most donors
most money raised
most senate endorsements
most gubenatorial endorsements
most votes from largest 7 contested primaries

you don't have to go shopping for a way to spin.

By the way implicit in President William Jefferson Lincoln's statement is that they acknowledge they are behind in everything else including the popular vote.

You should hurry up and get your memo - you are supposed to be arguing that the popular vote should be the only indicator and the delegates be damned.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:56 AM
Response to Reply #5
10. Getting the most votes isn't spin
it's democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 06:00 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. And in this democracy, Obama has the most votes. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 06:07 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. That's not the topic of discussion
we're talking about who SHOULD get the nomination at the end of the primaries. Clinton may well have the popular vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #14
37. Actually the topic of the discussion is how the Clinton's keep changing
how they frame the narrative of the spin in an increasingly desperate hope to keep a failing campaign alive.

You have not disagreed with any of that simply have endorsed the final sping as being correct. Now if Obama ends up winning the popular vote are you going on to the next stage of spin?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #10
28. The spin part is that every week they try to frame what is important
for winning the nomination. Early on when they thought that they would be able to use their institutional power to garner up delegates it was "only the delegates count". Now that that is gone, and everything else too, this is the last grasp. It also is a
clear admission (yes implied) that they have given up hope of getting to the convention with a delegate advantage and are now hoping for a brokered cnvention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Medusa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #10
35. Make up your mind Monkey.
Last night you were claiming that the superdelegates existed to prevent the populace from nominating an unelectable candidate. Now you want the popular vote to count. You can't have it both ways. Oh yeah, I keep forgetting. You're a Clintonistas. You really do THINK you can have it both ways. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #35
40. Got a link to my so-called post saying that?
I'm arguing that there are plenty of valid criteria the superdelegates can take into account. I'm not saying they should be bound by any one criterion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Window Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:18 AM
Response to Original message
6. LOL! Reminds me of when I was a cheerleader a hundred years ago.
"The goal posts, the goal posts are hot
You can't beat Obama with the stuff you got."


:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:23 AM
Response to Original message
7. I know many "Obamites" aren't Democrats so they may not know why our party was created
Hint: the popular vote was overturned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #7
41. really
you are very ignorant of American Revolutionary History it was to establish a republic not a democracy.

Not only were slaves not counted
women were not counted

you had to own land

jews could not vote.

if you did not support the religous dogma of the colony you were in you not only did not vote

you got hung from a tree like the quakers in Massachusettes.

They specifically did not want people voting directly on anything they wanted them simply to vote for somebody that would make decisions for them hence the electoral college. Not only that but they did not want the people voting for Senators either.


All of which of course avoids the OP which is why do the Clintons keep changing what they say is important. Because they keep on losing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krkaufman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #41
48. note: the poster was referring to "party" not "country" n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krkaufman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #7
50. "popular vote"
The popular vote is almost entirely skewed to the votes cast in the states that conducted primaries, so basing a candidate choice on popular vote totals would effectively disenfranchise the voters in caucus states.

The candidates are running to become the nominee of the Democratic Party, not the nominee of the Democratic Primaries.

The superdelegates would be completely within the rules to override a pledged delegate majority. Just don't make up ridiculous rationalizations to justify their doing so. Clinton supporters feel that the superdelegates need to overrule Obama's pledged delegate majority because they feel she is a better candidate for the general election, and that Obama's pledged delegate majority is invalid because it doesn't reflect their own opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:27 AM
Response to Original message
8. Bill says a lot of stupid things. He doesn't realize that Obama has the popular vote lead
Popular Vote Total -
Obama 13,280,770 49.5%
Clinton 12,577,044 46.9%
Obama +703,726 +2.6%

Popular Vote (w/FL) -
Obama 13,856,984 48.5%
Clinton13,448,030 47.1%
Obama +408,954 +1.4%

Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)* -
Obama 13,856,984 47.5%
Clinton13,776,339 47.3%
Obama +80,645 +0.2%

link

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phrigndumass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 06:35 AM
Response to Original message
17. Working the angles
Good info, grantcart. A candidate will look at the statistics to see which scenario would benefit them the most, then float the idea behind it, to see if it sticks. They're working the angles.

As ProSense mentioned, you have to lead in that scenario for it to stick and work. Senator Clinton's campaign doesn't have that advantage.

:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Obamaniac Donating Member (297 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:11 AM
Response to Original message
18. I don't think this matters because...
I think Obama will be leading in the popular vote after all the primaries are done with. So does this mean we can expect that Hillary will drop out after June 7th when it becomes clear that she lost the popular vote to Obama or will this be another example of the Clinton's changing the goal posts after he wins that as well?

The Clinton's can spin all they want and make this about anything they want to, Clinton supporters may blindly believe the things they say, but DELEGATES ARE the way the nomination will be settled. The majority of them will vote at the convention and whoever wins more wins the nomination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #18
25. Well it shows there future spin but it also shows that instead of a revote
in Florida they will switch to seating all of the delegates at 1/2 vote then they will be able to add Florida's popular vote back in
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:27 AM
Response to Original message
22. Thing Is, About 60% Of Democrats Agree With Him.
The last poll I saw on the matter, I believe had about 60% believing the PV should determine, whereas only like 24% thought the pledged count should.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackORoses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #22
29. some say...
I'll guarantee you that 100% of the Democrats in Caucus States disapprove of this.

You don't think they should be included?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #29
51. Your exactly right and also when the point was getting delegates
Obama was spending time in places like Iowa and people on DU were laughing about it. Now that they want to change the criteria I say fine - lets redo SuperDuperTuesday and have those 20 states vote and this time we will stay in LA and NYC to campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #22
36. Well then they agree that as of right now Obama should have the nomination
I think the significance of this is that they recognize that this is their only hope - they have given up on getting close in delegates.

They may get closer in popular votes but the advantage they gain in PA is likley to be surpassed by the difference in North Carolina.

I think it foreshadows the new negotiations will be not to re-vote in Florida and Michigan but get any possible compromise so that they can add in the popular vote.

Obviously I could be wrong, but if we see a quick compromise on those two states it would tend to confirm where the spin is going.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phrigndumass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #36
42. It's something to watch for ...
interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goclark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
24. Thanks grantcart ~ as always
you have great posts.

You also try to keep them positive. :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigbrother05 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
27. Thanks Grantcart
great info as always :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eurobabe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 12:36 PM
Response to Original message
39. Somebody oughta drop kick the Clinton campaign through the
goalposts of life.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 02:01 PM
Response to Original message
43. Um, OK Bill...but Obama's leading there TOO!
Give it up and GO HOME!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phrigndumass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
44. Kickin'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
45. bil clinton is living
in his own little orgasmic world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kwenu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
49. It's sad to realize that the critics may have had a point about about the Clinton's...
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 03:34 PM by kwenu
But it is being painfully realized just how slimy they are on a daily basis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #49
52. with Iowa's county conventions moving further into Obama's camp we shall see more slim coming
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laugle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:01 PM
Response to Original message
53. In the end, IMO it will
come down to who is the most electable. Right now we have to see the fall-out for the Pastorgate issue.

Whomever the nominee is, they MUST WIN! The alternative is unthinkable!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laugle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:03 PM
Response to Original message
54. dupe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Oct 01st 2014, 07:38 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC