Hillary: Here is why popular vote should not matter to the super delegates! (4/1/2008)

[KansasVoter]

When Hillary and Obama started this run for the Democratic nomination, the rules were clearly understood by all. Florida and Michigan would not count and the person who had 2025 delegates would win the nomination. Hillary knew this. Obama knew this. It should be as simple as that.

But that was when the Clinton political machine thought it would have this wrapped up after Super Tuesday. She had no plan after Super Tuesday because there was no possibility that anyone could beat Hillary Clinton. She was wrong.

Then the excuses started. Small states didn’t really matter, only large states (often called the ‘Insult 40 States Strategy’). Whomever has the most Electoral College delegates is how we should decide. Only primary states should count, not caucus states. Hillary’s camp talked about things that would have caused outrage from the party if Obama was behind and continually changing the way the outcome should be decided. The Clinton camp looks desperate with this twisted logic.

The one thing no one is really discussing is that Obama and his campaign director, David Plouffe, ran their campaign based on the DNC delegate count rules. If Plouffe thought the nomination would be based on popular vote, he would have devised a totally different type of campaign. If Plouffe thought that large states were the criteria for winning then the campaign would have focused on large states. If the DNC told Plouffe that only states holding primaries were considered in deciding the nomination, then he would have focused more on primary states.

But Obama and Plouffe knew the rules were that the nominee with 2025 delegates after the primary season wins the nomination. So they ran the campaign to win delegates. Not to win popular vote, not to win big states, not to only win primary states but to win the most delegates.

The Obama camp knew that you could afford to lose a big state by 5 points and at the same time win a small state by 30 points and they would net more delegates. For example, Hillary won New Jersey, with 107 available delegates and gained 11 more delegates and more popular votes than Obama. In the meantime, Obama, knowing that the race is based on total delegates and not popular vote, won in DC and Utah. Those two contests had a total of 38 available delegates. Obama ended up netting 13 more delegates than Hillary. So in those contests, Hillary came out with about 23,000 more popular votes but still lost 2 delegates to Obama. And there are many more examples like this.

And there are also congressional districts to contend with and Obama knew this. Winning big in a congressional district can give you a lot of delegates from that district but still not help you win the total popular vote in the rest of the state. So Obama knew targeting congressional districts would mean delegates.

And you don’t think Obama and Plouffe didn’t know Texas, with its dual primary/caucus system would favor Obama? Obama had a great and unbelievable ground team in place and the Obama camp knew it could organize Texas better than Clinton for the caucuses. So they knew losing the popular vote to Hillary would not matter when 1/3 of the delegates would come from the Texas caucuses. They ran the campaign in Texas to take advantage of the system. And Hillary’s camp was still “confused” by the Texas dual system as late as two weeks before the election.

Obama ran the campaign to win based on the rules of the game.

Remember, Obama still has the popular vote lead and even with Florida and Michigan he probably still would. But the only hope Hillary has now, because she cannot catch up based on delegates, is to keep the popular vote story out there.

If I was Plouffe I would be telling the DNC that if popular vote matters to the Super Delegates then lets do all of the primaries over again and let him run the campaign based on popular vote. This, of course, will not happen, but if it gets to Denver then Plouffe and Obama needs to sit down with the super delegates and explain why he ran the election to the ones not smart enough to know it already. The super delegates know Obama ran the campaign to win delegates. And that is what matters.

The super delegates role is to override the delegate count in extreme cases that I cannot even give an example of at this point. It is not to go to Denver and reexamine popular vote or Electoral College or big vs. small states or primaries vs. caucuses. Once again, how can anyone go into Denver when Obama has the delegate count lead and take the nomination away from him? Especially when he has motivated millions of new voters and raised more money than any campaign in history? Believe me, the people who think that the super delegates are that stupid or that Hillary is that powerful are wrong!

Imagine a football coach telling the referee with 5 minutes left in the game, that instead of using the score lets base the game on total yards gained. Or a baseball coach in the bottom on the 9th inning, telling the umpire that the game should be decided based on total hits and not runs. Do you think those coaches would have had a different game strategy if they knew that total yards and number of hits mattered more than score? Of course they would. Hillary arguing for popular votes is just as ridiculous. The rules were in place and Hillary knew them. The only reason to change them at this point is so Hillary can win the game.

[Sensitivity]

1. Popular Vote is LOGICAL QUANDRY since some states are PRIMARIES and some CAUCUSES. Voodoo Math??

YOU CAN'T COUNT THEM THE SAME!!!!!!!!

[polichick]

2. "The only reason to change them at this point is so Hillary can win the game."

YEP ~ and yet now she's comparing herself to Rocky Balboa running up the museum steps in Philly, completely ignoring the way she's trying to change the rules.

K&R

[KansasVoter]

15. Rocky had a chance. Hillary does not. Just running on EGO!

[MercutioATC]

3. Excellent analysis.

Maybe popular vote would be a more meaningful way to elect candidates...but that's not the way it's done presently.

To keep the contest valid, the rules must remain static until it's over. If we want to change the rules, that's a valid discussion...but not in the middle of a race.

[KansasVoter]

12. Thanks!

[SoCalDem]

14. AND Bill Clinton won TWICE with the same system

and liked it just fine..

[thereismore]

4. Hillary: don't pay attention to the score board, only posession counts.

[archiemo]

5. My track coach...

told me today that the winner of the race would now be the runner who took the most strides during the race, not the runner that was actually the fastest. And he added that it wasn't an April Fool's joke.

[KansasVoter]

7. Good one!

[grantcart]

6. Well stated

[KansasVoter]

11. Thanks! Hillary is desperate!

[Lucky 13]

8. BRILLIANT analogies at the end...

and 100% correct. Strategies would be COMPLETELY different.

KICK.

[KansasVoter]

9. Thanks!

[tritsofme]

10. And if Mr. Obama is able to walk into Denver with 2025 delegates, then his strategy was successful.

However there is no rule that requires SDs to ratify the nominal winner of pledged delegates.

If you walk in the convention with fewer than 2025 delegates, you are not owed anything, especially if the People have chosen another candidate.

[KansasVoter]

13. Tell the people that delegates don't matter and see what they do!

[tritsofme]

18. Well if a majority of voters supported Senator Clinton, they have nothing to whine about.

Likewise for Hillary supporters should Obama walk into the convention with the direct backing of voters.

[KansasVoter]

22. Then change the DNC rules!! Fool!

[FlyingSquirrel]

23. Will you accept superdelegate endorsements prior to the convention

as being sufficient?

In other words, if Obama has 2,024 or whatever number is needed, counting supers who have stated they'll vote for him, will you agree that Hillary should concede prior to the Convention so that Obama can actually start campaigning against McCain as though he's the nominee, without looking like he's being presumptious?

Or will you say that since Obama doesn't have 2,024 pledged delegates, (notwithstanding the falsity of that argument since the rules clearly say you don't need 2,024 PDs, just 2,024 TOTAL) that he should refrain from campaigning against McCain as though he were the nominee and that we should wait for the Supers to actually vote at the Convention?

This IMO will be the $64,000 question once the primaries are all over.

[Hepburn]

16. IMO, Hillary Clinton =

an unacceptable, unmitigated piece of shit.

JMHO

[KansasVoter]

17. You forgot to say "With All Due Respect"

[DemVet]

30. Classy. Your mama would be proud.

[JayFredMuggs]

19. Great points.... a little too lengthy for Hillary people to read and understand but

You make the right points

[KansasVoter]

20. LOL (eom)

[FlyingSquirrel]

21. I think this is the first time

that something like this has been posted here in GDP that has been so well-stated and perfectly tied together that not a single of the usual suspects has had anything at all to say in opposition. (so far)

:thumbsup:

Edit: Oh, I didn't notice tritsofme. Nevermind.

[tammywammy]

24. ditto on that FlyingSquirrel

:)

[KansasVoter]

26. Thank you for the nice comment!

[4themind]

25. The count may not even matter to HER campaign

if it doesn't happen to favor her
<http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/ickes_confirms_hes_been_pushin.php>
"* Confirmed that the Hillary campaign could still try to woo super-dels even if she lost the popular vote, with Michigan and Florida counted"(I'd also bet that if doesn't lead in the popular vote WITH MI and Fl included she wouldn't be the pleged delegate leader either...)

[KansasVoter]

27. Desperate I tell you. That is how it looks.

[taught_me_patience]

28. Bravo... great post

arguments are clear and well though out.

K&R!

[slinkerwink]

29. don't use the will of the people in the popular vote to get our nominee!

[BzaDem]

31. Your post is so hypocritical.

"The super delegates role is to override the delegate count in extreme cases that I cannot even give an example of at this point. It is not to go to Denver and reexamine popular vote or Electoral College or big vs. small states or primaries vs. caucuses."

WRONG. The role of the super delegates is to vote any way they damn well please. That is the whole purpose of creating superdelegates. THIS was the rule going in and it is still the rule now. If super-delegates want to vote the way of the popular vote, that is perfectly fine and within the rules.

This just happens to be a rule you don't like. So you spread misinformation to try to de facto change the perception of the rule. Obama knew going into this campaign that if he won delegates and lost the popular vote, the superdelegates might give it to Hillary. He knew it going in, and he knows it now. It just happens to be one of those pesky rules that you don't like.

[KansasVoter]

32. You are wrong.......

If you want to see the party disolve then let them override the delegate lead and you will see the Obama supporters leave Denver. I guarantee it. Why choose delegates at all if it does not matter? How desperate are you hillary people? amazing!

[BzaDem]

33. I'm adhering to the rules. You are not.

You keep complaining that the rules are bad. That the rules will cause the party to disolve, and will cause Obama supporters to leave Denver.

That doesn't change the fact that those ARE the rules, and you don't like them. You post a long post about how the popular vote should not matter, because rules blah blah blah, but then when it comes to the rule that says superdelegates can vote however they want, you try to say "I am wrong" and pretend that it isn't a rule.

This is just a standard case of Obama supporters cherrypicking rules that they don't like and pretending they don't exist, while acting holier-than-thou about following the rules. If you don't like the rules, at least acknowledge that they are the rules and you don't like them (for whatever reason).

[kmsarvis]

34. THE ROLE OF THE SUPERDELEGATES ..........

IS'NT "TO VOTE FOR WHO EVER THEY DAMN WELL PLEASE" THEY WERE CREATED TO KEEP THE PARTY FROM NOMINATING A CANDIDATE THAT BECOMES OBVIOUSLY UNELECTABLE BEFORE THE CONVENTION. I KNOW ALOT OF CLINTON SUPPORTERS WILL TRY TO ARGUE THAT OBAMA IS UNELECTABLE BECAUSE HE HAS'NT WON THE BIG STATES,THE REV.WRIGHT CONTROVERSY ETC...BUT FRANKLY, THE POLLS DONT INDICATE THAT HE IS ANY LESS ELECTABLE THAN CLINTON.

[Road Scholar]

35. Excellent thread! She's making a fool of her self and a whole lot of

good Democrats. By staying in, no matter what anemic platitudes she uses, she is making a mess of the whole party. Now we're becoming divided. What would have been a fantastic victory for us all, is now coming into question. If she and Bill's cronies figure a way to flip this process, there will be hell to pay. She and Bill are a disappointment. I don't even think she cares if she can't have it. What does that tell you?

[AZBlue]

36. k/r