« Pollster.com: For First Time, Obama Leading Hillary In National Polling Average | Home | Clyburn Dissents: Says Super-Dels Shouldn't Necessarily Follow Popular Vote »
MoveOn Petition On Super-Dels: Over A Quarter Million Signatures And Counting
A spokesperson for MoveOn, which is backing Obama, tells me that their petition calling on super-delegates to follow the will of the people and back the leader in pledged dels has pulled in ...
...over 257,000 signatures and counting...since yesterday.
Advertisement
The which strikes this Obama supporter as a lot of useless grandstanding. Mind you, I signed the petition (what can it hurt?) but I do not really expect that there are many superdelegates who will be swayed one way or the other by this, even if the petition racks up a couple million names. One would do just as well to join the drum circle outside the co-op grocery store playing bongos for Barack.
February 15, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given the parabolic-type growth in the polls for Obama, in three weeks we may be looking back at the worries about a close race and laugh at how silly we were.
February 15, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
How was this positioned by MoveOn? There are at least 3 ways to proceed:
1) All SDs agree to cast votes for the popular leader after June...
... variation a) most pledged delegates accumulated via primaries/caucuses
... b) most state contests won
... c) highest total vote count
2) SDs that are tied to specific states vote for the winner of their state
... with the caveat that there a number of SDs not tied to a state (e.g., Clinton, Gore, Carter and DNC functionaries)
3) SDs that are tied to specific jurisdictions vote based on the local results (e.g., who won the counties and/or congressional districts those SDs represent)
I don't have a particular opinion on this, nor an answer. I definitely would hope the SDs would abide by "the will of the voters", but have no idea how the DNC is going to resolve the question of how to approach satisfying that will.
February 15, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Move on moveon. Needless advertising for moveon to line moveon's coffers.
February 15, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/obama_casts_his_spell.html
Love it!
Rae
ROTFL
February 15, 2008 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who cares about MoveOn's self-important petition? MoveOn has officially turned itself into an Obama PAC based on its election results from 6 percent of its total membership. (So much for "Democracy in Action"!) Are you going to run stories about other Obama PACs? (God, I hope not.)
More important, are you going to run stories about Hillary PACs? Of course you won't.
February 15, 2008 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Couldn't agree more. Besides, all this nonsense about what decision rule the super delegates should use is bogus. Way too many nonDemocrats voted in the contests where Obama won. How is it that someone who is not a Democrat should have any say whatsoever in who the Party's nominee should be. I've been a Democrat, registered to vote, for 33 years, not just the hour or two that many of these open primary and caucus goers have in the books. Maybe we should weight the votes so that we tally up all the hours I've been a Democrat and that's how many votes I get. That's fair, isn't it? If they are a Democrat for the hour it takes them to vote or caucus then all the hours I've been a Democrat should count too.
I sent notice to TrueMajority and DFA today that they should remove me from their mailings lists. Because I'm tired of these pseudo-progressives and their self-righteous attitudes that are based on knee-jerk reactions to rules they don't understand because they are too tired to take the time to understand or to get out from behind their keyboards and get into the streets and actually work in politics. Put in the time, become a county committee person, run for office, knock on doors, do all the hard work that many others of us have done for decades. Then, and only then, should they get anywhere near holier than thou about how the game should be played. Maybe after you do some of that hard work, you'll be able to recognize pure fluff. Certainly McCain's people do - his economic adviser called Obama's economic plan "the most shameless piece of potential
plagiarism that I have ever seen" because it was all proposals that Hillary Clinton made months ago.
Now why isn't that more widely reported? Nah, that's not as good a story as the Barack the Messiah. Didn't Joe Biden once have to drop out of a presidential race for the same thing? Yep. Oh how times change. If one of my students did that I'd have to fail them, but in this crazy political year, such academic dishonesty seems to qualify them to be president. As comedian Jacov Smirnoff used to say, "America, what a country!"
February 15, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Want some cheese with that whine? I've done my ground work for the party...but even if I hadn't, I'll take any stance I want when it concerns OUR party. See how that works? I don't care if you've done 7,000 hours of door knocking and ass kissin' and donated blood for dems only, the party is for the people, not just those who work more hours in the party. Is a sense of entitlement just ingrained in everything Hillary? Sheesh.
February 17, 2008 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
drosz, thanks for the thoughtful and belligerent contribution! After 8 years of a thoughtless and belligerent administration, I guess it's bound to rub off on the people. Bravo.
ender's point referenced my point about MoveOn and other "advocacy" groups who claim to be representative of a majority of their members, when in fact they aren't representative of the people at all. ender's complaint is valid and his hypothetical comparison perfectly sound, so please take your Republican talking point about Hillary's "sense of entitlement" and your snarky attitude back to LGF where you got it.
Since you're so interested in representative majorities, Eli Pariser manipulated the MoveOn vote and the public presentation of the results to falsely claim that a majority of MoveOn members voted for Obama. (A majority of the members—more than 90 percent—didn't get to vote their views.) Pariser can do whatever he wants with his new Obama club, but he cannot claim he represents a majority.
February 17, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
AAAh, well, shucks, buddy, does this mean we can't be friends? I don't know if I could live with myself if I thought you weren't my friend....listen, I don't give a damn about MoveOn's endorsement, nor do I disagree that they do what they want despite the will of their readers.
But my point was made exactly by your post. Because I dare to challenge I'm a LGFer!? These aren't Republican talking points, friend, asswipes like you make them sound arguments. You complain about how you're a better Democrat and your vote should count more than others, yet have the balls to call me snarky when it's called out?! The day MoveOn becomes an organization like the Democratic Party will be the day I say you're right...that day hasn't come nor will it ever. So take your bullshit validity analysis and piss off, pal.
Jeez, with friends like these...perhaps I should wait and let a cooler head prevail to click "send"???? Nah, you deserve worse, simply for the LGF remark...
February 17, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because I dare to challenge I'm a LGFer!?
No, it's because you use LGF talking points combined with belligerence to articulate a "challenge."
But, hey, name-calling is a hallmark of the LGF mindset, too. Congrats on the great job of convincing me! Friend.
February 17, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Note to self: if you ask yourself if you should or shouldn't post...don't post.
Listen, I'm gonna apologize for the post above and the entitlement statement...you're right, that's a bit much and didn't add anything to the discussion.
Here's my gig, ever since this superdelegate thing came up a lot of people are saying they think some Democrats are more equal than others, and it's just rubbing me the wrong way. Perhaps I'm overreacting, but that's just what I felt.
Apologies...I shouldn't have come on so strong, I'm usually better disciplined than that.
February 17, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apology accepted, drosz. Thanks. I composed my last comment above while you were already posting your apology.
I think the current combative and bitter mood within the Democratic Party has been festering for 7 years; 7 years of seething outrage at the criminal Bush administration and the complicit and corrupt Republicans in Congress. Now Americans are at the exploding point, but unfortunately that anger expresses itself in misdirected diatribes against other Dems, whether they are running for office or not. Just a theory, of course. But I'm basing it on observing the hyperbolic venom directed against the Dem candidates by Democrats on many blogs.
We all have our breaking points.
February 17, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
You were right, though. When someone says your rhetoric sounds like an anti-muslim website...it's time to take a step back and say "do I really sound like that?". And I kinda did. I don't hate Hillary and there are certainly many Obama supporters that rub me wrong too. We are definitely on the same side, I'm no Republican trying to stoke fires in Democratic refuges, I assure you. I have been severely disappointed by what I've seen over the last eight years and I get a little combative sometimes when I really could make my point in a more adult like manner. I think it's best if I try to be a lot more civil. So actually, you nailing me the way you did was a good thing.
February 17, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Millions of voters voted for the elected officials who are part of the superdelegates because they trusted their judgement to run the country. Far more have voted in those electtions than in the primaries. For the most part I expect that the superdelegates will follow the votes of the primary voters but they are in a position to use their independent judgment if a scandal erupts about one candidate or the other.
The party super delegates are another question: they are largely a group of individuals who have given great amounts of effort to the party organizations and are extremely knowledgeable about how politics work but have not been selected by any large number of people -- Donna Brazille comes to mind.
Anything other than the majority of all the people across the country is subject to gerrymandering effects. For example, if there are one hundred voters divided into 4 districts of 25 voters and winning each district is worth one delegate. Assume further that candidate A has 60 percent of the vote but 25 of his voters are in one district with the remainder spread more or less evenly in the other three districts -- Candidate A will receive 1 delegate -- 25% of the delegates available -- despite having 60% of the vote.
February 15, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
AJM is trying to use too much logic for the Obama supporters to follow. They talk about popular vote counts while Obama is pursuing a strategy heavily relying on caucuses. Whatever the merits of caucuses, you simply can't compare the numbers of people showing up to a caucus in one state to the numbers of people showing up to a primary in another.
Take Washington State. They had a caucus this time instead of a primary like they had in the past. If you can even find a specific number of people who voted there, I'd love to see a link. But all the news stories from afterward seem to agree on an estimate of about 250,000 people. That sounds great, unless you consider that 600,000 people showed up for the 2004 primary. So while every other state is seeing record turnout and major increases over 2004, in Washington Democratic participation has plummeted to less than half what it was in 2004. Aside from this being a reason that caucuses suck (some people might argue that this is a better way to choose a candidate for the general), why would you weight those voters the same as primary voters in California who had every opportunity to vote early, to vote any time during the day, and who didn't have to choose between voting and working.
And how are you going to count Texas? I will vote in both the primary and the caucus (assuming I can find a babysitter who is too young or too apathetic to attend the caucus), since you have to attend the primary to be allowed in the caucus. Will you count me twice?
As it stands now, a republican who crossed party lines to vote for Obama in Alaska has his vote counted as approximately 1/1,000 of a delegate. A primary vote in California counts for less than 1/10,000 of a delegate. That Obama wins 10 delegates per voter from Alaska for every one in California is crazy also. Does this change the formula for how superdelegates should look at the score?
And should the superdelegates take into account the kind of weighting the party intended for assigning delegates? California contributed a huge number of votes to Kerry in 2004 and gets a huge number of delegates. Should the superdelegates count that republican who crossed over to vote for Obama in Alaska as equal to a california voter even though the delegates for the two states were weighted to give more say to California and other "blue states?"
And what do we do with Florida voters, who got royally screwed, yet again. Will anyone in that state ever get to vote for something and have it count? And do superdelegates need to ignore the popular will there? And does any presidential wanna-be really want to go into the general election after arguing that superdelegates should ignore Florida and Michigan--that'll help turnout in the general!
This whole argument is silly, and just seems like Obama supporters trying to find ways to ensure that their guy fulfills whatever destiny they believe he has regardless of how the process turns out. It reminds me of the standard republican mantra of "if you would all just agree with me then we can end all of this bickering" except that here it is "I'm sure we can come to some fair arrangement that ensures my guy will win."
Clearly the Obama supporters are afraid their guy won't win Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. If they thought he would win those states, superdelegates and Florida and Michigan wouldn't matter. I guess faith in "the one" has its limits.
February 16, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The move on petitioners must have something important to say if that many of them have signed on. Democrats should only ignore your voice if there are more than 2 million of you (Michigan and Florida, for the Obama voters who may not have heard about those states over the noise of all of the sermons about inclusiveness).
February 16, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink