deal with the popular vote and this whole meme is stupid.
I was in Europe on the night of the 2000 vote. As it became clear that who actually won the most votes would be something hard to define - and moreover that the person who won fewer might actually win - it spawned endless defensive explanations from me along the lines of "we really do care about democracy, it's just a funny artifact of the system at the moment."
It didn't look good.
And while Obama will (vastly likely) be the nominee, the way we count is so screwed up that there will be no demonstrable resolution to the issue.
As I wrote what was initially a comment on Jerome's diary, the full picture of the current efforts to define the race by popular votes sank in. The more those among the voting Democratic publis - and it's leaders - argue the Popular Vote the more clearly it will add fuel to the fire stoked against us leading up to the GE.
It won't kill us - the Republican party is in utter disarray and couldn't win a spitting match at the moment - but it is a flaw we need to work out so it doesn't come up again.
-chris
where the votes can be counted. You simply cannot accurately count them in any primary due to the caucasus, so this argument doesn't really hold water.
It's never come up before as an issue, but we have never had (to my knowledge) the subject pushed adamantly by one of the Democratic contenders before. Certainly not against the backdop of the now-infamous 2000 GE.
There seems no end in sight to this being made Issue #1 for a large part of the Democratic party.
It could become a lingering sore after the nomination process is finally over. Particularly if it's somehow taken all the way to Denver.
I hope you're not complaining about Republicans voting for a candidate. Without them Clinton might not have won Texas.
My point is not to pick a fight that is already raging, but to point to the unavoidable fuzziness of the math behind the whole debate.
Do you believe that the numbers can be put down in any way that is not open to debate?
Candidates shouldn't camp out in CA and TX and ignore smaller states but they would if the pop vote was the measure. Then people would be really pissed around the nation about being ignored.
We should follow the rules. If the rules were different then they would have campaigned differently.
The supers aren't rubes and they know the rules and the game. It's too bad so many others seem to be clueless.
They will count the delegates for both MI and FL, but it won't reflect the vote exactly in MI and no one else is going to either. This is a paper tiger. Who even knows how she's going to do in Puerto Rico? There hasn't been any polling, and don't assume because she does well with latinos in the US she's going to take PR by storm. it is an entirely different kettle of fish.
The outcome of the actuall nomination is all-but foregone, and we'll see where the popular vote ends up - inasmuch as it is possible to "end up" in any vaguely agreeable form.
There is a lot of contention being generated for an irresovable non-issue. It can't possibly help the party, and it is capable of doing some damage.
I am not quite confident enough in the ability of the Republicans to completely blow Nov while the Dems completely nail it. This is just one of those outlier issues that could come back to have an impact against us.
What evidence do you have that shows FL & MI will count as is? In other words, what evidence do you have that the DNC will allow the rule violators to get off without a penalty?
Not very clever either.
Too late to change the rules now.
in a number of States.
