Superdelegates: BAD!, Pledged delegates: GOOD!, Popular vote: BAD!

As Obama has clinched the pledged delegate win tonight, but Clinton added 250,000 net popular votes tonight, I'm curious as to why the pledged delegate count is much more democratic than popular vote. Because that's what the DNC rules say? I agree, but the DNC also allows for superdelegates which plenty of people despise.

EXPLAIN! :D

She'll have more votes than him at the end of the process if Puerto Rico goes overwhelmingly for Clinton.

Your response then?

such as majority of elected and caucus delegates.

who could not express their will due to uncontrollable factors?

I had an epiphany about this earlier today when I actually made a thread blasting people that count Puerto Rico's vote towards the popular vote. Why give them a voice with the delegates, but not with the popular vote?

Probably stupidity right now because of medicine I'm on, I don't know. Help me out.

But we both know they have massive turnout. Why use that turnout to weight their region more than one of equal population that *might* have had similar turnout, if it wasn't for a massive snow storm? Don't delegates solve that problem? Isn't that a good reason to use them?

and voters in those states are not disenfranchised from participating in any way.

He's got a response for you.

in both of those States.... Now thats making up the rules to suit ones needs.

I voted.

My vote should count.

Or was that just applicable to Al Gore in Florida and John Kerry in Ohio?

My friends would be some of those very people. They were very pissed, and rightfully so, that your Dem Party fucked it up for you. The candidates (nearly all) removed their names to show support to the DNC on their ruling. Hillary herself stated that the vote - YOUR vote - would not count for anything.

If YOU have an issue with it - you need to take it up with your state dem leaders.

They have submitted a recommendation of a 69-59 split. Still not fair in the state of things, but it's an opportunity for your state to have some delegates, and I would imagine something along those lines will get approved. It's also far better than their votes only counting 50%, IMO.

We voted she lost. End of story

Not hard to comprehend.

There is no way to count it. It is an imaginary metric. Dear lord, even the pundits on CNN are laughing about it.

When Gore beat Bush by the popular vote.

That was different, somehow.

and two states who have been barred from the convention.

This is what Hillary and her supporters don't tell people. They exclude all the caucus states and throw in Florida and Michigan (Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan) to get her sorry ass to a popular vote majority.

That's why the winner is determined by the delegates.

As far as Puerto Rico is concerned, they don't even have a vote in the general election. And it still doesn't take into account the caucus states where the POPULAR VOTE IS NOT COUNTED!

What then?

I have a sick feeling that's where we're headed. She'll have the win in the popular vote even excluding Michigan and Florida and adding the caucus estimates if you count Puerto Rico.

Ice storms, wind storms, robo-calls, voter roll purging, access to voting booths blocked, closed primaries, caucuses, media supression, the inability for candidates to campaign, etc, etc.

Despite the will of the people being proportionally expressed in their numeric vote, voter supression can keep this vote total low. Delegates equalize the idiosynchracies accross non-homogenous regions with differing conditions.

Night ain't over yet ...

It's like dealing with a bunch of 12 year olds who didn't get their slumber party.

nt

A mechanism for a popular vote count doesn't exist.

A popular vote is a false metric.

Popular vote not only bad, popular vote nonexistent.

You will admit that Obama has run a great campaign. If this was a battle for popular votes, don't you think they would have run a different type of camapign?

They would have spent more time in places like Wisconsin and Illinois and Virgina and ran the numbers up.

You can't change the rules in mid-season.

We can't go back to caucus states and extrapolate out the population in order to get a popular vote. Doesn't work.

Please. For the sake of the country and world, Obama won. Let's get on with it.

We're not a direct Democracy, and rightfully so.

that they are going to give the nomination to Obama.

We will have to wait to see who will have the Popular vote but I do not believe it will be Hillary. You can't count Michigan all for her and discount the folks that voted against her.

:popcorn:

Certainly Hillary needs to.

http://www.democrats.org/a/convention_2008/delegate/

It's about pledged delegates - no where does it mention popular vote. If you don't like it that much, work to change it in 2016. But for now, that's it, that's the way it is, period.

Not much of a mandate then huh?

By the way, Obama supporter here that's been called a hopeless cultist Obamite before here on DU. :hi:

Sorry...my bad.

As for the popular vote, it wasn't my decision, it was the DNC's.
(how'dya like that?) ;)

Well, he also won the electoral college vote, but that's a different story.

Bottom line, the popular vote is not valid. At all. Unless you discount all caucus states in the total that is...which means that not every vote counts.

The primary is and always has been based on delegates and super delegates. The only reason that popular vote factors in at all is because this race will be dependent on super delegates - some of whom have expressed reservation about voting against the will of constituents in their districts. The only reason it counts in Hillary's world, is because it is the only metric that can be altered to view her favorably with creative math.

you do not get to change the rules in the middle of ANY game and have it be legitimate. If POPULAR vote were going to be the metric all along, it would've been wise to tell that to all the candidates so they could've adjusted the way they campaign. Period. Anything else is completely dishonest. :)

would have had primaries, instead of caucuses that wouldn't count, no?
are they delusional or just liars?

desperation makes people do bizarro things. My brother used to try this crap when we were kids and he saw he was losing (usually the game was Monopoly and he wanted to skip the step of buying houses, and just go straight for hotels or keep "borrowing" money from the bank every time he was broke and had essentially lost the game, WITHOUT mortgaging his properties) :P .

It's utterly dishonest and equally absurd. If the shoe were on the other foot, we wouldn't even be having this conversation, she and her supporters/surrogates would've already ridiculed him out of the game. What's sad is she wants to be treated "equal", just like the boys, and yet they're trying to change the rules to suit the girl, because winning by the rules is just too hard! :( Yeah, that's definitely a tenet of feminism.

and this is the kind of shit that is making people so sick of hillary and her supporters. after 8 years of a liar in the white house, and tortured propaganda on the tv, the last thing we want is a candidate that is a delusional liar.
and i don't have a problem with supers, but if we didn't have them, obama would still be clinching it tonight.

Then the results would have been different.

How many times has this come up now?

Those are the rules. If they were changed the teams would play differently. Changing them in the last 2 minutes of the 4th quarter is not only unfair, it is retarded.

...and who said Superdelegates were bad????


They're going to Obama in droves.... I LOVE the Superdelegates.... 120 to 14 since Feb 5th!

...Given that he's winning among superdelegates, I don't think "Superdelegates: BAD!" applies to Obama.

Most people on DU were saying that he was really ahead in delegates because superdelegates shouldn't count. Because they weren't democratic. However, they were in the rules.

I don't know, everyone has flip-flopped on everything in order to help their candidate. I'm just trying to find some consistency here.

I think the whole idea of superdelegates is stupid -- especially because they're political folks who love to accept money, favors, and promises.

But neither now nor at any time would I support changing that system *during* a campaign, no matter who is running, no matter who is winning -- no matter what.

I hope that provides some consistency.

That's sort of like claiming the Patriot won the Superbowl because some of the points the Giants had on the scoreboard don't count. Everybody is laughing at the stupidity of the popular vote claim Hillary is making.

and since Obama has used the tactic so often in the primary, it won't be effective against the GOP in the GE.

Do yu need more of an explanation?

Obama leads by every metric anyhow.

Get over it.