OVERBREADTH

Matt mentioned to me before posting that I’d likely disagree on several points. I am glad to have some contrary voices aired here. And Matt, please don’t hate me for doing this, but you invited a “reality-check,” and I can’t resist:

Is it an “ass-kicking” when he trails in the popular vote?

This is a myth. Here’s an excellent post that breaks down the numbers. The basic summary:

[I]n Clinton and Jerome’s world, Clinton is ahead in the popular vote only IF you exclude four caucus states, IF you include two unsanctioned states, and IF you “disenfranchise” every voter in Michigan who voted against Hillary Clinton.

Matt also argued that the Obama numbers are based on “the misleading arguments that superdelegates are obligated to rubber-stamp any substantial lead in the pledged delegate count.” I disagree. It’s based on the argument that Hillary would need 70 percent of the superdelegates to vote in her favor. This seems spectacularly unlikely, given that the trend with superdelegate support has been 80 percent in his favor the last two months.

Matt also references

the bunk claim that he’s “winning”

We can debate the metrics, but ultimately there is only one the rules use, delegates. CNN has it at 1724 Obama, 1589 Clinton. In what sense is this number bunk?

Matt again:

when you overlook the bunk claim that he’s “winning,” that leaves the oft-heard back-up claim. “OK, he’s not really winning, but he’s close, close enough to lead her in some measures, and she was heavily favored, so he’s close, that’s something.”

Except it’s not something, it’s nothing. It’s a straw man argument. In the straw man fallacy, you turn an opponent’s argument into something it’s not, so that you can more easily discredit it.

You mentioned critics will say that you’re actively engaging in a straw man argument here–here’s why: When was the last time you heard an Obama supporter argue that he’s not winning, but he’s close? Can you point me to a source for any Obama supporter saying this after he took eleven consecutive states in February (and took the lead)? It sure sounds like one of those examples where you turn an opponent’s argument into something it’s not so you can more easily discredit it.

It rests on . . . a comparison of one candidate to the image of the other.

Here’s what it rests on: 1724 Obama, 1589 Clinton. No imagery required.

Again, I hope I’m not being cruel to a reader here (and a friend). I invite your response. :)

Cameron: no hard feelings, there’s plenty of food for thought here, and I’m grateful that there is room on the blog for a different point of view. As far as a response, let me work from the base of the inverted pyramid here.

Simply put, it does not rest on 1724 and 1589. It rests on 2200. Does Obama have it? No. Does Clinton have it? No. Is anything else relevant? Yes. One thing. Only one thing. Superdelegates. It’s now up to the exercise of their independant judgment. If they wish to shirk that judgment, as Nancy Pelosi and Pat Leahy urge, that’s their duty to breach.

Now, as far as whether there is something special about the number of superdelegates who have recently gone for Obama… I’m trying to take this evidence seriously: 80% of superdelegates to declare in the last two months went for Obama did they? Just how many superdelegates is that? I’m not sure, but I don’t think it’s a significant percentage.

Finally, as far as my lamentable willingness to disenfranchise Michigan voters who voted “against Hillary,” your position is Posneresque. (see Crawford v. Marion County Election board (7th circuit affirms voter ID law that will disenfranchise the poor because it is more important to make sure that voters with IDs don’t feel like they might disenfranchised by voting fraud)).

Are you seriously telling me that we have to disenfranchise ALL the Michigan voters to avoid the risk of disenfranchsing the 35% who voted “against Clinton.” Give them all to Obama for all I care, but it is absolutely shocking that Obama has staked his legitimacy to a strategy that slights these two crucial states. I find it appalling, and it’s political suicide that will help lessen his chances of success if he is nominated to run in November.

By the way, is Daily Kos now conceding that Obama really did campaign for “uncommitted voters” in Michigan? Interesting.

I’m a bit exhausted by this, but here goes…

- 1724 and 1589. The term you used in your post was “winning.” If you were watching a six-month-long football game, the score was 1724 to 1589, and I asked you which team was winning…?

- Nancy Pelosi and Pat Leahy are not asking superdelegates to shirk their judgment.

- Obama has closed a 100 delegate lead to about 25 in the last few months. Here’s a graph.

- Hundreds of thousands of people voted “uncommitted” in Michigan, a state where Obama’s name was not on the ballet.

- The “give them all for Obama for all I care” was a deal that the Obama camp offered and Clinton has so far rejected. The argument that Clinton is ahead in the popular count assumes these are not counted toward Obama.

- Obama has staked his strategy on the rules set out by the Democratic party. If the party used an all-or-nothing rule like the Republicans, he would’ve campaigned more in the big states and skipped the little ones. If they only used superdelegates, he would’ve campaigned exclusively to the superdelegates. If they settled it by an arm-wrestling match, he would’ve exercised more.

- No, Daily Kos has not “conceded” that Obama campaigned in Michigan and the election results don’t prove otherwise. Similarly, if ten people wrote in the candidate “Alf,” it would not prove that Alf campaigned there.

@Matt

You still skipped over how you can claim Clinton has more primary popular votes than Obama.

Cameron:

If this were a football game, we’d still be in the 3rd quarter (although the running time would be longer than the average football game); the team would be leading, but they would not yet have won. But also, this is unlike a football game, in the sense that merely having a lead at the end of regulation and winning are not the same thing in a primary, while they are in most sporting contests. It’s more like a reserve auction. It’s not enough to be the high bidder if you don’t meet the reserve price. Neither candidate is going to meet the reserve price.

Nancy Pelosi and Pat Leahy have used their positions to advocate underhandedly for Obama. I don’t mind them choosing Obama (heck, I nearly once did it myself), but I reject the underhandedness of their demand that superdelegates must affirm the popular vote leader as the candidate. (Chris Van Hollen, D-MD, made the same demand in a speech at GULC last week). I think this is underhanded of Pelosi particular, in that she is refusing to endorse a particular candidate, but endorsing a strange and irrational view of the role of the superdelegate that is beneficial to the candidate she’d like to endorse.

I am not aware of Obama making any offer regarding Michigan other than to count the delegates 50-50, and refusing to agree to a re-vote under any circumstances. I have no desire to disenfranchise anyone who voted against Hillary (although I’m not sure if an uncommitted vote is a vote against Hillary, but I suppose the qualifications committee could seat a pro rate share of “uncommitted” delegates at the convention). I am more concerned about disenfranchising the Michigan and Florida voters who voted FOR a candidate (since last time I check, we count votes FOR people, not votes AGAINST). I am also very concerned by the probability that Obama will lose Florida to McCain if he wins the nomination by virtue of excluding its voters from the nomination process. The damage done to the Florida democrats may prove irreperable, and could lead to extending the decades-long GOP tyranny in the Federal government.

Micah: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Matt,

Uhm… it shows Obama winning every legal way. The only way Clinton wins is if the Democratic party allows for Florida and Michigan to count after they violated the rules of the party’s system.

Surely as a honorable lawyer you would agree that whenever someone breaks the rules, there should be some punishment for that.

Oh wait…

Michigan and Florida will not be disenfranchised. Currently, emptywheel I think has the best solution by removing all superdelegate votes, and then giving a 60C/40O delegate vote percentage to the candidates, since they had no control over setting the time (unlike in Florida).

Even then, the likelihood is that they’ll be counted only after Clinton concedes and thus not disenfranchising.

Otherwise, you get a worse situation–making African Americans think that the Democratic party went fully around the leading candidate to choose someone else for nefarious reasons and then losing that important voting bloc for a far longer amount of time.

Look, she’s done her best, but she’s effectively lost. She has every right to stay in (I definitely think it’s wrong to tell her to drop out) and fight for all she’s got, but her only remedy is really the superdelegates now and she’s slowly losing those lately as well.

Micah:

What rules did the voters of Florida break? The voters of Michigan?

As an honorable lawyer, I believe in letting the votes that cast be counted as intended. Failure to do is what got us Florida ‘00 and the appointment of an unelected George W. Bush presidency.

It is absolutely unjust to punish the voters of those states for the irresponsible actions of their leaders - especially in Florida, where both candidates were represented by campaigns, both names were on the ballots, and the Democratic voters were not substantially responsible for electing the leadership that condemned their votes to technical irrelevance.

I am sick of disenfranchising people over technicalities. It’s not what my party stands for.

This is about more than just my personal choice of candidate. It’s about what’s best for the party. If, after the Michigan and Florida votes are counted, Obama wins “fair and square” he will be a legitimate candidate. A “reprisal” by voters in those states lashing out at the party for slighting them is unlikely, because they will have had their say, but lost for want of a majority. That will not outrage too many reasonable people. However, if Obama wins by less than the margin of votes against him in those states, it will be an outrage. Not to you, because you want Obama to win. But to the people of Michigan and Florida, who spoke, who should have been counted, and who didn’t get a say, and to the majority of Democratic voters who (in this hypothetical0 said “no” to Obama, he will not be a legitimate candidate.

If it comes to pass, this will do irreperable harm to the party and our chances of taking back the White House in ‘08. A lot of Democratic voters from Michigan and Florida (and other states too) will be lost for a long time, as will a mess of electoral votes from Michigan (don’t take its blueness for granted) and Florida (already red but precariously so, before this nonsense).

Let’s get down to business: I pledge that I will vote for any legitimate Democratic candidate in November. Any fellow Democrat of mine who won’t take that pledge has neither the best interests of the party nor the country at heart. However, if there is no legitimate Democratic candidate, because the only on the ballot lawyered his way on, I may still vote for him or her, and under no circumstances will I vote for McCain, out of duty to the country. But in that event, I would have a hard time criticizing anyone who said he or she would rather stay home.

The Democrats need to do more than just “pick some Candidate.” That’s why we have a proportional system instead of winner-take-all. Our party has the moral high ground; we don’t sacrifice legitimacy for expediency; we don’t rush our pick to get it over with quickly, we take our time and get it right. At least that was the goal of this system. Let’s let it play out, and let’s do what’s right by the people of Michigan and Florida.

(h/t RJ Matson)

The voters of Florida voted for their representatives to work for them and represent them. Therefore, what their representatives do in an indirect democratic republic, means that whatever the representatives do, should in turn be affecting the voters since they chose them. The representatives knew in advance that there would be repercussions as the Democratic Party stated and thus the Democratic Party had to punish them (in fact, there’s video of the representatives even mocking the party, showing just what their best interests of the party was at heart). You may call it a technicality, but under the law, technicalities matter and it still is breaking the law.

Michigan voters/representatives on the other hand did not have the same control and should be dealt fairly and justly and thus why I like emptywheel’s approach.

If the states can just push their votes every-increasingly further in advance of the Presidential election, then these states are the ones doing the disenfranchisement as their votes will mean so little so far out in front–not the party that sets the rules. Otherwise, if there are no rules, it is no longer a democratic republic.

I personally don’t care whether Obama or Clinton has more votes in either delegates or primary votes–in the end what matters to me is how the system was set up–we don’t go changing things in mid-stream–therefore the actual winning is through delegates, and if not enough, then you need super-delegates, thus why I’m not yelling for Clinton to bow out, just that she has maybe a 5-10% chance of winning.

The New Yorker’s disambiguation of the post-PA popular vote math: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/2008/04/after-pennsyl-1.html

According to Hertzberg, I’m being “mischievous,” but even he concludes that it’s inconclusive.