Want to win in November? Walk-out unless the "magic number" is 2,209 votes.
Submitted by Nick Kelly on May 7, 2008 - 6:45pm.
Barack Obama | Magic Number | Suffrage | Democratic politics
Warning! This diary is not for the faint of heart. I say every vote must count or we should walk out.
Big Tent Democrat (BTD), amongst others, has raised the matter of the "magic number". Is it 2025, as the media tells us every day? Or is it 2,209, which is half plus one of all the delegates being sent to Denver by our 50 states and territories? I say it must be 2,209 if the Democratic Party wants to be certain that our candidate will have the strong emotional backing of at least a majority of Democrats. Imho, and BTD seems to agree, to nominate a candidate with fewer than 2,209 votes risks almost certain defeat in November.
If the Democratic Party persists in it's foolish plan to keep the Michigan and Florida delegations from voting, I say they still have an obligation to ensure that the party unites behind our nominee. I further say that the best chance for them to do that requires that our nominee be the clear choice of an indisputable majority of all Democratic delegates sent to Denver. Theoretically, Senator Obama can still win those 2,209 delegates without seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan. More power to him if he manages to pull that off. However, it's far more likely that he will not have that sort of majority without counting the delegates from Florida and Michigan.
Unfortunately, my party currently seems stuck with a self-defeating plan to nominate a candidate who has only 2025 votes, and without allowing the delegations from Florida and Michigan to vote. The question is, what's a true democrat to do in such a frustrating situation? The answer is simple. Protest. But how should we protest? Once again, the answer is simple. We demand suffrage.
And how do we get the party to recognize that we are serious. Simple, again. What if huge numbers of delegates told Howard Dean and company that they would walk out if the party permits the nomination of a candidate who has not received at least 2,209 votes? And before you dismiss this idea as too radical, just think of all the great protests in support of women's suffrage.
Personally, I think this is a great idea for my party. And who more appropriate to participate in such a walk-out than the thousands of women and men who may be nominating the first woman to be elected President of the United States?
which is something that all delegates need to consider.
I know that there are many voters who feel as you do, and will not vote for Obama even if he does receive 2,209 votes. My guess is that he will not receive that number of votes if we convince the party to require that number. I also think that Hillary is more likely to reach it. However, whichever of them reaches 2,209 votes, I am confident that more Democrats would accept them as our nominee than would be the case if either of them were to be nominated with only 2025 votes.
If Howard Dean and his cohorts persist in engineering this so that Obama wins the nomination with 2025 votes, there will definitely be massive disgust with the Democratic Party all over the nation, not just in Florida and Michigan. That could easily translate into a landslide for John McCain.
That's another reason for all Democratic delegates who want to win in November to stand up for democracy and walk out of the Convention in Denver if it appears that our nominee is to be anointed with fewer than 2,209 votes.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
in good conscience, vote for a candidate that I feel is totally unqualified. And I won't vote for a nut-case either.
Looks like the Dem Party is leaving me, just like they left
the Reagan Dems behind.
I'm through holding my nose to vote.
If we let the party give O the nomination for 2,025 votes, there will be many like you. If, instead, we demand that the nominee have at least 2,209 votes, Hillary still has a fighting chance to win the nomination. I would like to see her get it, but if she doesn't; and O is able to get 2,209 votes, he will be stronger against McCain in November. That may not matter to you, but it will matter to our down-ticket Dem candidates running for the Senate and the House. In other words, why should Dems settle for 2025 votes and ensure McCain and the Republicans a chance at a landslide?
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
Bombard the DNC with your email or letters about this. Let them know you have been left by the party, and you are through running behind them like lemmings. My ultimatum to them (sent just a few minutes ago) was a fair, reasonable and just solution to the voters of Florida and Michigan, or color me gone.
It's below my Hillary sign, and says, simply (and somewhat cryptically, I suppose)
2209
In big blue numbers.
Make a sign. Post it. Make that number a clarion call.
(And it's fun to confuse the locals...heh.)
Let's write to our local Hillary Clinton for President officials. Let's write letters to the editor. Let's write to Howard Dean. Let's write to national delegates we know.
I love the sign idea, Dorma. It's a grassroots thing. This really can happen if enough of us demand it.
And if we don't demand 2,209, we may as well be campaigning for John McCain.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
From the DNC's website - 2008 Democratic National Convention -- Delegate / Alternate Allocation
"Number of delegate votes needed for nomination (rounded) = 2,025". Which is 50% of the total number of delegate votes +1
Those are the rules set down by the DNC and agreed to by all State Parties.
John 11:35
I don't think so.
When someone makes un-democratic rules, true democrats oppose them.
And before the committee lowered the bar, the rules said it took 2,209 votes for nomination.
How come you favor having a nominee who has less support? What good does that do the Democratic Party, or the country? As far as I can see, that only benefits John McCain.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
...that any State that moves it's primary up will lose HALF OF IT'S DELEGATES!
That's what the rules say.
They also say that anyone who breaks the rules by campaigning in said States will lose all their delegates. Obama ran TV ads in FL and talked with reporters after a fund raiser.....which is characterized as breaking the rules as per the DNC Rules.
So....lets stick by these Rules, shall we?
"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." JFK
mis-applying them. That's why I say true democrats should simply walk out if the party insists on anointing a Presidential nominee with anything less than 2,209 votes.
The second "fairest" alternative would be to apply the rules rigorously, which would deny O his Florida delegates, cut the delegations from 5 states (Fl, MI, IO, NH, and SC) in half, and reduce the magic number by half of whatever those total delegation reductions came out to be. However, I vastly prefer simply keeping the magic number at 2,209. That's because just as I see no good political reason to anger voters in two states, I see no good political reason to anger them in five states.
The current DNC position of excluding all delegates from Florida and Michigan and requiring only 2025 votes to nominate is not only politically stupid, it is arbitrary, capricious, and un-fair. Hence, it is already the worst of these three alternatives. If we can move the party to require at least 2,209 votes for nomination, that would have the effect of making it virtually impossible for anyone to secure the nomination without Michigan and Florida votes being counted. However, it would be more democratic, and hence, more fair.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
That moved up their Primaries? A few of them which Obama won.
South Carolina I think is one of them. But of course nothing happened to them. Not even a slap on the wrist.
Politico is reporting that Barack Obama will declare victory on May 20:
Not long after the polls close in the May 20 Kentucky and Oregon primaries, Barack Obama plans to declare victory in his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. . . .The Obama campaign agrees with the Democratic National Committee, which pegs a winning majority at 2,025 pledged delegates and superdelegates—a figure that excludes the penalized Florida and Michigan delegations.So let me get this straight -- the first act of the self declared Democratic nominee Barack Obama will be to state that Michigan and Florida will not count? This is insane. Two key states in November will be dissed in the first act of the newly crowned Democratic nominee......
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/8/10435/75937
"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." JFK
locking up the nomination for O.
This strategy will only appeal to O supporters. All other true democrats will see it as a grab for power, not unlike what Bush did in 2000. In fact, this grab would be perhaps even more blatant.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
O-bots who will take over the party and bump aside all Dems who don't capitulate! I used to think they were engaging in magical thinking, but now I can see that it's just a strong-arm tactic that I assume BO believes the party elites will go along with! And, how, I wonder, do they think they're going to win the White House? Do they think they can indoctrinate enough gullible young people in a few months to outnumber all the disgruntled Dems and hardshell Repubs? (Maybe McCain had better choose Mike Huckabee as veep so Huck's Army can be mobilized to fight them!)
Obama is pulling a George Bush a la 2000. He's jumping in to declare victory before its real so that all the pundits will be covering it, all the headlines will say he's the winner and that will be ingrained in the minds of the voters and it truly will be over.
the magic number. Otherwise, the media will do just as you say - and it will be very difficult for the party to reverse that.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
Here's why I don't think they're punishing IA, NH, NV, and SC. They maintained the ordained order. MI and FL upset the designed order of states.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
All I pointed out was the rules say 2025 not 2209 as stated in the allocation document.
"How come you favor having a nominee who has less support?"
Did I say that? Do you know who I do or do not support?
John 11:35
....FL and MI
If the DNC is stupid enough to throw those States under a bus, then they get what they deserve......President McCain
"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." JFK
One of those US Flags from the 1950's with 48 stars. There have to be some of those stored away somewhere.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
Why don't you answer the question? Why would you or any Democrat favor having a nominee who has less support? Wouldn't it be far better for the party and the country for the Democratic nominee to have more, rather than less, support?
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
so they won't need us ole' fogeys anymore! Ya know, Cafferty and some of the other Obamaniacs told Hillary to get out of the way. I guess that goes for all of us. And where will we go? Home, to just sit and grumble on election day? Think again, Obama!
From New Hampster
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh146/NewHampster/oaccomplished.jpg
"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." JFK
I call it the Howard Dean flag but in the end the consequences are the same.
Barry
Are you safer today than you were seven years ago?©
Most every email addy for Media idiots, Super Delegates, MSM companies, DNC people; also has transcripts of many "news" shows.
http://giveemhell.org./
I am deeply disappointed in your rush to coronate Senator Obama as our nominee in the 2008 election. Senator Clinton deserves better than to be slaughtered on the airwaves by Ms. Brazile - who, to the best of my knowledge, has never won an election in her life.
You may do what you think is right, but know that if you 1) disenfranchise the voters from Michigan and Florida or 2) succeed in forcing Senator Clinton from this race, this lifelong Democrat will re-register as an independent and you can forget about receiving any contributions from me, for any race, for the rest of my life.
If Hillary is not the nominee, I will. As I recently posted, if the party nominates a sure-loser candidate out of a desire for political correctness and altruism, I will feel it has betrayed me, and I must leave. And I cannot vote for a person I feel to be against me as a citizen in order just to be a "good Democrat". I'm not a yellow dog. I've voted for a couple of Repubs before, and if I feel McCain would be better than Obama, the former will get my vote. Or Ralph Nader might be available. I already voted for him once.