Obama Campaign To Falsely Claim Clear Majority of Pledged Delegates
Submitted by Nick Kelly on May 19, 2008 - 11:29pm.
Barack Obama | Breaking Political News | False Majority | Florida | Michigan | Pledged Delegates | Democratic politics
States and Territories will be sending 3,566 pledged delegates to Denver. Half plus 1 of that is 1,734 pledged delegates. Obama currently has 1,610 pledged delegates. Kentucky has 51 pledged delegates to be won, and Oregon has 52 pledged delegates to be won. So, even if Obama won 100% of the pledged delegates in play on May 20, he would have only 1,713 pledged delegates, which is 21 short of a clear majority.
Of course, we know he won't win anything like 100% of the pledged delegates in Oregon and Kentucky. In fact, he will be lucky to win half of them. However, it's a cinch that he will win more than 17 pledged delegates which is all he requires to surpass 1627 pledged delegates, which is half plus 1 of the pledged delegates from 48 states and all territories.
So, when you hear the media saying he's won a clear "majority" of pledged delegates, thank them for their usual pro-Obama spin, and tell them no ethical journalist would ever think of repeating such a misleading claim without making clear that Obama's so-called "majority" relies upon disenfranchising 313 pledged delegates representing two and a half million voters from Florida and Michigan.
A true majority of pledged delegates is 1,734, and the magic number to be nominated must be no less than 2,210. Otherwise the Democratic Party will nominate a candidate who has the support of less than half the party.
I agree that using the term "elected" is wrong. However, thanks to Howard Dean the delegates from Florida and Michigan do not count in terms of the convention at this point. They are not considered pledged delegates under DNC rules. Therefore, if the media is correct in their reports, Obama could be mathematically correct in claiming that he has a majority of the pledged delegates.
Barry
Are you safer today than you were seven years ago?©
However, it is just as wrong to claim a majority of "pledged delegates" when 313 "pledged delegates" exist who are not counted. If the claim was that Obama had won a majority of pledged delegates that the Obama campaign expects the DNC to seat before nominating a Presidential candidate, then it would be an honest claim.
It's quite a misleading claim, as well as a factually incorrect claim. I am surprised you think it's "correct".
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
Florida and Michigan don't have any pledged delegates as defined by the DNC. I don't like that and I'm sure don't either but that doesn't change the facts.
Barry
Are you safer today than you were seven years ago?©
and even the Obama campaign assures us that those pledged delegates, as well as Superdelegates from FL and MI will be seated. They just remain coy as to when, and under what circumstances.
When did you lose command of the English language?
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
I like both of you guys, and I think that you would like each other if you ever meet in person. So can we turn the rhetoric down a little? I don't wanna choose sides.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
And if he's Irish enough, he will have recognized the old joke about losing command of the English language. I know it would be a personal insult to Grammarsnob; but to an Irishman, it's a sort of badge of honor.
Don't worry, Stan. I like Barry. It's just that we do sometimes disagree; and I don't have time to soften every punch I throw his way. Speaking of which, I'm already late for a big charity wing-ding Herself is running. Later.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
I agree that Florida and Michigan have elected 313 people to serve as pledged delegates (and I say so only partly in deference to Stan). Unfortunately the DNC has chosen to reject those delegates. I don't agree with that and I don't like it any more than you do but for the moment that's where things stand. Because of that with the delegates he's sure to pick up Obama will have the majority of pledged delegates.
If and when those 313 delegates are included Obama would have to get fewer that 50 or 60, which seems unlikely, to keep him from having the majority of pledged delegates. That seems to make the whole discussion of pledged delegates technical and irrelevant. Its about the super delegates, or as the DNC calls them "unpledged delegates."
Barry
Are you safer today than you were seven years ago?©
being "pledged delegates". Obama will not have a majority of "pledged delegates" He will have a majority of "pledged delegates" sent from only 48 states and territories.
As for your fewer than 50 or 60 assertion, show me the math. I think you must be presuming that the DNC will steal some MI and FL delegates now pledged to Hillary and award them to Obama.
If the whole discussion of pledged delegates is technical and irrelevant, why is the Obama campaign making such a big deal about it?
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
Obama's making a big deal out it for the same reason that Clinton is making a big deal of winning the "popular" vote; including Florida and Michigan and excluding caucus states that don't have a popular vote. They're both doing every thing they can to present the strongest case for themselves.
When I said fewer than 50 or 60 I had checked the BBC site which showed Obama head by about 200 delegates but that's been updated. They now show Obama ahead by 167 (obviously Kentucky or part of that delegation is included now). That changes the calculation, now (before Oregon is added) Obama would have to be held to fewer than about 70 delegates out of the 313 to keep him from a majority of pledged delegates. The math is simple, Clinton must get at least 167 delegates more than Obama from the 313. Subtract the 167 from the 313 and you get 146 which they can split evenly. Clinton would need about 243 and Obama 70 to have a couple of extra delegate.
Barry
Are you safer today than you were seven years ago?©
Hillary's popular vote totals do not as far as I know exclude ANY states. There are four caucus states that have not released their OFFICIAL vote totals, but people can calculate what the count was on caucus day, based on turn-out figures and delegates won by precinct. It ain't rocket science.
RealClear Politics provides an estimate:
Obama.... 17,576,579.....47.6%
Clinton..... 17,639,952.....47.7%
My point was that adding the number of people who cast a vote in a primary to the number who attend a caucus is the old apple and oranges problem. I wasn't suggesting that there's a plot to exclude caucus states.
Barry
Are you safer today than you were seven years ago?©
YOU said Hillary is excluding caucus states in her count. I was showing you that she is not.
Now am I to understand that what you meant is that a primary cannot be compared to a caucus, so that you can never come up with some sort of total vote? Sorry, but I can't accept that.
As I believe I wrote somewhere else, I caucused in Kansas. I sat (for about four hours) in a part of the precinct caucus site that was designated for Clinton. I was counted there. People who supported Obama sat somewhere else and they were counted. The end result was no different than had we gone into a booth and pressed a touch screen. This is essentially what happened in EVERY Democratic caucus, regardless of the state.
It's true of course that caucuses tend to have significantly lower turn-out rates than do primaries, because it is often harder for working people, the elderly, young parents, the military and so forth to show up. But that doesn't mean the totals can't be combined. There are all sorts of reasons that one state ends up with a lower turn-out than another -- method of voting, order of voting, weather... and many more.
The bottom line is, if someone makes the effort to register his preference for a candidate according to the law of his state, he DAMN well deserves to have that preference counted. And it matters which candidate has the most people who prefer him (or her).
I would submit that when there is a significant difference between the number of voters and the number of delegates WHO EXIST TO REPRESENT THOSE VOTERS, then the problem lies with the delegates.
Of course, no system is perfect, and there will sometimes be differences. But the underlying principle remains, that it is the voters who count most. We'll see if the SuperD's realize it.
If my post even implied to you that I thought it was Clinton's fault that some states were excluded from the count then I should have phrased it more carefully. If a state decides not to release the totals from a caucus that is not the fault of any candidate. Clinton can hardly be blamed for not including numbers that are kept secret.
As much as I'd like to see caucuses banned I'm not suggesting that they should be ignored. I'm simply saying that the numbers from a caucus are very different from a primary.
I think that "when there is a significant difference between the number of voters and the number of delegates WHO EXIST TO REPRESENT THOSE VOTERS," then there's a problem with the system. Clearly there's a problem with how delegates are allocated to the states. While we may not agree on the finer points of the problem I do think that we must all be ready to keep the pressure on after this election to force real change.
Barry
Are you safer today than you were seven years ago?©
As I tried to explain, it's not a matter of being anyone's fault. IT HASN'T HAPPENED, so of course it can't be anyone's fault.
NO STATE HAS BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THE TOTAL.
Some (four) states' numbers had to be estimated, because they will not release their figures. But that has been done and the states are included. There is no reason to believe those estimates aren't pretty damned accurate -- certainly accurate enough not to affect who really has the largest popular vote.
As for whether "the numbers from a caucus are very different from a primary," in this case the difference makes no difference. You're still talking about people who showed up and were counted.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/
Including MI and FL:
Clinton: 17,408,441
Obama: 17,230,120
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
of "his" victory are greatly exagerated.
But hey. All of a sudden, for some, if the media says it....it must be so.
Live by the media....die by the media. ;)
You would think more of us would have learned a hard lesson as a result of the nonsense the media spread leading up to the Iraq war.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
would think, Nick.
If it comes down whoever the media decides to be the next POTUS, you have to wonder who they will turn their wrath on next. Their MO seems to be build them up to tear them down. This should make some very nervous. We'll see....
what she says, Mary.
I was reading something about Geraldine Ferraro earlier.
Here it is:
Geraldine Ferraro's Shot Across Obama's Bow
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27732
Oh, and about principle, Eagan is wrong. It's all about principle. Clinton's supporters don't understand why the woman with the big vote total is being pushed out. Brokering a nominee who refuses to count Michigan and Florida is not their idea of democracy from the Democratic Party, which they've supported for decades.
The rest of TMs diary is also excellent, as usual.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
Something came up and I had to leave right away.
I remembered to press the 'record' button before I left. I'll have to play it back later tonight.
or that little "There's no reason to REALLY sort out Florida 2000 because the country is suffering so horribly while we bother to get that little detail straight..." Al Gore should concedE now FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY
See also:
FOR THE GOOD OF THE PARTY
FOR PARTY UNITY
the media THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S NOMINATION PROCESS IS SCREWING UP DEMOCRACY, WE SHOULD STOP THAT VOTING NONSENSE RIGHT HERE & NOW, IT'S HURTING THE PARTY
the media HILLARY CLINTON IS HURTING THE PARTY/THE COUNTRY/THE WORLD
etc.
Perhaps all those millenium doomsday clocks in 2000 released some sort of virus....
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
I first noticed it in the OJ era, or Princess Diana's death- the coverage of those two events. Tabloid tee vee, I guess.
My kingdom for the fairness doctrine. The underpinnings were in place long before, though. Corporate personhood mostly sets the stage, I suppose. How funny when typing "stage" I first typed "state." Go figure.
Manufacturing Consent Media Monopoly
Coercion: Why we listen to what they say
The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politcs of Fear
No Logo << seminal work
must read:
You Broke It, You Own It -- Obama Style
guest post by Kristen Breitweiser
Those who are responsible for putting Democrats in the broken place we are in right now with regard to Barack Obama had better own it to the end. Leave those bumper stickers on and wear those campaign pins until the bitter end folks because YOU OWN IT. And people are going to want to know whose to blame.
And as for the superdelegates, just an FYI, we have the list with your names, you will be held accountable on Election Day and beyond, too. This time around, everybody's going to be looking for accountability.
Flash forward to Election Day 08. Can you imagine the backpedaling going on when it comes to explaining how Barack Obama -- the Democratic nominee by math not by sensibility -- loses key states? What will those pundits say? Can they turn to history and defend themselves by saying that Obama won Ohio in the primary? Pennsylvania? Florida? And what about West Virginia? No Democrat has won the WH since 1916 without winning West Virginia and we all know what happened yesterday. What will they use as their rationale as to why they reasonably expected Obama to win those states in the general? Will they be driven mad with their math and just keep repeating that it wasn't their fault -- it was math's fault? (Or will they fall back on the usual suspect and blame it on Hillary?)
She nails it. "Roll of the dice." Like I've been saying, we have no idea who this guy is or what he'll do...if he even ever gets there...which is doubtful.
Read the whole thing here:
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27735
(Posting here so it stays awhile. Hope that's ok, Nick)
Should be fed exed as certifed mail signature specific to every superdelegate & before they vote they should have to sign a disclosure indicating that they read & understood it before casting their vote.
I'm serious.
IN, KY, TN, and the whole Deep South, for starters. If MA is lost, it'll be those bigoted Irish in Boston. They'll have a good ole' wallow for days on end, and then fill vindicated of their own racism because they supported Barack!
I still have my "Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Wes Clark", sweatshirt. Wore it the other day when it was chilly and rainy and wanted to feel warm. Seems like we're going to need some new gear for Nov. 08?
Don't blame me, I voted for Hillary!
Nick, I think you are completely correct here. Thanks for reminding us all of this little bit of information.
Hillary 52%
Obama 44%
5% Reporting
Nothing From Oregon yet.
blathering about? Ted Kennedy--in the past tense! I thought for a moment he'd already died! Oh, anything to keep from discussing the KY primary! I think it's despicable to use this man's terrible news to avoid any good news about Hillary and to exploit the tragedy to boost his links to Obama. These people are creeps and ghouls!
Some despicable pundits dare to compare BO to native son Abraham Lincoln. If the truly great man had been like Barry, he would have just written off the secessionist states. Hmmm...think you could have wracked up some of your wins without the Old Confederacy, Mr. Amazing?
clear majority of "elected" delegates. That's seriously in error. 313 delegates were elected in FL and MI. Obama has no right, legal, moral or otherwise to eliminate them from the category of "elected" delegates.
The DNC can decide not to seat them, if it wishes to lose the November election; but neither Obama nor the DNC can un-elect them. A true majority of elected delegates is 1,734, and Obama CANNOT have won that many elected delegates by the end of today's elections in Oregon and Kentucky.
I suggest we write every media outlet we can - telling them to learn what an "elected" delegate is. Clearly it's not what Obama wants people to think.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.