Posted by: dkobalt88 | April 2, 2008

Clinton wins Texas popular vote, Obama gets more delegates…strip delegates, but count votes?

We now have Texas to go along with Michigan and Florida as proof that insane rules dreamed up by political big shots are more important to the Democratic Party than people who just want their votes heard.

Liberal activists have spent years criticizing the electoral college and Supreme Court for choosing George W. Bush over Al Gore in 2000 even though Gore won the popular vote by some half a million votes.Bush Cheated

Yet the DNC continues to encourage a nomination process that allows delegates and superdelegates to trump the will of the people — not unlike the electoral fiasco which put left-wing boogeyman Bush in the White House.

Clinton supporters have long argued that Obama’s success was predicated on dubious caucus results. The arguments have included the reasonable suggestion that the time-specific, overly complex caucus setup shuts out older voters and working class voters — who presumably have less time and inclination than, say, college kids or the elite leisure class to sit around for hours arguing politics and navigation obscure rules. Clinton’s people have argued in favor of primaries, where citizens cast votes privately, relatively quickly, and at hour they can spare time to vote.

Now the anti-caucus voices have proof. Hillary bested Obama in the Texas primary by over 100,000 votes, a clear democratic mandate. But who cares? After the latest round of Texas’s month-long caucus “mess”, Obama is walking away from the Lone Star State with a 5 delegate edge.

Bush v. Gore anyone?

Obama Stetson

First on the list of people who should care about this dishonorable outcome are Texas’s Democratic primary voters, whose popular mandate may be negated by Nancy Pelosi and other bigwigs who prize delegates over votes.

Second on the list? All other Democrats, including both candidates, and all superdelegates. The Texas caucus results raise serious doubts about the reality of Obama’s electability. The general election resembles a primary, not a caucus, both in setup and voter diversity. What is to say he would have won the caucuses in Iowa and elsewhere — and the momentum that went with them — if they had been primaries? If the majority of Democratic voters don’t really prefer him to Clinton, can Obama beat McCain in the privacy of a voting booth?

The undemocratic Texas results prove the delegate count is not a legitimate criteria for picking a nominee in a race this close. Hillary Clinton and her supporters are now obliged to dismiss any pledged delegate total that favors Obama as unreflective of the popular will.

Large numbers of potential defectors will view the eventual Democratic nominee as legitimate or illegitimate depending on three things: 1) the outcome of the popular vote; 2) how the discounted numbers of Michigan and Florida affect the popular vote; and 3) the importance superdelegates place on the popular vote.

Texas’s wacky outcome has given Hillary a kosher opening. She and her surrogates should savage the delegate count and make the case for the national popular vote. This appeal to democracy coupled with a win in the popular is her only shot at securing the nod, barring a catastrophe in Obamaland. It is also her best chance at getting Michigan and Florida counted, since she must also continue to declare invalid any popular vote tally that excludes two of America’s most populous states.

If Obama ends up with a popular vote margin small enough for Hillary to claim the lead had Michigan and Florida beenMichigan & Florida counted or revoted, there will be hell to pay with angry Clinton Democrats. They will rightfully feel Mrs. Clinton was robbed by arcane rules and will sign-on as McCainocrats faster than Obama can say “unity.”

The Texas caucus fiasco and polls indicating looming defections makes it all the more suicidal that Democrats keep stalling on a resolution for Florida and Michigan’s votes and delegates.

Obama is already in disenfranchisement hot water. Clinton harangues him daily for having sat idly by whistling Dixie while his lawyers helped block the Michigan revote. This story has, predictably, gotten little traction in the mainstream press. Eventually though, Obama will have to pay, since the story has had traction among Clinton supporters who, like Bill and Hillary, don’t find revenge distasteful…hence the polls indicating nearly a third of her voters will either vote Clinton or bust. These are not idle threats. The long memories of these angry Democrats would make them easy pickins’ for the GOP nominee, who would no doubt offer up weekly reminders of Obama-enabled vote suppression.

What do to?

Obama & Hillary

First, all campaigns and superdelegates need to agree that the popular vote outcome is more determinative than the pledged delegate count. Second, all need to publicly agree that the popular vote is only valid if it includes totals from all contests. Third, all must work together to quickly and fairly make sure that the popular vote includes totals from Michigan and Florida.

The rules may have stipulated Florida and Michigan be stripped of their delegates but not stripped of their popular votes.

Lastly, the Democratic Party’s nomination process is a laughingstock, embarrassing evidence of left-wing incompetency. Rather than insulting voters by pretending nothing is wrong, Howard Dean and Democratic leaders should publicly pledge to reform the primary system as soon as it is feasible.

The Obama cult would prefer to shrug away this mess. They have taken to dismissively saying, “Rules are rules.” Ha. They will soon learn that “lost votes are lost votes” when it comes to disenfranchised, angry citizens. If the Democrats use rules we didn’t make to ignore millions of us and force an illegitimate candidate, they can kiss our votes goodbye.



  1. I am from the UK and it seems really really stupid as an on-looker to see that the worlds most powerful ‘democracy’ ignores the popular vote! ridiculous really Hillary won more votes so more people want her in but Obama got in beacuse of how they percieve these votes???
    so someone in South Dakota has more of a voics than someone in Texas, ridiculous and not a democratic vote whatsoever!!!

  2. One last thing – I don’t mind that Obama has a Muslim history. I certainly don’t think that is a negative. What I meant by bringing it up is that he has denied his history like he denies and turns away from anything that doesn’t help him in the moment. The man has no loyalty!! His character is shallow and immature. Remember, this is a man who gave Clinton the finger on national TV and was applauded and cheered on by his audience … and then he smiled about it?! This is not the type of person I want leading our country.

  3. Oh, by the way – think back to January and February when Obama preached that the popular vote should decide the election.

    The media was quick to focus on that then when they thought he might win the popular vote and Clinton would take his chance away with the super delegate vote. The media should be showing those sound bites NOW!

  4. Thank you for putting it into logical words!! I am one of those Democrats who will never vote for Obama (but since I am also a Florida resident who the DNC and Obama believe was only worth half a vote – if any – during the primary, I will make up for it in November by making it count twice as much! I will vote for McCain!
    No idle threat – I am disgusted that our party has put up an anti-white racist (as evidenced by his wife and his mentor pastors), who tends towards antiAmerican ideology, who has close Muslim ties (he’s most proud of his radically Muslim half brother Roy, for instance) and close ties to terrorists and with little loyalty to anything or anyone!
    What is wrong with the Democratic Party? A lot!

  5. it just sounds like sour grapes from sore losers. The electoral college has been arund since day one and it seems that no one complains until they loose. Clinton (Bill) , FDR, LBJ won handily based on the rules. But when our candidate looses all of a sudden the system is unfair. And what is wrong with educated, active and passionate peopel going to a cacus and expressing why they vote for soemone instead of being herded into a polling booth like a sheep and just voting for someone just because you were told to vote for them. Obama and Clinton both won primaries and caucuses so there really isnt any argument here. And FLA and MI broke the rules and they should be punished. If Clinton was ahead , she wouldnt care about MI or FLA. Talk about a threat to democratcy. And peopel in these states should be mad at their state governments not the DNC. So we are to change the rules just because its not fair? well next time tell your state governments to follow the rules. Granholm and Crist should be impeached and i find that highly suspicious that their own peopel arent holding them responsible. If you want to be silly and vote for Mc cain just because you want to get even, all i say is you deserve thatever you get. People voted for Bush in 2000 just because he was more down to earth and just like them and didnt use intelligent elitist words. (Hmm thats a great reason lol) Now look at us 8 years later. If you are gonna vote , at least make a sensible decision. Its like soemone breaks the rules of a race and then gets mad when they do not give them the trophy for winning. Thats pretty much the FLA, Mi situation. Lastly, technically the political parties dont have to have the people vote in primaries, they could select them through party membership like the old days. Even the Electoral college technically does not have to follow the popular vote. Learn your constitutional law and stop reacting to media hipe.

  6. Ou-yo-yu what a nice site!
    currency forex learn online trading

  7. Super,its a very good
    x factor software forex trading

  8. I agree it is a convoluted and messy system, and reform that simplified and streamlined the primary/caucus process would be welcome. The national party also clearly needs to reform the rules for the schedule and the punishments for violating these rules.

    On the primary vs caucus vs both issue, the state-level parties have quite a bit of power in deciding how they want to run these contests. So that has to be thrashed out at that level.

    Trying to renegotiate the rules in a year in which most states have already voted and two candidates are still in a fierce battle for the nomination, however, hardly seems likely to produce a sensible outcome that is widely viewed as legitimate.

    I believe the best approach for now (which is part of the agenda of this article, of course) is to make the case for what superdelegates should pay attention to, since they are free to consider whatever factors they think matter given all of the information available.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: