This Democratic Primary is made of awesome.

I never, ever want it to end.

By Moe Lane Posted in | | Comments (11) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Before we go any further, I suggest that you at least peruse this document: it's the rules by which the DNC will be running their convention, assuming of course that the whole thing doesn't get called on account of Molotov cocktails. Which would be bad, by the way. That convention center is private property, and was not built just to be burned down by an angry mob.

Anyway, TalkLeft and Daily Kos (H/T: Instapundit) are examining the entire makeup of the Credentials Committee, which - surprise, surprise! - has an exceedingly complicated method by which the people responsible for validating the various delegates are chosen. Bottom line: Donna Brazile aside, the makeup of the DNC's Credentials Committee will be largely determined by delegate ratios, broken down by State. And right now it's an open question whether either candidate will have a majority, absent Dean's appointees.

Read on.

There's a certain amount of controversy over at the two sites above over what the precise ratio is, and how the upcoming races will change that ratio. Interesting enough, in its way - and, aside from everything else, it's a fairly clear indication that both campaigns now have yet another pressing reason to fight as hard as they can for every remaining State/Territorial race - but also irrelevant, in its way. A lot of those people seem to be missing the big picture; a common assumption over there is that if Hillary doesn't get a majority on the Credentials Committee, its existence becomes pointless again.

Heh. Thankfully, no.

You see, the Credentials Committee handles issues with every State delegation - and while Michigan and Florida may be the most visible problems of that type, there will be others, particularly once the Clinton campaign (followed shortly by the Obama campaign, in retaliation) gets rolling. The threshold for generating a minority report is 20%, which will be trivially easy for either campaign to get; and from my perusal of the Order of Business I can see a couple of places where the presentation of minority reports (and amendments) can be a perfect substitute for a proxy floor fight. This all takes place before the actual balloting, obviously - so even the pledged delegates aren't actually under any sort of obligation to vote a particular way. And that's not even bringing up the Rules Committee, which has its own set of shenanigans.

I have to say, this is the best of both worlds to GOP political junkies: arcane convention trivia, coupled with nothing stopping us from cheering on them testing the whole rickety edifice to destruction. I don't know what we did to deserve this, but we're ever so grateful for it...

This Democratic Primary is made of awesome. 11 Comments (0 topical, 11 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

Barone projects that Clinton will move ahead of Obama in the popular vote, although not in pledged delgates.

Add to this unsavory mix, intends to do to Denver what they did to Seattle in 1999.

Oh, happy day!

The Obama disciples are out to get Barone. You should check out the comments, most of which insist that Obama will win NC huge, make PA into another TX and sweep MT, IN, and SD.

Barone may be a little off. But if nothing else it is a point worth making and sheds light (for those in the Democratic Party that are not blinded by the Messiah from Chicago) on the reason that Hillary is still very much in this race. Even if Barone falls short here, we can expect that Obama's popular vote margin will continue to shrink as will his delegate lead. That's not good news for Obama or the Party. Barone points out that his numbers give Clinton a miniscule popular edge percentage-wise. But the reality will be that even if Obama holds on he's looking at a margin of probably 250,000 at the most (without MI and FL - accounting for FL, which I think is fair given that both candidates were on the ballot, would give Clinton an edge), which given Barone's number of nearly 33 million votes, is only about three-quarters of one percent.

What all this does is simply expose the superdelegates to be exactly what Clinton is saying they are (and she's right) - independent judges of the candidates bound only by their own opinion of what is best for the Party and the country (at least the stilted view of the country that they have). You will see superdelegates announcing decisions on both sides and all will have a plausible and seemingly convincing justification for why the primary/caucus results "demand" or "mandate" their choices (regardless of who they are choosing), and the Party will be no closer to getting an answer. And while spectacle is amusing, I hope they alter their process for 2012 - something has to give - either the proportional system, the caucuses, the superdelegates, the allocations that allow certain areas of a state to get more delegates than others - leading to distorted results. The system they have simply cannot sustain anything other than a coronation - any real contest is beyond its capacity.

First, let me say that I did, in fact, "peruse" the document. All I can say is, "Huh?" I've seen less complicated instructions for assembling a child's Christmas present.


A former boss of mine who made no effort to disguise his very far left and anti-Bush leanings shared with me this opinion.

He stated, just after the re-election of Pres. Bush, that in a very brief summary of his statement, there would never be another Democrat president because of the fact that the conservatives and Republicans had conspired (VWRC, I guess) to create a single party country and eliminate all competition. In other words, he was convinced his party had been short shrifted and was no longer able to compete because of a conspiracy by the right.

I almost (almost) wish I was still working for this guy so I could hear his commentary on the almost daily destruction of what had appeared at one time to be an inevitable Democratic Party victory. I want to hear his spin on how the right has somehow managed to manufacture all of the problems HRC and BHO have gotten themselves into lately.

Honestly. Could we have pulled anything of this magnitude off without the complicit assistance of the MSM? Figure the odds of that.

"Government of the people, by the people, for the people."
A. Lincoln

How long before the Obama & Clinton primary battle will be blamed on a right-wing "conspiracy".


“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

I think they've pretty well established that line of thinking, just it seems not to spread much beyond the Nutroots and Olbermann. Good thing, too... I wouldn't want anybody else to catch what they've come down with.

Needless to say, with this sort of stuff on CNN every day, who needs Comedy Central?

"No matter how much lipstick you put on the taxation pig, it's still a pig... and it's currently snout-down in your wallet." - Michael Fisk

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"

"That's what credential fights are for."


I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years.

- Barack Obama, 11/04/04

We really need to get every Republican in the remaining 9 states to crossover and register lib to vote for Clinton. The stronger she is- the more damage she will wreak in Denver.

It is our best hope at strategic victory. We really need to do everything we can to save her..

Obama is Jimmy Carter- only without the sweater.

Those rules are ridiculous. They break down seats on the committee by state and then break the state's committee delegation down further by candidate.

And the "Dean appointees" are simply superdelegates and so will come with their own baggage. Since they are technically appointed by the DNC Executive Committee I guess the question to ask is, "who are the Exec Committee folks supporting these days?"

Right now, the Rules say there will be 147 members of the committee from the states, casting 144 votes (while Samoa, Guam, Dems Abroad and the VI get 1 member, they only get .25 votes). I figure, that of the 143 full voting members (from the states, DC and PR) the breakdown after all is over with be Obama 77, Clinton 64, Edwards 2 (He will hold 1 from Iowa and 1 from California). The total vote of the committee, with the DNC Exec appointments will be 169 (note, these numbers all assume that Michigan and Florida get no representation on the committee as they have no delegates. The two combined lost 14 seats - I'm not sure how they'd break out but it looks like FL lost 8 and MI 6).

The ridiculousness of proportional representation rears its head again here. Many states, especially the small caucus states, get only 1 seat on the committees. Because he won the state, Obama gets that delegate. Many other states get an even number of delegates. And while states like California, Texas and New York get multiple members (17, 9 and 11 respectively), Clinton's solid (but not overwhelming) wins don't entitle her to more than a 1 seat advantage in those delegations (she splits NY 6-5, Texas 5-4 and California 8-6 with Edwards getting 1 - though that 1 will go to Obama if the DNC decides Edwards hasn't amassed sufficient support to qualify (see the provision defining a candidate as someone who has "established substantial support" for his candidacy)). The system elevates the least populous states to a status whereby they defeat the will of larger numbers. Effectively, the candidates come out tied because Obama won Delaware by 10,000 votes (a 1 seat state) even though Clinton won California by 500,000 votes (said margin being insufficient to win more than 1 extra seat).

The rules make me more and more inclined to the Clinton position - that the delegate count is an inherently flawed way to measure popularity (the delegate count is the same dynamic with larger numbers) because 2 big wins in the very populous states of California and Ohio get drowned out by significantly smaller (vote-total-wise) wins in tiny states like Idaho and North Dakota. If the Democrats are going to use a fairly idiotic proportional system they should also have done away with caucuses long ago (since they only serve to further obscure the true preferences of people and work to skew the process). Would Clinton have won a primary in, say, Idaho - probably not, but I'd guess that the result wouldn't have been quite as lopsided had there been a vote rather than a caucus, and that could have ever so slightly reduced the delegate margins Obama was accumulating in those states, which could have us talking a whole other game right now.

We don't really need to figure out how the libs can improve their system. We really at this point need to simply focusing on voting for and supporting Hillary in the next 9 elections and getting her to the Convention. If that happens, I think we will win in November.

Obama is Jimmy Carter- only without the sweater.

Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)

©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service