The Rules of the Game

Chris Bowers is outraged by the prospect of superdelegates determining the winner of the Democratic primary. Kevin Drum is blasé. I'll take a middle ground view -- I think Chris is right to think it'd be a pretty bitter pill to swallow if that's how things shake out, but the controlling principle here is that "the rules are the rules." The superdelegates business, which seems to favor Clinton, is just the flipside of things like the Michigan/Florida exclusion or the weird rules that let Obama win Nevada even while Clinton had many more votes -- there's a lot of oddness in the nominating system and there's no point of plucking out any particular feature and slamming it as unfair as the process unfolds.

Conversely, this stuff gets tweaked every cycle. The Democrats have had this dumb superdelegate thing in there for a couple of decades now with people mostly not focusing on it because it never comes into play. Well, now it might come into play and it doesn't sit well with people. They ought to ditch the rule going forward.

Comments

Well, let's see, prior to yesterday's big set of Obama victories, he'd been averaging about 35% of the non-black vote...

And across his victories of Louisiana, Washington, and Nebraska, he got...a little over 35% of the non-black vote once again! Do I detect a pattern here? It's also "interesting" that---as usual---he did so enormously much worse in the state with the large secret-ballot primary than in the other states with the tiny, unrepresentative Caucuses.

Here's another way to look at it, across his huge Saturday victories---and also throughout the entire campaign thus far---Obama has been consistently losing to Hillary by an average of around 30 points among non-black voters.

If Obama---for whatever combination of reasons---consistently loses to Hillary by around 30 points among the sort of non-blacks who vote in Democratic primaries, can someone please explain to me why he'll do so enormously much better against McCain among the sort of non-blacks who do NOT vote in Democratic primaries.

...Especially once those non-Democrat-primary voters "discover" that Obama has made giving government drivers' licenses to all the illegal immigrants in America one of the major specific policy proposals of his campaign...

Hey Obamabots! Let's pretend I'm an undecided superdelegate, and give yourselves some practice.

I know that Hillary's not that great or popular a candidate. But then I look at yesterday's only primary state, Louisiana, and I notice that among non-black Democrats, Obama lost by 40(!) points to Hillary. That makes me really, really nervous. So I ask you why that happened, and what's to stop that same sort of thing from happening in November when the total national electorate will be around 90% non-black...

Posted by RKU | February 10, 2008 10:22 AM

"That makes me really, really nervous."

Nervous excitement, obviously.

Posted by Barry | February 10, 2008 10:27 AM

My personal interest lies more in what the 500 undecided superdelegates do when there is someone with a slim but consistent lead over the other but doesn't cross the "clinched it" threshhold. My guess is that they line up behind that person. My fear (regardless of selected candidate) is that if they don't, that will fuel a certain amount of outrage and unhappiness with the democratic party by members.

Posted by dbt | February 10, 2008 10:27 AM

If the superdelegates reject Obama even after he gets the most delegates, chaos will reign at the convention and Obama supporters will leave in droves choosing to either stay home or vote for McCain. Just listen to your comments. That's what we Obama supporters have been telling you. That's also what Donna Brazile also said.

I promise you African Americans will no longer vote for Democrats anymore causing the downward effect of the Democrats losing both Houses of Congress especially after seeing Hillary and Bill use the race card. Is that what you want to happen just so the Democratic elite can choose the establishment candidate Hillary Clinton instead of the hopeful, optismistic insurgent for change Barack Obama?

Posted by TLM | February 10, 2008 10:29 AM

Matt:

...there's a lot of oddness in the nominating system and there's no point of plucking out any particular feature and slamming it as unfair as the process unfolds.

Bottom line: Any candidate who wins the popular vote and the majority of delegates during the primaries but loses at the convention due to the votes of superdelegates will have zero legitimacy in the eyes of the public and will lose the general election. Let's not fool ourselves.

Posted by dolphy | February 10, 2008 10:32 AM

That makes me really, really nervous.

Polls showing that Obama is the candidate that does better against McCain, OTOH, leave you cold.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 10, 2008 10:34 AM

If Obama---for whatever combination of reasons---consistently loses to Hillary by around 30 points among the sort of non-blacks who vote in Democratic primaries, can someone please explain to me why he'll do so enormously much better against McCain among the sort of non-blacks who do NOT vote in Democratic primaries.

This is actually a really simple question.

California exit poll: Among non-black independents, Obama won 60-35

Missouri exit poll: Among white independents, Obama won 59-37.

New Hampshire exit poll: Obama won independents 40-34 (they don't have race and party status cross-tabbed because every single person in New Hampshire is white)

They don't have the same breakdowns for every state, but the pattern is quite clear. Clinton wins among white Democrats, Obama wins among white Independents. In CA, Clinton won Latino/Latina Democrats, while Obama won Latino/Latina Independents.

Obama's massive superiority among Independents is what leads people to think that he'll do better among Independents.

Posted by DivGuy | February 10, 2008 10:36 AM

Southern Whites are different, and much more racially polarized. Even there, though, Obama did quite well in the white vote in Georgia. What's different between Georgia and the other deep south states that have voted? Lots more transplants. The southern states Dems might have a chance at in the general - Virginia and North Carolina, most notably - are exactly the ones where Obama should do fine in the white vote.

At any rate, the only places where Obama has lost the white vote by these kinds of margins is in the south. He lost Massachusetts through a relatively close loss in the white vote. He lost California while probably winning (are at least essentially splitting) the white vote. Acting as though Obama's poor showing among whites in poor deep south states is somehow emblematic of a weakness among whites everywhere is silly.

Also, Obama's worse showing in the white vote in the non-southern places where that has occurred has more to do, I think, with the strong support Clinton receives from white women than from any aversion to Obama among white people. He's been winning white men consistently since Edwards dropped out.

I'm not sure how you get that he won 35% of the white vote in Washington and Nebraska, except by comparing apples (primary voters in Louisiana) and oranges (state level caucus delegates in Nebraska and Washington.

And the caucus vs. primary thing is being overplayed. There are a lot of caucuses in the great plains states and the mountain states, where Obama is strong anyway. Obama won a commanding victory in Utah's primary notably. I'm going to suggest that you don't win Utah without winning the white vote there. I think, based on the Utah model, that Obama would quite likely have won most of these caucus states even if they had been primaries.

Posted by John | February 10, 2008 10:37 AM

The super delegate rule was well-intentioned at least. The idea was that there could be a situation (and had been with Mondale) where a candidate would have a significant lead in delegates but still not a majority. The super delegates would then be able to add their votes and push the candidate over the top, thus avoiding a nasty floor fight. It sure seemed like a good idea at the time. What nobody anticipated was that two candidates would be so close that the super delegates could provide the winning margin for both candidates. Rather than doing away with the super delegates, it would be better to have a significant portion of them bound to the candidate with the most delegates. Some would say "well, why even have them at all if they no choice." But it does make a difference. They will not be able to vote for the third place candidate that is preventing the leader from having a majority. It will have the affect of accentuating the leader's lead.

Posted by fostert | February 10, 2008 10:37 AM

I think Chris is right to think it'd be a pretty bitter pill to swallow if that's how things shake out, but the controlling principle here is that "the rules are the rules."

I agree. That said, aggressively pressuring the superdelegates to reflect the will of the rank-and-file seems perfectly legitimate.

Posted by southpaw | February 10, 2008 10:40 AM

Fostert - the Mondale situation doesn't help at all. If there hadn't been any superdelegates, Mondale would have had an outright majority. The reason for superdelegates was so that party leaders got to be convention delegates.

Posted by John | February 10, 2008 10:41 AM

I know that Hillary's not that great or popular a candidate. But then I look at yesterday's only primary state, Louisiana, and I notice that among non-black Democrats, Obama lost by 40(!) points to Hillary. That makes me really, really nervous. So I ask you why that happened, and what's to stop that same sort of thing from happening in November when the total national electorate will be around 90% non-black...

The problem is that your first sentence is wrong, which impacts your entire analysis. Clinton is a strong and popular candidate, particularly with white Democratic base voters. When you add in the Bog Dog, you get an unprecedented advantage in name recognition and goodwill. Obama overcomes that with high information Dem voters and with strong support from black voters. He does better with all demos, but particularly whites, the more exposure poeple have to him. And he does better with independent whites. I really don't know why you would expect a non-trivial percentage of the Democratic base that voted for Clinton to vote for McCain over Obama in November. Do you really think that many Democrats are racist? I don't. Please explain the thought process of a middle-aged Democratic woman (the core, but not exclusive, Clinton demographic) as she pulls the lever for McCain in November....

Posted by Led | February 10, 2008 10:42 AM

Wiki:

"These comprehensive changes left some Democrats believing that the role of party leaders and elected officials had been unduly diminished, weakening the Democratic ticket. In response, the superdelegate rule was instituted after the 1980 election. Its purpose was to accord a greater role to active politicians.

Basically the point is to make sure that people committed to the institution of the Democratic Party have some non-negligible influence. That's not so crazy.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 10, 2008 10:43 AM

Yeah - it seems really odd to complain about the role of the superdelegates now. What exactly did Chris Bowers think they've been there for? Was their entire funcion just to get an all expense paid trip to the convention?

Posted by Al | February 10, 2008 10:43 AM

The Obama team and their "leaked" spreadsheet began this conversation because they decided they had the best argument going forward. More voters and delegates should determine the nomination. They made that argument because they see Obama on the winning side of that argument.

The Clinton campaign has two options: Make a better argument, or finish the primaries with the most pledged delegates & voters.

What happens if one candidate gets more votes but the other gets more delegates? Just shoot me.

Posted by swarty | February 10, 2008 10:43 AM

Seeing as how there is an easy explanation for Obama's performance among non-black voters against Clinton, the real curiosity for me is why RKU keeps coming back to this 'lets not let all those other racists prevent us from winning the nomination line'.

Let's face it. If Obama could capture over 40 percent of the non-black vote, this nomination wouldn't even be close. But if you don't understand the difference between the voting preferences of a demographic in the general and the voting preferences of white women when Hillary is an option, I begin to wonder if there may be some other factors at work...

Posted by mpowell | February 10, 2008 10:44 AM

We all collectively say:
"Obama will be the next President."

To that, Bill Clinton responds:
"This thing is the biggest fairy tale I have heard. Give me a break."

Ali Karim Bey
(Obama supporter)

Posted by Ali Karim Bey | February 10, 2008 10:44 AM

I called Bill the "Bog Dog." Obviously, a typo. An homage, if you will, to our host.

Posted by Led | February 10, 2008 10:45 AM

aggressively pressuring the superdelegates to reflect the will of the rank-and-file

Kevin also makes a good point in questioning the extent to which a caucus rflects "the will of the rank-and-file". After all, caucuses are substantially non-democratic. Democrats have been complaining about the burden on democracy if voters are required to show a picture ID to vote. But a caucus represents a much greater burden on expressing one's prefernce in candidates - after all, you've got to go and stay thre for hours, often expressing your preference in the open, etc.

Posted by Al | February 10, 2008 10:49 AM

Basically the point is to make sure that people committed to the institution of the Democratic Party have some non-negligible influence.

And primary voters and caucus-goers aren't "committed to the institution of the Democratic Party"? Most of them are Democratic Party members. Why shouldn't the nomination of the Democratic Party's presidential candidate be left up to the members of the Democratic Party?

That's not so crazy.

Crazy, no. Undemocratic, yes. The invention of superdelegates was a power play, pure and simple, designed to give party leaders back control over the machinery of the nomination process.

Posted by Christmas | February 10, 2008 10:53 AM

the real curiosity for me is why RKU keeps coming back to this 'lets not let all those other racists prevent us from winning the nomination line'.

As RKU appears to be an HRC supporter, I don't think you're reading his comment correctly.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 10, 2008 10:55 AM

I think "The Bog Dog" is a great name.

Posted by mrsaturdaypants | February 10, 2008 10:57 AM

I don't understand why ever pundit is obsessing over the superdelegates right now.
To me, the MI and FL situation is much more outrageous, and much much MUCH more potentially destructive for the party and whoever ends up the nominee.

Posted by Benjamin | February 10, 2008 11:01 AM

And ditch caucuses. Man, how awful and undemocratic. And fuck IA and NH.

Posted by Gore/Edwards 08 | February 10, 2008 11:03 AM

PS: What is outrageous is that the Clinton campaign is trying to make those results count after the fact and that somehow people are buying that transparent BS (mydd has even a delegate count on their front page that includes those delegates ! Incredible !)

Posted by Benjamin | February 10, 2008 11:05 AM

the big difference being that Hillary clinton actually had the pull within the party to change the rules when it mattered, where as Chris Bowers and your average Obama supprter NEVER had the ability to get rid of super delegates.

Every time anyone tried, the party threw a fit and swore to holy hell that they would NEVER go against the will of the people as represented by pledged delegates. The party swore that they would only ever be used to make the margin of victory seem larger for the winner, not to . The party swore that they were mostly norary titles given to ensure that party leaders show up the the

Now, when they might matter, all of the sudden everyone is pretending this hasn't been the case for years. Matt, and half the other Hillary supporters, are basically lying when they say that everyone always knew these people could chance their mind and that we should have changed the rules earlier if it mattered to us. We never have the ability to change the rules, and were told super delegates would never matter and that we were being silly EVERY time anyone ever did try and change those rules.

Posted by Soullite | February 10, 2008 11:08 AM

Kevin also makes a good point in questioning the extent to which a caucus rflects "the will of the rank-and-file". After all, caucuses are substantially non-democratic. Democrats have been complaining about the burden on democracy if voters are required to show a picture ID to vote. But a caucus represents a much greater burden on expressing one's prefernce in candidates - after all, you've got to go and stay thre for hours, often expressing your preference in the open, etc.

Look, I've said before that I don't like caucuses; they are somewhat undemocratic.

Still, I don't think there's any doubt that they're substantially more democratic than a bunch of party mandarins voting by their gut. Especially given the monster turnouts we've seen at caucuses this cycle, you have to see them as a reflection of popular will.

Posted by southpaw | February 10, 2008 11:11 AM

Matt is right. The rules are the rules. Superdelegates count. The early elections in MI/FL don't. There may be some sort of compromise to seat people from MI/FL, but it's going to be a compromise controlled by the candidate who is winning at the time of the convention. I.e., a compromise that won't actually affect the outcome of the election. That was the whole point of decredentialing MI/FL. People from those states may end up getting seated, but it is not in practice going to control the election.

Superdelegates do count. But the superdelegates *won't* in practice swing this thing for a candidate who is losing the pledged delegates. They could, of course. It would just be politically self-destructive. Superdelegates didn't get where they are by making that kind of obvious self-destructive choice.

The upshot of it all is this: there is no reason to start freaking out just yet -- because we're not going to change the rules in mid-election. We're following the rules, and the rules are clear. Chris Bowers and the people over at Open Left are just takin' too many uppers.

Posted by Ted | February 10, 2008 11:12 AM

What happens if one candidate gets more votes but the other gets more delegates?

That is the case right now. Obama has more delegates; Clinton a greater share of the popular vote (9.07M to 8.66M). Obama has been winning caucuses, with fairly low vote totals; Clinton has been winning primaries with fairly high vote totals. Washington State caucuses had a little over 30,000 participants; the Tennessee primary had something over 600,000 votes cast. Tennessee sends 68 pledged delegates to the convention; Washington State sends 78.

The more one looks at the nominating process, the worse it appears.

Posted by jim | February 10, 2008 11:15 AM

The superdelegates are going to throw the nomination, before the convention, to the candidate who polls best against McCain, unless something unusual happens.

Right now that is good news for Obama.

Here is the argument the Obama campaign won't even have to make to superdelegates:

Superdelegate: Why should I vote for Obama? Clinton beat him in Ohio

Obama Campaign: Well, Survey USA says even though Clinton beat Obama in Ohio, she loses to McCain, while Obama wins. Zogby, Rasmussen and CNN polling all have a five to seven point differential vs McCain in Obama's favor.

That is going to seem like a good argument in mid-July.

Posted by Arnold Evans | February 10, 2008 11:16 AM

Basically, you can make all these arguments you want and it doesn't matter. There's nothing any of you can say that will unite the party if super delegates pick Clinton even if Obama is in the lead. Not only will Clinton be unelectable at that point, she will have no black support, little male support and independents will look at her as a cheater.

Good luck EVER convincing the black community that it wasn't a conspiracy to deprive Barack Obama of the presidency. Mosatly because, you know, 500 party officials meeting in a back room and siding against the black guy with the most voters would actually be a conspiracy to block Obama.

And yes, Super delegates are less Democratic than caucuses. A caucus is a type of election specifically meant to determine who will run for President. No matter what the flaws of that process, it is inherently less Democratic than allowing someone who was elected for a totally unrelated duty to pick a President.

Posted by Soullite | February 10, 2008 11:17 AM

Obviously a nominating process that gives undue weight and influence to Iowa and New Hampshire and to whomever can raise the most money is not "democratic" in any meaningful sense and never has been.

"The rules are the rules" may be important to insiders, those who aspire to insider status, or to those who ox would be gored should the sacred "rules" not be applied. However, to the public at large cares little for this.

Posted by Duncan Kinder | February 10, 2008 11:22 AM

What are rules for?

Do you think the candidates would have agreed to follow the DNC rules if they had known that they would be broken months later?!

My God, what do you think the Clintons would be like when confronted with other kinds of rules... constitution? Change it?!

I'm sorry but they (Clintons) do not think that the rules apply to them.

In addition, why isn't Iowa and NH upset? She (Hillary) deliberately lied to them and now when it is to her advantage she could care less about them. Don''t you see a pattern here? This forshadows what a Clinton Presidency would be like.

Posted by B | February 10, 2008 11:23 AM

Well, I think part of the question is the relative extent to which primaries and caucuses are accurate indications of the likely November vote.

For example, about 350K Democrats voted in the Louisiana primary, a 40% turnout relative to the 2004 Democratic vote. Obama lost the non-black vote to Hillary by FORTY points.

On the other hand, 32K Democrats voted in the Washington State Caucus, a 2% turnout relative to the 2004 Democratic vote. Obama won the non-black vote by a landslide.

Personally, I tend to put much more confidence in the predictive results of a 40% turnout than a 2% turnout...

Posted by RKU | February 10, 2008 11:26 AM

"There may be some sort of compromise to seat people from MI/FL, but it's going to be a compromise controlled by the candidate who is winning at the time of the convention. I.e., a compromise that won't actually affect the outcome of the election. That was the whole point of decredentialing MI/FL. People from those states may end up getting seated, but it is not in practice going to control the election."

Yup.

Posted by Petey | February 10, 2008 11:27 AM

Okay, let's break this down a bit. Obama now has a lead in committed delegates of about 60. Scenarios:

(1) He continues to pad that lead in the next few days, to, say, 200 delegates. He uses that momentum to do unexpectedly well in Ohio, Texas and PA, and ends up going into the convention with a lead of at least 200, maybe more.

(2) Hillary's firewall works, but not quite to the extent she hoped. Obama goes to the convention with a lead of around 50 in committed delegates.

(3) The firewall works. The candidates go in to the convention with a virtual tie, or Hillary even has the lead.

Now I assume we can agree that Hillary wins with #3, and I assume no one has a big problem with that. In scenario #1, I think Obama would clearly win, so there would be no issue (if he didn't, I think some of the more dire predictions above would come true, and understandably so).

So I guess it's really scenario #2 which concerns. I assume Clinton would probably win then. Honest question - would people REALLY be outraged at that scenario? 60 delegates out of over 4000 isn't a huge gap (and remember, Michigan and Florida voters don't have a voice, albeit for understandable reasons), and if Obama can't extend his lead over the rest of the primary season, that would seem to undermine his claim to be the clear to choice to some extent.

Posted by LarryM | February 10, 2008 11:31 AM

LarryM: Yes. People were outraged in 1984, and the supere delegate backed the person with the most delegates.
A note to people claiming Hillary 'won the popular vote'. This is not a statement that can be made with any level of intellectual honesty. As 'popular vote' consist almost entirely of votes made in primaries, and excludes the vast majority of caucus votes, you are using a number that is known to be inaccurate. As Clinton has done better in primaries, only including totals from primaries artificially lowers the popular support of Barack Obama.

spin is kind of pathetic when normal people do it. When pols do it, it's their job. When normal people do it, they are simply dishonest, lying hacks.

Posted by Soullite | February 10, 2008 11:42 AM

Washington State caucuses had a little over 30,000 participants

As I understand it, this is completely wrong. There were 30,000 state delegates selected at the Washington caucuses yesterday. There were considerably more actual caucus participants.

Posted by John | February 10, 2008 11:43 AM

This idea that Obama can't win whites is lame, but it's also not supported by the facts. He won the primaries in Connecticut and Utah, both heavily white states; he won in Missouri, which is not a black dominated state; he won the white vote (not just white men) in New Mexico and California; he won it in his home state of Illinois; and since Edwards dropped out, he's mostly winning white men across the board whereas Hillary's wins of the white vote are mostly coming on the back of extremely strong support amongst white women. And that's not counting his caucus victories, which certain people have determined shouldn't really count -- though I see no reason to think Obama would've lost popular vote primary elections in Minnesota, North Dakota, Kansas, and Washington (where he's had a consistent lead in polls outside of the caucus).

So yeah, that little tangent should hopefully be done with.

As to the main point of the thread... I'm fine with having superdelegates as part of the nomination process, even though I think there's a fairly good chance they'll throw the election to the candidate other than the one I support. But regardless of how one feels about them, that's a debate for future primaries, not this one -- here, they've been part of the rules from the start and I agree that just like with the Nevada at large caucuses and the Florida/Michigan debacles, you don't change the rules in the middle of the game.

Posted by jbryan | February 10, 2008 11:45 AM

The Superdelegates should follow the popular vote, the leader in delegates. What the nominee would gain in the nomination, they would lose in momentum and legitimacy, and forever have to fight to maintain. Just look at Bush: he won in 2000, but so brutally exploited the technicalities of the system that only 9/11 kept him from being a one term lame-duck. Even after that, it's continually undermined the perceived legitimacy of his administration.

As a practical matter, it's better to lose gracefully than to signal a willingness to deny the public's sovereignty over their being given power.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty | February 10, 2008 11:45 AM

Couple of misperceptions to correct:

Washington State elected 21,000 DELEGATES to their county conventions. We had over 200,000! citizens actually caucusing yesterday. It was double the number of four years ago. It was the first time caucusing for me and it was an amazing event that brought our community together, even over our differences between Hillary and Barack. Wonderful process.

And yes, maybe right now you can see the demographic differences between Hillary and Barack's supporters, but come November Democrats will rally behind either candidate, and with Barack, independents and even Republicans will rally behind him. Nothing unites like the fail policies of the Bush administration -- failed policies that Sen. McCain promises to continue.

Fired up and ready to go!

Posted by John Washington State | February 10, 2008 11:49 AM

Couple of misperceptions to correct:

Washington State elected 21,000 DELEGATES to their county conventions. We had over 200,000! citizens actually caucusing yesterday. It was double the number of four years ago. It was the first time caucusing for me and it was an amazing event that brought our community together, even over our differences between Hillary and Barack. Wonderful process.

And yes, maybe right now you can see the demographic differences between Hillary and Barack's supporters, but come November Democrats will rally behind either candidate, and with Barack, independents and even Republicans will rally behind him. Nothing unites like the fail policies of the Bush administration -- failed policies that Sen. McCain promises to continue.

Fired up and ready to go!

Posted by John Washington State | February 10, 2008 11:49 AM

"The Superdelegates should follow the popular vote, the leader in delegates."

If Clinton does well in PA, OH, and TX, the leader in the popular vote and the leader in delegates could well be different candidates.

Posted by Petey | February 10, 2008 11:50 AM

The super delegates are members of their state delegation and vote with their state at the convention.

So the question Obama people are asking is if the super delegates should just vote with whoever gets the most delegates or should they vote their conscience.

I think they should be allowed to do either. If they think that that it is more important to follow the delegate lead then Kerry and Kennedy along with all the other super delegates from MA, NY, CA, FL, MI, etc. should vote for Clinton.

(Please note that while the pledged delegates from MI and FL may or may not have a vote, the super delegates from those states certainly will. Nothing in the DLC rule book prevents them from being seated.)

Either way Clinton will probably win and win with a comfortable margin of victory.

Posted by uncle anon | February 10, 2008 11:54 AM

Chris Bowers and the people over at Open Left are just takin' too many uppers.

They do get a little worked up over there. Let's see how things look in June or July, and if one candidate or the other has an advantage against McCain, I'll be really pissed if the super-delegates pick the wrong one.

Posted by MikeKC | February 10, 2008 11:56 AM

John Washington State:

You're completely correct---my mistake. I just carelessly used the only CNN numbers displayed without examining the heading. My apologies!

That would raise the Washington State turnout to about 14% of the 2004 Democratic vote...

Posted by RKU | February 10, 2008 12:04 PM

If Clinton does well in PA, OH, and TX, the leader in the popular vote and the leader in delegates could well be different candidates.

Yup. It's all in the game. As I see it, the campaigns can argue for one of four bases of decision:

1. Arbitrary/self-interest -- seems to favor Clinton for now; although if Obama sweeps February, that may change.

2. Leader among pledged delegates -- favors Obama.

3. Leader within each superdelegate's constituency (provided the superdelegate has a constituency to consult) -- favors Obama, I think (although it gives Clinton bragging rights when Kerry and Kennedy have to vote for her).

4. Leader in popular vote -- slightly favors Clinton if she meets expectations in TX, OH, PA.

Posted by southpaw | February 10, 2008 12:09 PM

A major unknown:

Have a lot of Republicans been voting for Obama, as well as pretending to prefer him to all others (including McCain) in opinion polls, because they know this strategy offers them their only chance to beat the Democrats in November?

I don't know the answer to this, and have not seen good data. Yet, it is a key question.

Posted by Jason | February 10, 2008 12:10 PM

Have a lot of Republicans been voting for Obama, as well as pretending to prefer him to all others (including McCain) in opinion polls, because they know this strategy offers them their only chance to beat the Democrats in November?

A better question is whether aliens from space are influencing the outcomes of the caucuses in the mountain west states. As everyone knows, aliens are notoriously anti-mandate. In fact, are we even sure the white "people" in those states are not, in fact, aliens from space? I mean, has anyone ever really met a person from Idaho?

Posted by Tinfoil | February 10, 2008 12:22 PM

An even better question is what the hell are you smoking and do you have more?

Posted by southpaw | February 10, 2008 12:29 PM

I mean, has anyone ever really met a person from Idaho?

I met someone who said they were from Idaho and they told me there really wasn't a "Wyoming". It's a conspiracy to cover up the fact that there is a massive square hole in the United states that leads to the Earth's core.

Posted by Ed Marshall | February 10, 2008 12:46 PM

I don't know the answer to this, and have not seen good data. Yet, it is a key question.

I call this the audacity of stupid.

Posted by blindjoedeath | February 10, 2008 12:47 PM

I'll admit my Obama bias up front. But I do think there's a distinction between superdelegates and other anomalies, such as awarding delegates by popular vote within district rather than raw popular vote total numbers. The superdelegates, in my view, have their role in cases where no one can claim a majority of the votes -- think three or four person races. If Obama had, say, 36 percent, Hillary 35, and Edwards 29 going into the convention, I could see superdelegates having a role in going for Hillary based on some rationale regarding the feneral election. But by the time of the convention there will have been 44 head to head Hillary v. Obama contests, not counting DC, Puerto Rico, and other territories. When voters are given 44 head to head contests it would be appalling if the one who emerged with the most states, the most delegates derived from the elections, and the most popular votes were to be stripped of the nomination by the supers. This is true even if either Obama or Hillary is up by only 100 delegates and one or two percent of popular votes.

Does anyone seriously disagree?

Posted by RaymondA | February 10, 2008 12:48 PM

To extend upon my earlier remarks, and perhaps provide some clarification -

I was hasty (at least) to conclude that Clinton would win if Obama "only" has a lead in committed delegates in the 50-60 range. I think that that's far from a sure thing.

I think there is plenty of reason to believe that the vast majority of the super delegates want to avoid a situation where it is perceived that they are choosing the candidate with fewer committed delegates. The fact that most of the super delegates have yet to announce a preference IMO supports this belief.

There are, I think, two areas of concern. Firstly, what happens if one candidate goes in with a very small lead - say, 10 to 20 committed delegates? Then I think the chance of the candidate with fewer delegates getting selected increases. Say Hillary is down 20. She will be able to make a convincing argument that she has momentum on her side (since she will have narrowed the gap significantly from what it will be after next Tuesday), and she can point to the "disenfranchised" Michigan and Florida voters. To ask another version of my previous question, would THIS provoke the kind of outrage displayed above? How about if Obama led by 10? 5? 1?

But more to the point (and I'm surprised I haven't seen this discussed at greater length. Assume a gap of, say, 100 committed delegates. Assume an even break, more or less, in the super delegates. By my calculation, that will leave the first ballot leader about 130 short of the necessary votes - because of the absence of the Michigan and Florida delegates. Obviously not an issue if Clinton is the leader in committed delegates (because the Florida and Michigan delegates will be seated). And not an issue if Obama is ahead by more than about 200 committed delegates (same thing; he could then afford to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates). But if Obama leads by less, then there is no first ballot winner. What then? My guess is that on the second ballot people switch to the leader. But that's far from certain.

Posted by LarryM | February 10, 2008 12:52 PM

One more thought. Precisely because as one commenter above noted, there is, right now, now way of being certain who would benefit from a nonarbitrary rubric like most pledged delegates or most popular votes, now would be the time for Dean -- if he had any ability to be treated as a fair mediator -- to work with the campaigns to get a commitment as to a means of deciding the race without reference to the superdelegates. I am reminded of Rawls' veil of ignorance. The Obama people are sufficiently unsure of how the popular vote will go in TX, OH, and PA -- and the Clintons must be unsure of that as well as pledged delegate totals. So a deal whereby each decided to abide by a formula such as this one, might avoid a disastrous convention and the disastrous prospect that we are not running against McCain but each other in the summer of this ear.

Clinton and Obama agree to the following: Michigan and Florida delegates are awarded, in proportion, to the popular votes cast in non-caucus states. Those delegates so apportioned are deemed the equivalent of pledged delegates. Then the person with the most pledged delegates is treated as the winner by the other candidate, who withdraws after the June 7 Puerto Rico caucus.

This is a fair compromise, because Hillary's folks have whined about caucuses being less democratic than primaries, and Obama's people have correctly stated that it would be a travesty to seat the Mich and Fla delegations when all sides agreed not to campaign or participate in those states.

I have no idea whether this would favor Hillary over Barack, but that's the point. If they both agreed now, they could both plot their electoral and delegate strategies according to an objective set of criteria, with a guarantee that there'd be no bitter summer insider fight over superdelegates.

Posted by RaymondA | February 10, 2008 12:58 PM

"I met someone who said they were from Idaho and they told me there really wasn't a "Wyoming". It's a conspiracy to cover up the fact that there is a massive square hole in the United states that leads to the Earth's core."

Untrue!

It's all a relic from the days of the cold war. To cut down on the costs of maintaining ICBM's, we invented a number of states like "Idaho", "Wyoming", and "North Dakota" where we told the Soviets that the imaginary ICBM's were located. It was all about deterrence on the cheap.

After the Berlin Wall fell, Washington decided it was easier to maintain the fiction than to admit the deception to the American public.

Posted by Petey | February 10, 2008 12:59 PM

I can't possibly see the justice in giving weight to the popular vote across all states when some states have caucuses and some primaries.

You will be changing the rules in midstream against all the democratic voters in the caucus states.

Think of it this way. A caucus is a sampling survey vs. the primary being a census. You can legitimately compare the results of the two and argue which is a better indicator of opinion *within a single group* to gauge the true opinion. Thus, the arguments that caucuses or primaries are "more democratic."

However, if you are trying to divine the opinion of a group that is measured in subsets, where one subset uses a sampling survey and the other a census, it is not logical to simply count up the number of participants in each subset and announce the result.

If you do, the number of sampled people will be mere noise in the number of the census so the opinion of that subset will have no real voice.

Again, one can argue which approach (caucus/sample vs. primary/census) better captures the views of the group and is more "democratic" but you can't merely count up the participants and weigh them accordingly.

Posted by jehrler | February 10, 2008 1:09 PM

RaymondA,

Well, if we use your idea of apportioning FL and MI delegates based on popular vote in primary states, you avoid my concern of under representing democrats in caucus states by eliminating their voices entirely!

Why should primary voters in NY or IL voters get *extra* representation via the MI/FL apportionment vis-a-vis we caucus goers out in MN?

It seems to me that a better Rawlsian solution would allocate these delegates in exactly the same proportion as the apportionment of committed delegates because such an apportionment methodology was explicitly agreed to by both candidates at the beginning of the race.

At that time, neither Clinton nor Obama (nor Edwards, Dodd, Richardson, Biden, Kucinich) knew whether caucuses or primaries would play to their strengths.

Posted by jehrler | February 10, 2008 1:25 PM

This isn't some abstract debating team argument.
What Kevin Drum or Matt Yglesias think about this is highly irrelevant.

Any shenanigans in the convention will destroy the Democratic party for years to come.

Posted by David | February 10, 2008 1:55 PM

Also, a correction to jim above: as I noted last night, Obama is leading in the popular vote, not Clinton. I don't know where you got your numbers from, but they're wrong.

Posted by Michael | February 10, 2008 2:05 PM

So--

If Hillary has the lead in delegates going into the convention, will the Obama Supporters just roll over and insist that all the superdelegates go for Hillary? I think not.

Likewise, the idea that superdelegates MUST vote the way their state did means Teddy, Kerry, Deval (who all support Obama) MUST vote for Hillary because Mass. did. I doubt that will happen.

I saw this morning that Hillary is ahead by 50,000 ACTUAL votes. If this is to be totally democratic, then whoever gets the most votes nationally should win. Would Obama roll over? I doubt it.

I'm really tired of this neo-republican Obama line that if my candidate looks like he might lose, we need to change the rules mid-game.
This is Rove-Baker 2000 2.0. (Remember how the Repubs were going to fight if THEY wond popular vote and lost electoral?)

This WATB routine (as Atrios would put it) is getting old. This is why as an Edwards supporter, I ended up voting for Hillary on Super Tuesday.

Matt's right. The rules are the rules. Get over it. Nobody's candidate is entitled.

Posted by twit | February 10, 2008 2:19 PM

I have another suggestion. The convention has other business besides choosing the presidential nominee; if that's all it did, there'd be no point. The convention also decides on the party's platform as well as rules for future conventions.

I think it's completely fair to make local elected officials part of the platform process. So why not say that the superdelegates can vote on all business except the nomination of the president?

Posted by Joe Buck | February 10, 2008 2:23 PM

Just for the record, if Obama goes in with a majority of delagates and Bill calls in his chips and the superdelegates annoint Hillary, I'm not just following Donna and Bowers out the door. I'll go to the other side this cycle out of spite and figure out where to start working outside the Democratic party after the election.

Posted by Ed Marshall | February 10, 2008 2:27 PM

Michael,

I got my numbers from the Green Papers. Where did you get your numbers from?

Posted by jim | February 10, 2008 2:33 PM

Ed Marshall--

What, if as I point out, it goes the other way and the Supers 'unfairly' push Obama over? Leaving then, too?

Posted by twit | February 10, 2008 2:34 PM

Superdelegates are mechanisms for control-freak Deaniac loo-zers to pollute a party that used to have principles.

Posted by daveinboca | February 10, 2008 2:42 PM

I'd sit it out if that happened.

I can't come up with a *reason* that it would happen, but if it goes down that way with Clinton the Democratic party (with all the warts I'm not naive about) has become something along the lines of the Pakistani People's Party and I don't want any part of it.

Posted by Ed Marshall | February 10, 2008 2:44 PM

There is a disconnect where people are mistaking this for a "rules" issue. This is not going to get solved by a formal rules change/compromise. It's a about bringing political pressure to bear on the superdelegates.

The supers do not vote in blocs, but the vast majority will have to respect the same basic truth: for the regular delegate outcome to get reversed at the convention will be suicide. Even if the regular delegate margin is, say, twenty. Even if it is two.

The same dynamic essentially applies to the FL/MI situation. There is no amicable outcome except to stick to the existing rules (except, possibly, a re-vote, which would be flawed in that it would have to occur by caucus).

The bottom line is that unless the outcome conforms with the pledged delegate count (excluding FL and MI), the party will dissolve. All the ink being spilled about these issues tends only to obscure that basic fact.

Posted by biwah | February 10, 2008 2:57 PM

It will be funny if the super delegates give Clinton the win even with Obama having more pledged delegates.

I wonder how the african-american community might react to it?

Posted by tg | February 10, 2008 3:02 PM

Caucuses may be less democratic, but they are more Democratic. They build community and party infrastructure, which is important in the general election.

Posted by ben | February 10, 2008 3:04 PM

WRONG WRONG WRONG, Matt. It is NOT the same.

Rules are rules, yes, no matter how stupid - and I think depriving MI and FL of delegates was stupid and unfair - but what makes Hillary's attempt to flout the rules so much worse than people griping about the unfairness of superdelegates is that she is not trying to correct the original error, the original stupid, if you will, of not letting the dems in two states have any say in the nominating process. If that were the case then she'd be pressing to have contests in those states now, or before the nomination. But she's not. She's actually trying to get the results of primaries to count, results which the voters in those states mostly understood to not count - and worse, in a state where her opponents were not on the ballot. That is not a plea for fairness or democracy that just happens to benefit her - it's blatantly solely opportunistic and UNfair.

Posted by Phoebe | February 10, 2008 3:10 PM

John in Washington State who thinks caucus are "wonderful".

Yesterday:

I had to attend a trade show in Vancouver BC, to represent my product for my best customer. Had I not done so the cost me could have been as high 5,000.00 USD/year...that's a pretty high poll tax.

Friend #1 Was sick with flu and did not attend. Should have gone though and made hundreds sick...

Friend #2 Was working her police Job, could not attend.

Friend #3 Was relocating his mother in Texas. His mother had a stroke.

That's four people who Vote and think the Washington State Democrats are smug jerks...glad your happy with it though...because it's all about you.

Posted by S Brennan | February 10, 2008 3:10 PM

To Raymond A.

I seriously disagree with your notions about superdelegates.

They have their role: it is to be delegates seperate from the pledged delegates: otherwise there would be wording tying their loyalties to the pledged totals from primaries and caucuces.

For anyone or any candidate to say superdelegates have some new obligation because obama's supporters are fervent ignores the fact that the rule or guidelines don't exist for any of these scenarios. Obama and axelrod and daschle and ploufe knew that a year and a half ago when plotting strategy. They knew that everytime they said old washington needed wholesale change (a slam at hillary but also at those who have superdelegate status). They knew they had a year to win and cajole and negotiate with superdelegates to come over red rover style.

To say superdelegates cannot flex their muscles ignores reality and the process as written. Pledged delegates are pledged.

But if Hillary or Obama says or does something really stupid on July 1st, these superdelegates can all switch and make it impossible for that candidate to win unless they have enough pledged delegates.

They really can vote as a block and lift OR ruin a candidate to or from the nomination: they gave us over 7oo of them. The process is designed to give superdelegates enormous power to effect the result.

They are a check and balance to crazy populists.

Posted by Michael C. | February 10, 2008 3:50 PM

Obama's momentum is likely to fizzle so all this is moot, or will be moot.

But just for fun, I have a question for Obama supporters: What would you propose super delegates do?

I don't think most of you have thought this through -- not unsurprisingly. (1) Stripping super delegate power would seem as arbitrary and unfair, in fact more unfair, than letting them vote. (2) If you ask them to vote with the popular vote, Clinton would likely end up ahead. But this would also seem arbitrary and unfair. (3) If you ask super delegates to vote whichever way their states voted, Clinton may still end up ahead, depending on how well she does in the bigger states ahead -- there appears to be a big-state bias in the delegate structure. But doing this would mean forcing some super delegates to go back on their word, which would also seem arbitrary and capricious.

No matter how you slice it, it doesn't make sense for you guys to be arguing any of this at this point.

I think it was messed up for Obama to float this issue around fully aware that it would incite division in the party. But not surprising, he's only concerned about winning at this point, even if that means running away from black/brown issues, running away from the base, and making idiotic statements desiged to make Reagan democrats get a fuzzy feeling in the gut. And he's the uniter, right?

Posted by Israel | February 10, 2008 4:01 PM

Obama's momentum is likely to fizzle so all this is moot, or will be moot.

But just for fun, I have a question for Obama supporters: What would you propose super delegates do?

I don't think most of you have thought this through -- not unsurprisingly. (1) Stripping super delegate power would seem as arbitrary and unfair, in fact more unfair, than letting them vote. (2) If you ask them to vote with the popular vote, Clinton would likely end up ahead. But this would also seem arbitrary and unfair. (3) If you ask super delegates to vote whichever way their states voted, Clinton may still end up ahead, depending on how well she does in the bigger states ahead -- there appears to be a big-state bias in the delegate structure. But doing this would mean forcing some super delegates to go back on their word, which would also seem arbitrary and capricious.

No matter how you slice it, it doesn't make sense for you guys to be arguing any of this at this point.

I think it was messed up for Obama to float this issue around fully aware that it would incite division in the party. But not surprising, he's only concerned about winning at this point, even if that means running away from black/brown issues, running away from the base, and making idiotic statements designed to make Reagan democrats get a fuzzy feeling in the gut. And he's the uniter, right?

Posted by Israel | February 10, 2008 4:02 PM

But just for fun, I have a question for Obama supporters: What would you propose super delegates do?

They vote for the delegate leader on June 7th.

Anything else and John McCain is the 44th President of the United States.

Posted by Ron | February 10, 2008 4:28 PM

To summarize:

If the "superdelegates" swing the nomination to the candidate with fewer pledged delegates, it wouldn't be "unfair" or against the rules. But it would be an incredibly stupid thing for them to do.

And by the way, while I would like to see Obama win, I think all that is equally true if Clinton ends up ahead in pledged delegates.

Posted by DTM | February 10, 2008 4:57 PM

Ron,

So let me see if I get this right. You want the dozens of super delegates from NY, CA, et al, whose states have gone for Clinton and whom have already committed to Clinton -- for whatever reason -- to go back on their pledges and vote differently than their states/constituents simply because you want Obama to win?

I knew you kids were rich and spoiled (I'm in my twenties by the way), but this is a little much, don't you think?

Posted by Israel | February 10, 2008 5:02 PM

The super-delegates, someone says, will go for the candidate who polls best against McCain. That is said to be Obama. But is said polling going to be done before or after the Republican attack machine gets going? Obama is, let's remember, the one candidate who has never faced a serious negative TV campaign, usually a significant measure of viability. His major political lesson apparently was losing to former Black Panther Bobby Rush.
I now hear Obama on the TV, telling us how we need to transcend the last 15(!) years of incremental politics. Does he hope to be Hugo Chavez or something? (Yes, I know the general worry on this blog is that he isn't lefty enough.)

Posted by SMcC | February 10, 2008 5:37 PM

Israel,

Apparently you are new to Democratic presidential primaries. No state "goes" to any candidate. Pledged delegates are awarded based on proportional representation. The idea that any superdelegate would desire to, let alone be compelled to, vote along en masse along lines drawn by state "victories" is, frankly, juvenile. Even strictly proportional allocation of the superdelegates by the ratio of pledged delegates is highly unlikely.

Posted by ben | February 10, 2008 5:41 PM

Ben,

An illustration of my point, and how your position is untenable. HRC won in Michael Arcuri's district (he's a NY rep in case you're a newbie -- like you so elegantly called me). Arcuri's endorsed HRC. Most of Obama supporters' solutions I;m hearing here would have Arcuri switch his vote to honor some bizarre sense of entitlement by Obama supporters. If I were Arcuri, I can't envision many scenarios in which I would acquiesce to switch my vote and turn my back on my supporters. The same principle applies to Menendez, Schumer, Spitzer, etc. That's all I'm saying here.

So yes, I'm "new to primaries," I told you I'm in my twenties, no shame there.

Posted by Israel | February 10, 2008 6:14 PM

Israel,

A very large majority of superdelegates haven't expressed a preference. Though some superdelegates have expressed a preference, they can always change your mind. Very few people know who all the superdelegates are (some superdelegates aren't even sure if they are superdelegates) and even fewer voters know how the superdelegates are voting.

Under these circumstances, superdelegates would be less concerned with any perceived backlash from their districts than any perception of unfairness that would trigger a 1968-style response. The superdelegates will vote disproportionately for the leader in pledged delegates.

Posted by ben | February 10, 2008 6:53 PM

But it's their right to vote with their constituents, if they so please. But you want to force them otherwise. That's just as tyrannical -- changing the rules mid-game to please one of the candidates.

Posted by Israel | February 10, 2008 7:29 PM

...spin is kind of pathetic when normal people do it. When pols do it, it's their job. When normal people do it, they are simply dishonest, lying hacks..

soullite - You self-awareness and honesty is admirable.

Posted by funny that | February 10, 2008 7:41 PM

What it comes down to is that since the 2000 election, Democrats have the clear knowledge that we've lived under a commander-in-thief. Will Democrats tolerate a Democrat commander-in-thief?--with a Florida delegates switcheroo for Hillary or--with a winking, sweating nod, a back room super delegates' deal, overriding the will of the grass roots? The party would, deservedly, be torn asunder. All good citizens will call, "No more theft!"

Posted by twinfern | February 10, 2008 10:14 PM

I was actually extremely positive about Democratic chances of winning the WH in '08. However, with this Super Delegate thing, the unseated delegates from MI and FL and reading all the message boards on the internet and seeing so much bad blood between Obama and Clinton supporters, I have a feeling that this primary could break the Democratic coalition. I know that is the new "meme" going around the punditocracy nowadays, but there could be some truth to it.

Frank Rich (I know HRC supporters hate him for being anti-HRC), but he has a pretty good piece in yesterday's Times that covers many aspects of the Clinton's race baiting in this election so far. As someone who is Black, let's just say that African-Americans have noticed.

But it is not just that. That is a small part of it. Obama stole and fine tuned Bill's message of hope. And I think that is really what really has the Clinton's fired up. Because in order for them to win this thing, they need to destroy hope. And in so doing, they could be doing more to turn young and excited voters away from the Democratic party and into Independents than a Ralph Nader suicide mission ever could.

Obama is not going away and nor should he. He has energized a bloc of voters like no one has ever seen in the Democratic party in ages. One thing that is particular among Democrats is that the party gatekeepers seem to have a way of dampening that enthusiam. Obama on the other hand has provided a constructive and positive way to let it loose and boy has it.

Some Obama voters would support Hillary. But I fear that some, especially the young and enthusiastic will not. And if Black voters feel aggreived because particularly of some of the Clinton campaign tactics of late, they could stay home come November. Black voters were a hugely important constituency for Bill Clinton and I really don't see how those fences could be mended at this time.

So what happens? The HRC campaign tries to win based on the old Gore/Kerry electoral map. While the Obama campaign has the prospect of potentially winning on a new electoral map for Democrats. With the seeds of the 50 state strategy bearing fruit. Of course Obama could fail spectacularly as well. But sometimes you just have to take a chance. And for all the young voters, new voters and independents losing could also serve an important lesson as well. But it is better to have tried.

Posted by Bubba | February 11, 2008 3:49 AM

re: Washington Caucus.

This caucus was totally disorganized from the onset. There is a Primary in Washington in a week. Based on the thousands of people who angrily called the Elections Board, the local news, blogged like crazy - many people did not realize that their ballot would NOT be counted by the WDC.

It will be very interesting to see the results of the primary compared to the caucus.

The caucus itself was a madhouse: Obama supporters organized, loud, fully armed with stickers, signs, pins, t-shirts; Clinton supporters bewildered at the atmosphere.

No identification is required; no proof of registration.

I managed to attend, yet three members of my family (all registered voters) could not. Some of my neighbors were on vacation, working, ill; one is in a wheelchair and did not even try to go. One neighbor is deaf, two are not secure in their command of English.

The caucus was entirely unrepresentational. And inconvenient. And an unnecessary burden, given that a primary is already established.

One man declared loudly - and proudly - that he was a registered Republican who was there only to vote against Clinton. Smug Obama supporters laughed rudely at Clinton speakers and booed the lone Edwards speaker. After the results were announced, the Obama supporters were jubilant, and crowed: "We've been practicing for a year! You can't win against us!"

A friend of mine in Colorado had the same experience. Caucus packed with young, loud, overbearing Obama believers. The Clinton supporters were at sea; one woman kept shaking her head and muttering "Last time, we had 8 people show up..." My friend reports that at her caucus it was like watching the Colorado Springs Sky Sox trying to play the NY Yankees.

If this is what has happened at other states where a caucus was held, then the results have to be totally skewed.

And you folks who are arguing that the Superdelegates should look only at 'States Won' are running the very real risk of electing McCain in November. Obama's wins in caucus states may not reflect the actual feelings of the voters.

Ignoring Clinton's double-digit wins in big states like MA, NY, NJ, TN, CA is foolhardy.

Ignoring the results in MA, after Obama was anointed by Teddy, Caroline, Kerry, the governor, the newspapers, etc. is starkly dangerous.

Posted by arborheights | February 11, 2008 10:16 AM

"And across his victories of Louisiana, Washington, and Nebraska, he got...a little over 35% of the non-black vote once again!"

According to the Nebraska state website, per the last census, Nebraska has a 4.3% Black Population. How could lose to Hillary by 30 points with Non-Blacks if Non-Blacks are %95.7 of the population? I believe the similar percentages or less of Blacks live in Maine, and North Dakota. How did you come up with that claim?

Obama has beaten Clinton by a substantial margin in states where the Black population is almost negligible. Is America holding race against Obama, as you claim, or are you?

Posted by JKW | February 12, 2008 12:44 AM

"And across his victories of Louisiana, Washington, and Nebraska, he got...a little over 35% of the non-black vote once again!"

According to the Nebraska state website, per the last census, Nebraska has a 4.3% Black Population. How could lose to Hillary by 30 points with Non-Blacks if Non-Blacks are %95.7 of the population? I believe the similar percentages or less of Blacks live in Maine, and North Dakota. How did you come up with that claim?

Obama has beaten Clinton by a substantial margin in states where the Black population is almost negligible. Is America holding race against Obama, as you claim, or are you?

Posted by JKW | February 12, 2008 12:44 AM

RKU:

"And across his victories of Louisiana, Washington, and Nebraska, he got...a little over 35% of the non-black vote once again!"

According to the Nebraska state website, per the last census, Nebraska has a 4.3% Black Population. How could lose to Hillary by 30 points with Non-Blacks if Non-Blacks are %95.7 of the population? I believe the similar percentages or less of Blacks live in Maine, and North Dakota. How did you come up with that claim?

Obama has beaten Clinton by a substantial margin in states where the Black population is almost negligible. Is America holding race against Obama, as you claim, or are you?

Posted by JKW | February 12, 2008 12:45 AM