I actually think it’s a good argument to make. For example, to make the point irt the caucus vs. primary difference in TX, the Hillary camp could say: “We won the primary and congratulations to Obama for his victory in the caucus. He does do well in caucuses but when it comes to the general election IT’S NOT A CAUCUS. We need a candidate that can bring home the big states and that’s who I am”

Then the Dem party needs to have their back room meeting to convince the two of them that a Clinton/Obama ticket is in the best interest of the party for the nexrt “16yrs”… I’m actually a bit vested (selfishly) in the hope for this to go to the Nat’l convention because I’m a Dem delegate and I think I can make it all the way to Denver. My next caucus is April 5th. On a less selfish tone I hope they resolve it by the end of April.

I had actually been hoping she would acknowledge the possibility that she would take Obama as a running mate many months ago because some Dem’s are voting for Oabma because they don’t want to lose his charismatic abilities. At our first WA caucus that very point was raised by Obama supporters. If Hillary had stated (prior to our caucus) that she would take him as her running mate many of those Obama supporters admitted they would have caucused for her. Thankfully, I do believe we are on course for a Clinton/Obama ticket, it’s just a matter of time. Hopefully…

Watch who you tell to step up and fuck off.

Or you’ll do what exactly?

(Did someone just get up the wrong side of the bed today?)

why else would you bring it up?

look, that post wasn’t especially directed at you (i don’t peg you as an obama fluffer), but i’m not sure why you seem to be stepping into the group of people to which it was directed.

oh jamie beth, was I addressing you?

Matt and SB ask a lot more from their readers than most blogs and if you think longevity will get you anywhere, you haven’t been paying attention!

I wasn’t demanding consideration based on longevity. I guess your reading comprehension isn’t so hot either.

Matt and SB ask a lot more from their readers than most blogs and if you think longevity will get you anywhere, you haven’t been paying attention!

I didn’t say you did. How about it’s also not a given? Better?

Check my IP. I’ve been reading this site for a long time and only recently decided to start commenting. Watch who you tell to step up and fuck off.

… but it’s not a given that Obama deserves the support of the so-called “super delegates” and should win the nomination on that basis.

Nobody around here has ever suggested that. Stick to things we say, or that someone has brought up in a previous comment.

That may be a given but it’s not a given that Obama deserves the support of the so-called “super delegates” and should win the nomination on that basis. He still has to convince your party that you are the best nominee and Obama hasn’t made that case.

I reject this analysis on a few bases. The ratio of popular vote to pledged delegates is irrelevant if the premise is that both are needed for an incontrovertible win.

That may be your premise; it certainly isn’t mine.

Your argument is that Clinton’s 17 million voters beat Obama’s 11 victories in a row that put him in the delegate lead simply because Clinton happened to win in one larger state.

Nonsense! I did not suggest any such thing.

What I’m saying is very simple:
1) Both the pledged delegate counts and popular vote totals are meaningful and relevant. (I’m not saying either one trumps the other.)
2) This is going to come down to the superdelegates.
3) It’s a given that Obama will win the pledged delegate count. If Clinton wins the aggregate popular vote, that gives her a leg to stand on in the battle for superdelegates. That battle will get much more complicated/interesting/unpredictable.

Unless you buy into the Clinton claim that caucuses are meaningless, the margins have meaning: margins in caucuses reflect popular support. Not in terms of raw numbers, but in terms of enthusiasm. Intensity of support matters, because turnout, not registration, is what determines the outcome on election day. That is a metric that super-delegates will value. While winning a caucus may not add much to your total in the popular vote, caucus wins by large margins show mobilization and organizational strength as well as voter enthusiasm.

Moreover, some states are of larger population that others. But just as we have a Senate that has Senators allocated on an equal basis to offset the proportional reward of Representatives in the House, we have delegate allocations systems that grant more delegates to large states, but not one delegate per every voter who arrives at the polls, because then large states would render the votes of smaller states irrelevant, and the nomination process would not take into consideration the voices of party members across the nation. The goal is to assemble a coalition around the nation by garnering a simply majority of delegates, not simply to win the biggest states and claim larger populations should outweigh smaller populations. That defeats the point of having a delegate system that calibrates the vote weights, much as making the Senate proportional would skew Congress toward the power of big states, rendering small states powerless and defeating the point of having a United States. So arguing pure population makes no sense. Again, the way to fairly evaluate this is the ratio of the popular vote in each state on a state by state basis. So Clinton’s 10-point margin is impressive and deserves credit. But it shouldn’t outweigh Obama’s 17-point margin in Wisconsin simply because Ohio has a larger population. The balance for that is the fact that Ohio has more delegates because of its larger population. Counting Ohio’s population separate from the delegates awarded distorts the balance already made and is a self-serving attempt to erase the value of Obama’s margins in smaller states. To claim this isn’t simply cooking the books is a lie.

To see why, let’s pretend that Ohio was unusually large and that Clinton won 17 million voters there and 10 net delegates. Then let’s pretend that Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Guam, North Carolina, Indiana, West Virginia, Oregon, Kentucky, Montana, South Dakota, and Puerto Rico all were primaries with 2 million voters in them sum total and Obama won them all 52%-48%, netting 12 delegates. Your argument is that Clinton’s 17 million voters beat Obama’s 11 victories in a row that put him in the delegate lead simply because Clinton happened to win in one larger state. You can say “Caucuses are undemocratic,” but my point is that your argument works in principle against primaries in states with lower populations. It’s simply a disenfranchising argument designed to rewrite the balance set by the DNC in having primaries and caucuses that award delegates to show a variety of metrics. Reducing it to the popular vote just rewards whoever won the biggest states. That’s changing the rules after the fact. That’s cheating. If the party wanted a pure national primary, they’d just have one election day on which everyone in the party votes. That didn’t happen.