Here's the classic quote from the Clinton campaign's Chief Strategist, Mark Penn:
Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn't won any of the significant states -- outside of Illinois? That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama.
That's right, my fellow Virginians, we are NOT a "significant" state, lumped in with all the other states ("outside of Illinois") Barack Obama won that are now, magically, reduced to insignificance by the brilliance and power of Mark Penn! True, we have the 12th largest population (7.7 million) of any state in the country. True, we have the 12th largest economy in the country. True, we are the "birthplace of presidents." And true, we are a crucial "swing state" that could determine the presidential election this November. But, sigh, despite all that, Mark Penn says we are not "significant." And he must know, because he's an expert in, uh...
Actually, Penn's quote is ironic, given that he's the author of the book Microtrends, which "shows how a mere one percent of the American public, or 3 million people, can create a "microtrend" capable of launching a major business or even a new cultural movement, changing commercial, political and social landscapes." Hmmm...new cultural movement...changing political landscapes...which Democratic presidential candidate could that analysis apply to? Gee, I dunno, I'm stumped. Can I get a lifeline? Heh.
Oh, by the way, of the 11 states ahead of Virginia in population, so far Barack Obama has won 2 states (Georgia and Illinois) and Hillary Clinton has won 2 states (New York and California). There's also Florida, which candidates were forbidden to campaign in, but which Clinton kinda sorta "won." And there's Michigan, where Clinton was the only name on the ballot (Barack Obama's and John Edwards' names weren't there per DNC rules), so Clinton "won" over "uncommitted." Other states that Obama won, like Washington, Missouri, and Maryland? Not "significant," according to Mark Penn. Just like Virginia. And here I thought we were getting somewhere in the world...
P.S. In Microtrends, Penn asks, "Could 8 million people swing a presidential election?" His answer: "You bet." Maybe Mark Penn should read his own book?
UPDATE: Perhaps this is why Mark Penn wants to write off Virginia as not "significant?"
Virginia's results raise the prospect that a state which only a year ago saw legislators approve a resolution to apologize for slavery has become a tipping point for the first black major-party presidential nominee in U.S. history.
Whoever wins PA will indeed gain a major boost, not just in delegates but in legitimacy, but I don't think it's fair to call it a "mega swing state."
This discussion fascinates me on a number of levels. Yes Hillary has won mostly narrow victories in typically blue states (the states that Gore and Kerry won in the general) and she has gotten her ass handed to her in nearly every red state. To me this is the most significant sign of weakness in this race. Obama has run well in blue states and will carry them by a large margin come election day, and he's broken 60 in states that Gore and Kerry proved you need at least a few to win. The fact that Senator Clinton can't motivate at least 40% of her OWN PARTY to get out there and vote for her in these states does not bode well for her in a general election.
To save the party?
This is a deeply undemocratic sentiment, and I find it surprising that it is coming from you, Ben.
And I am also telling you this: if at the convention we enter with a slight advantage of delegates for Obama, but Hillary wins the nomination, this act from the establishment will destroy the party.
The party base would not unite behind Hillary Clinton if she got nominated that way and huge numbers of Democrats would sooner write in 'Mickey Mouse' than support such a candidacy.
I really do think that this whole super delegate fear is ill-founded. The super delegates are just not that stupid. In this 2-way race with a pair of very credible candidates, they will ratify whoever has a majority of pledged delegates.
Look, Penn's comment was idiotic on so many levels, I'm not going to try to defend it.
But I am a bit confused about the overall attitude toward the whole superdelegate issue.
Everyone knew about the superdelegates when the process started. Everyone thought that the purpose of the superdelegates was for them to exercise their own judgment independent of the choices that voters might have made in the primaries and caucuses.
Every candidate presumably relied upon these rules.
It seems to me that it has been a part of Clinton's strategy to rely upon these superdelegates to get her the nomination. Perhaps she doesn't put as much effort into some of the smaller caucus states where Obama cleaned up on delegates because her strategy, in reliance upon the rules that everyone knew were there and which everyone accepted, was to spend her time wooing superdelegates, where she was stronger.
Now, it seems, some folks want to change the rules mid-game. Now, the superdelegates ought simply follow the lead of the pledged delegates.
On the most basic level of what is democratic, I agree with this. I am as bothered by anyone with the prospect of a candidate emerging from secret negotiations in the back room. So, maybe a change in the rules of the game at this point is warranted because it leads to a greater good -- a more democratic process.
But then I think about the attitude some of had toward the Florida and Michigan delegations. I have agreed with their view that these delegations ought not to be seated because the party set rules to which everyone agreed, and the rules should not be changed in the middle of the game.
But isn't seating those delegations also the greater good, because it ensures that millions of democrats residing in those states gets a voice. True, no one campaigned there, but people still came out to vote! Yet, for the sake of rules, we are willing to allow the party to disenfranchise the Florida and Michigan democrats.
Can it be both ways? Are we to follow the rules when Obama benefits, but when Hillary Clinton seeks to use those same rules, we scream bloody murder that it will destroy the Democratic Party for a generation!
Am I the only one to see a little bit of inconsistency here?
My point is that Clinton, it seems, relied upon a set of rules in planning her strategy -- the rules that said superdelegates were not bound by anything except their own judgments.
But you seem to be suggesting, now, that that rule must be changed, if not de jure, certainly de facto, and that superdelegates must follow the lead of the pledged delegates.
So, for that reason, among others, I would argue that superdelegates ought not overturn the clear will of the voters because it would cleave the party. I don't think they will, and I don't think, should Obama have a clear lead in pledged delegates, that Clinton would try. At least, I hope she wouldn't.
But I also think there is an element of the rules being changed mid-game on her. When Clinton says her strategy is to go after superdelegates, it isn't immoral or evil -- she is simply pursuing the nomination according to the rules she was given at the start.
I see the Obama argument, and I am in agreement with it overall, because I happen to believe voters ought to control the process, and, on a more practical level, if Clinton has to take one for the good of party unity, then she has to. I'll have a day of being ticked off, and I'll move on.
So, I think the whole idea of superdelegates is a bad one. But it also seems like just another instance of the Clinton Rules in operation to me.
By the way, this whole "Clinton Rules" thing, this presumption that the Clintons are always poor victims of some conspiracy or other, is really getting old. Those poor, poor Clintons, why is everyone so darned MEAN to them? **snark**
...the Boston Globe today reports that Clinton is determined to "take the Democratic nomination even if she does not win the popular vote" with a plan to "persuade enough superdelegates to vote for her at the convention." Clinton "will not concede the race to Obama if he wins a greater number of pledged delegates by the end of the primary season, and will count on the 796 elected officials and party bigwigs to put her over the top, if necessary, said Clinton's communications director, Howard Wolfson."So that's the coordinated message: If democracy has been allowed to be trampled in the past, then we should all sit back and be fine with democracy being trampled now...as long as it is trampled in defense of the Clintons.
That would be the end of the Democratic Party.
Leaving aside MI and FL for the moment, what if Obama has a small edge in the number of delegates, but Clinton holds an edge in total votes?
What if total votes are about equal, but Clinton holds an edge in primary, as opposed to caucus, votes?
Should it simply be delegates, and delegates alone that count? Maybe, but why. Delegates get apportioned by some super-secret formula that requires a six protractors and a slide rule to figure out.
I mean, to get silly about it, I have seen Obama people arguing that they have won the greater number of states. What possible meaning could this have?
Perhaps we should look at land area, or the number of Starbucks in each CD won by Clinton or Obama.
If Obama winds up with a clear and unambiguous lead in Delegates and total vote (and I'm not sure where that line is -- I hope I'll know it when I see it), then I fully expect Clinton will cut some sort of deal and step aside. It would nt serve her interest or that of her husband to pursue a course of action that would destroy the party.
But if these matters are close, then I think everyone should keep an open mind. I mean, if each ends up with about 15 million democratic votes, I'm not sure why it is any more valid to disappoint the 15 million who voted for Clinton. The only argument I've heard so far is that Obama supporters will be much more angry.
And I know Lowell is tired about hearing about the Clinton Rules, but consider -- folks are now getting worked up into a lather over something that has not occurred, and may never occur, but has somehow transformed itself further evidence of Hillary Clinton's evil and nefarious nature.
It has nothing to do with Hillary; it is all about the unfairness of the process.
I heard on the radio that one superdelegate vote is equivalent to thousands of primary votes. This shouldn't be the case.
One person, one vote.
It would put Clinton at a serious disadvantage going into the general election, and she's going to have enough trouble with independents as is. Then again, McCain is trying to throw away his advantage there, what with his pandering to the neanderthals on torture. Still, we don't need to go out of our way to make it easier for them.
Someone called it correctly recently when he said Mark Penn's "micro-trends" pseudo science was B.S. statistical and sociological research.
He's also a loser in Democratic primaries. The amazing thing is that this a##hole will get paid $5 million this year, yet he doesn't have the intelligence to advise his client that maybe she should be investing some of her money in field offices.
What a waste.
"But Clinton will not concede the race to Obama if he wins a greater number of pledged delegates by the end of the primary season, and will count on the 796 elected officials and party bigwigs to put her over the top, if necessary, said Clinton's communications director, Howard Wolfson."
She'd run this to the convention and count on super delegates to vote for her despite the primary results? We know at least one in VA, J. McClellan, plans to vote for her even though she lost in VA in a landslide, and another one says he'll wait until after March 4 to see the results there.
I also saw this morning at dkos that the DNC is bending from pressure to seat Florida and Michigan. If she wins the primary contests with pledged delegates, fine. She wins. But if the rest of this happens to "make" her win, that would be a huge problem in the Dem Party.
It's perfectly clear to a Clinton:They want the MI and FL delegates to count toward how many they have earned, but not toward how many are required for the nomination.
And as Chris Bowers writes:
If a campaign is consistently pushing for Florida and Michigan to count, then perhaps they should start using the magic number with both Michigan and Florida included: 2,208.
So confusing, the never-ending spin must be making the Clinton campaign dizzy or something.
Mark Penn and his fat mouth not being exactly handy for a teeth-kicking at just this moment, I'll have to settle to sending another $10 to the Obama campaign before I finish my coffee here.
Remember where this got us last time?????