Tonight's Big Number

Howard Wolfson, January 26:
[WOLFSON MEMO] This remains a delegate fight, with 1,681 delegates at stake on February 5th, and 2,025 needed to secure the nomination -- and we are ahead in that fight.

Howard Wolfson, February 12:
"We don't think either candidate will be able to get 2,025 delegates without the superdelegates," Wolfson said during Monday's briefing, a prediction that may come down to whether Clinton can stem Obama's February momentum by taking the majority of Texas's and Ohio's 389 delegates on March 4 (Vermont and Rhode Island also hold contests that day).

Howard Wolfson, February 13:
"Superdelegates are supposed to vote their conscience. ... That's essentially what my friend David Axelrod said on the Today show. ... No one is going to win the nomination without them. Our goal is to get to 2025 delegates. "

So Howard Wolfson waffled a bit, adding Superdelegates in there, to obviously downplay the "Pledged Delegate Leader" meme that was being cleverly spun by the Obama campaign - but thank God we settled on 2025 as the number of Delegates required.

What?

[stares]

Holy fuck.

Terry McAuliffe:
"I`ve always viewed it sort of as a 27-state contest."

Hillary Clinton: I'm in it for the long run; it's not a very long run - it'll be over by February 5th.

Special Link to that one

Mark Penn:
"States like Alabama and Georgia that did not vote Democratic in the past also do not count."

Mark Penn:
"Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn`t won any of the significant states outside of Illinois?"

And then there's caucuses don't count:

Ed Rendell:
"Old people and ship workers can`t vote in them. So, we want primaries, that`s the way we elect presidents."

And... then there's electoral vote:

Evan Bayh:
"So who carried the states with the most Electoral College votes is an important factor to consider because ultimately, that's how we choose the president of the United States."

But then there's Senator Clinton from eight years ago who disagrees:

Senator Clinton, 2000: "We are a very different country than we were 200 years ago. I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it's time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president."

Then they trotted out the popular vote metric:

Ed Rendell:
"There are 10 states left.  I think Senator Clinton's going to eat into the popular vote.  And I think if Michigan and Florida actually voted again, Senator Clinton would come out on top of the popular vote.  So I think the key is to let the party -- it's too late for the states, but let the party run the primaries in Michigan and Florida."

And we can't forget:

MR. RUSSERT: "I got a call on February 1, 2003, from Carl [Levin]" ... senator from Michigan, "[who] told me they were going to hold the Michigan primary before New Hampshire, which would have led to complete chaos. ... `If you do that, I will take away 50 percent of your delegates,' I told them. They thought I was bluffing. But it was my responsibility as chairman to take action for the good of the party, and taking away half their delegates was well within my authority. ... `You won't deny us seats at the convention,' [Levin] said. `Carl, take it to the bank.'" They'll "`not get a credential. The closest'" thing you'll "`get to Boston,'" the convention city, "`will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules.'"

MR. McAULIFFE: Yep.

MR. RUSSERT: Chairman McAuliffe.

MR. McAULIFFE: You bet.

MR. RUSSERT: So now, Chairman Dean is saying the rules are the rules.

MR. McAULIFFE: Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: Michigan broke them, they're not going to be seated. Maybe they'll get half. Would you accept that?

MR. McAULIFFE: Well, first of all, that's now out in paperback, I want you to know. But second, I would say the rule is 50 percent. That's the point I'd like to make. I had the right, the party, to take away 50 percent. The party took away 100 percent of the delegates. The rule is 50 percent. Had they only taken away 50 percent like the Republican Party did, Tim, you and I would not be having this conversation today.

MR. RUSSERT: So you would accept that as a compromise, half the Michigan and half the Florida delegates?

MR. McAULIFFE: We certainly might, you bet.

And

WOLFSON:
"When one candidate gets to 2,209, which is the number of delegates needed with Florida and Michigan. We believe Florida and Michigan ought to be counted. Two and a half million people voted in those states, record turnout."

And...

And....

[looks at endless list of contradicting quotes, metrics and methods by which the Democratic Nominee should be chosen]

[whimpers]

Tonight's big number?

The number of times the Clinton camp has changed the metrics and where the goalposts are planted.

The Myth That Is Democracy

When the Democratic Nominating contest was young and all one had to worry about was whether or not they would lose the over/under on how many times Senator Edwards dropped the "Son-of-a-Mill-Worker" line in one debate, few people talked of "Democracy". It was delegates, delegates, delegates regardless of who you talked to: the media, the candidates or their supporters.

It didn't matter how many people were voting, just that they were turning out in record numbers and that that was good for the Democrats. There was a consensus that we were pushing towards one very important threshold that didn't involve the average joe or American citizen.

2,024 Delegates.

Florida and Michigan passed with little ado, with pundits mentioning that they didn't count for anything, candidates mentioning that it wouldn't count for anything and no one crying "They're being disenfranchised and that's undemocratic!"

But now that winning a moral argument and potentially the nomination depends upon whether or not Florida and Michigan are irrelevant, you hear some of the wildest, bullshit ideas being peddled - that this is just like 2000, that this is undemocratic and that the popular vote should determine who the nominee of the Democratic Party is.

These people, if the situations were reversed, of course wouldn't be saying it. Now, there are some who truly believe in democracies and the plurality of popular vote and the sanctity of even a one-vote lead being as strong as a unanimous vote - but those people aren't a majority and are certainly not the ones who are pushing this campaign, acting as if the entire country and our processes are designed to cheat them out of winning by what they deem "fair and square" terms.

The fact of the matter is, they aren't fair and square terms. Social contracts are required and real contracts, signed in ink, are binding. Meaning this: When Senator Obama wins the nomination with a majority of delegates, you can't truthfully say the election was stolen from you because Senator Clinton received more votes from people.

You can bitch and you can moan; you can whine and you can complain. You can take your ball and promise not to vote in November, screaming until you lose your voice.

But you lost fair and square.

Which is sort of what I think my problem with this argument is. The line between "A metric that the Superdelegates should use to decide who to vote for" and "Wow, we just got fucking jipped and the election was stolen from us" is being blurred. That includes whether or not Florida and Michigan are seated. The Democratic National Committee is not a government. It is an entity that allows you to vote. You hear people going around screaming "this is my party" and "our party" - but you have to realize, you're one person and unless you're an elected official, your voice is relatively expendable. You're a card-carrying member who isn't entitled to much if the party says so.

So if Florida and Michigan weren't seated - it wouldn't be disenfranchisement. It would be an entity and organization ruling on something that concerned itself that didn't lead to anyone being harmed or their freedoms offended. Because being allowed to vote in the Democratic primary is not a right.

While I believe everyone should be allowed to vote - the processes of running a 6 month Primary requires rules and contractual agreements that must be followed and enforced with punishments for those who offend them. Otherwise nothing would get done and everything would be meaningless. Numerous people, from Terry McAuliffe, to Howard Dean to Senator Clinton herself, have acknowledged this, although two of the aforementioned people ignore this now that it is politically expedient to do so.

But where am I going with this? Well, for one: The United States is not a democracy. Chances are, it never will be. It's a federal republic and at best, a representative democracy, although many argue that's being too generous.

This country does not elect Presidents by consent of the people or mob rule; it elects Presidents by consent of the Electoral College.

And although vastly more democratic than the Electoral College, the Democratic Party - despite its name - does not choose nominees by consent of you, the people, or mob rule, but by the consent of a majority of delegates.

There's a difference and I wish people would stop being disingenuous about our processes. And if you didn't know, it's just one more reason why things are the way they are.

Our country was founded on granting many freedoms - but our founders were not trusting of the people. From Alexander Hamilton to John Adams to James Madison and so on: the general consensus is simple. A majority does not guarantee a wise outcome.

The election of both the President and Vice President of the United States is indirect. The constitutional theory is that, while the Congress is popularly elected by the people, the President and Vice President are elected to be executives of a federation of independent states.

Presidential electors are selected on a state-by-state basis, as determined by the laws of each state. Each state uses the popular vote on Election Day to appoint electors (this was not the case for all states in the 18th and 19th century). Although ballots list the names of the presidential candidates, voters within the 50 states and Washington, D.C. actually choose electors for their state when they vote for President and Vice President. These presidential electors in turn cast electoral votes for those two offices. Even though the aggregate national popular vote is calculated by state officials and media organizations, the national popular vote is not the basis for electing a president or vice president.

A candidate must receive an absolute majority of electoral votes (currently 270) to win the Presidency. If no candidate receives a majority in the election for President, or Vice President, that election is determined via a contingency procedure in the Twelfth Amendment.

In this event, the House of Representatives is limited to choosing from among the three candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each state delegation has a single vote, decided by majority decision (an evenly divided delegation is considered to abstain from voting).

What that means is simple - what happens in California is different than what happens in Nebraska. To those who say "Too bad Obama, November won't be like the Democratic Primary" - they're mostly right. They're talking of course about apportionment. But they're naive in their thinking because they're not aware many states have divvied out Electoral Votes based upon congressional districting (or something else entirely) and two continue to do so: Maine and Nebraska. But beyond all that, it's still about Electoral Votes.

That means 1,200,000 Democratic people in New York are irrelevant and expendable in 2004 if only 70,000 more show up for Kerry in Ohio - the former is how many Kerry won by in New York, the latter how much he lost by in Ohio. Every vote over the one necessary to win is irrelevant. Winning New York strongly only matters in determining strength for the next election.

One Man, One Vote doesn't exist. A person in Wyoming has way more clout than the person of California. Until you change that, why should anyone care about what you feel is unfair about Presidential elections?

A person within a state may have more clout than a person living in a different district apart of that same state; while the Supreme Court has ruled congressional districts and state legislature districts should be "roughly" equal, there's no guarantee - so your vote fluctuates depending upon voter turnout, population and how well your party gerrymandered the districts surrounding your place of residence.

What it all boils down to is: popular vote is irrelevant. For much of the first 50 years of our country's existence, the popular vote totals were poorly recorded. For much of the last 50 years of our country's existence, the popular vote totals were poorl.... you get the idea.

Just to give you an example of how meaningless popular vote is, one need look no further than 1824.

Candidates who went to ballot in House of Reps. (top three EV-getters) marked in green

Wow - look at that. Looks like I'm wrong, right? Andrew Jackson not only had the most votes from the people but additionally had the most electoral votes.

Well, that doesn't matter either. Because he didn't get a majority of electoral votes, which was 131 at that time. Needless to say, Andrew Jackson was pretty confident that with both popular vote and electoral vote in hand, the House of Representatives would declare him the next President of the United States.

Boy was he going to be surprised. Or... was surprised. Heh.

So despite winning a plurality of both popular vote and electoral vote, Andrew Jackson lost because the House of Representatives voted 13-7-4 for Adams, Jackson and Crawford; meaning 13 state delegations voted for Adams, 7 for Jackson and 4 for Crawford. It was only the second time in United States history that the Presidency was decided by the House of Representatives (1800 being the other).

If Senator McCain and Senator Obama tie at 269 EVs this November, this is what will of course happen. At the moment, such a scenario favors Senator Obama but one can never know how state delegations will vote until they do. And with so many purple states and split states (where neither party holds a majority), the possibility for ties (which become abstained votes), it's best to just win 270 outright.

So our system is complex and it is filled with many little loopholes and traps for those who don't understand it to get confused over. But the one thing our system is not is an accurate one man, one vote system.

Now you're probably whining - "but this is the Democratic Primary." Well as it turns out, shoddy, ancient and somewhat deceptive ways are also used to decide the Democratic nominee.

The Democratic Convention was held in Baltimore from June 25 to July 2. After a long deadlock, former Democratic presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan threw his support to Woodrow Wilson in order to defeat Missouri Representative Champ Clark. Clark had received a majority of the vote, but because of the "two-thirds rule" and bitter opposition from Bryan and others, his support faded. Wilson received the nomination on the 46th ballot. He then went on to win the election.

What this all leads back to is one unavoidable reality: the founders of our country and the leaders of our parties don't trust majority or mob rule.

This is further evidenced by the creation of Superdelegates, something the Clinton supporters loved until they needed to roll out the popular vote metric. And that some still love in yet another contradiction of feelings and beliefs - that the Superdelegates should overrule the Pledged Delegates because Senator Clinton received a popular vote plurality.

And those popular vote totals?

Source

Until Senator Clinton wins in all six totals, it's even more irrelevant than it usually is. When you have to cherry-pick totals, it's a losing argument. Because the other side is always going to peal away support on the basis of "unfair and unsanctioned" elections.

The only people you're trying to convince - the Superdelegates - have already stopped listening and aren't going to be open to cherry-picking results either.

How Can You Change The System?

This isn't for now - this isn't for at this precise moment. Because changing the rules during the game only makes you look like a whiny baby.

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

There's a great chance the Democratic Party will reassess its rules and there's an even greater likelihood that Superdelegates are on their way out. As for the Electoral College, you can see from the link above about what you can do.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is an agreement among U.S. states that would effectively end the electoral college system of presidential elections and replace it with a direct nationwide vote of the people. As of May 2008, this interstate compact has been joined by Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois and Hawaii; their 50 electoral votes amount to 19% of the 270 needed for it to take effect.

Basically, enough states are needed to reach 270 electoral votes - and when that's reached, those states will effectively join together to create one "mega-contest" where the popular vote of the entire nation will decide where those 270 electoral votes go, effectively nullifying the Electoral College's original purpose.

Only 50 electoral votes so far. So if you're really interested in changing things, get involved with that.

Absurdities

And to take a break from serious discourse, here are some absurd things I've come across recently:

Paulville--a nice place to raise your kids, if you believe in the gold standard and the New World Order.

The goal of Paulville.org it to establish gated communities containing 100% Ron Paul supporters and or people that live by the ideals of freedom and liberty.

Source

Uh.... if that wasn't enough to make you stop chewing or drinking, there are apparently additional plans to create Ron Paul Islands:

Crazy Thread One

Crazy Thread Two: The Island of Liberty

Can you add the total size of each island and an estimate on how many people could realistically live on each one?

Nooooo...at about 500 acres of island...priced at a cool $1.5 MILLION, we can allow 1,000 to comfortably live on the island and buy their share for about $1,500. EACH.

That's chump change compared to what we've thrown towards the movement/RP already. And we - the people - have such a vast array of specialties that I think this is very plausible. A few economists, some police officers, firemen, doctors/nurses, communication techs/computer/IT guys, maybe a few lawyers...>FEW<...etc etc.

With a community of 1,000 on the 'MAIN island', they can act as the leaders - the pioneers - set things in motion. Then, we buy up other nearby islands and place them under the law of the 'Main Island' or similar. It'd be just like Hawaii.

Just like Hawaii.... does that mean the U.S. will invade?

Hell, one of the small islands can serve as the trasnportation hub with runways, airport, freight/harbor, etc etc. This isn't THAT hard.

It just SOUNDS difficult. And Monumental.

Cue Ron Paul monument talks.

But as stated - Our founding fathers did it without the help of the internet.
They did it with their sweat and blood, their knowledge and passion.

It'd be a cakewalk - comparably - for us.

Remember, we need to have enough farmland to feed everyone on the island... Of course, that's why I get 40 acres... and a little beach-front property, because I'll have the greenhouses set up on that 40 acres that can supply food for 40,000 people... I have technology available that feeds 1,000 people per acre of greenhouses... you want me there. =)

On that note, I think I'll need 100 acres... 40 for the farm, 60 for the hunting... and only more farms surrounding me... and a landowner compact that gives all the farmers the right of first refusal when someone wants to sell their farm land and move to the "big city"... lol

He's sacrificing so much... he'll only need 40... no 80... wait, 100 would be nice.

This next one is the breadwinner:

We really only need one thing: a good court system that recognizes individual liberties. Once we establish the island as a total free-trade zone, the entrepreneurs will come in droves and the island will be covered in gleaming sky-scrapers within a few years. You'll be able to get your greenhouse-construction supplies at bargain tax-free prices from your choice of local dealers. Of course, you might end up reconsidering your career choice as farmer once you see how much competition you have.

I can see the marketing strategy now.

Discover a magical world in Tinfoilopolis, a place where adventure
and magic come together in a magical adventure of magic and adventure
for the whole family.

Tinfoilopolis, drown yourself in a magical adventure. (Thank you Sealab 2021)

Lesson of the day? Don't ever call Obama or Clinton supporters cultists until they've decided they need to create islands or gated communities. Or something.

Obligatory Cat Mention

And because no diary is complete without mention of cats:

Addressing Threats of Not Voting

As the nominating process draws to a close, the talk of not voting is bubbling just below the surface and for some people, is out in the open and in Obama supporters faces.

It began with politely refuting disingenuous claims:

"If winning specific states were important or more significant, then other states would be excluded and the nomination would be decided by those states deemed important to winning in November."

Or:

"If the popular vote mattered and decided the election, then both campaigns would have different strategies."

But being polite and considerate of others feelings is not enough. It's become increasingly apparent that certain people will not compromise on any issue. Furthermore, it's become apparent that these people were never going to vote for Senator Obama in the first place.

I of course speak of people who frequent Hillaryis44.org, TalkLeft and NoQuarter.

It wouldn't matter what Senator Obama did. There's one thing they cannot forgive him for: Winning the Democratic Nomination over their candidate.

Like the ardent Paul supporter, these folks have it in their mind that everything is apart of a larger conspiracy. From Lake County coming in late to Senator Obama receiving the endorsement of Senator Kennedy; these events all feed into a conspiracy theory that involves oppressing either Senator Clinton or women.

But what about Senator Clinton? Everything's about how Senator Obama is cheating, is a thug, is a gorilla face or how he's unpresidential - whatever the fuck that means.

Well, what about Senator Clinton?

What Senator Clinton is doing is at best like what happens when you're playing for keeps and you beat an acquaintance or friend fair and square and he starts whining. "Best of 3, best of 5, best of 7." Even though he keeps mentioning those rules earlier on, he's changed his tune once he's realized that within those rules, he can't win.

And the funny thing is, people are acting like its Clinton Supporters who are deservedly outraged.

Sorry. When someone consents to the rules in ink, its case closed. When your mouth jabbers and the words "this won't count" and "It's a race to 2025 delegates" come out, it only further incriminates you.

So all this anger towards Obama Supporters for rightfully calling foul is bullshit. We have every right to complain about the moving goalposts.

Senator Obama has mentioned only one metric by which he is going to win this nominating contest.

Delegates.

You remember that spreadsheet way back when?

Yeah.

Now this isn't for the moderate Clinton supporter. This is for the gungho idiot who runs around slamming the presumptive nominee for some perceived sleight every single night in some two-bit piece of shit diary with little analysis that's filled to the brim with vitriol and hate.

Now you may be able to square it with yourself that what you're doing and saying isn't disingenuous but don't believe for one moment that we don't feel like we're facing bad sports who can't wrap their head around the idea of losing.

And that's what it all comes down to. Losing. It doesn't matter if Senator Obama blew her away by 500 delegates and won the popular vote outright. The system is still unfair. It doesn't matter if Senator Obama receives the endorsement of both the old guard and the new guard. It's still unfair.

Senator Obama's a sexist pig - but then NARAL endorses. And then NARAL is trash.

Everyone who signs with Senator Obama is trash; isn't for what they believe in and is automatically apart of the shit list that gets floated around these moronic dump heaps some have the gall to call progressive websites.

So kindly: fuck off. I'm not going to appeal to you anymore because you're not reasonable. You're not in it for the Democrats and you're not in it for "We the People" - you're in it for your belief that Senator Clinton is the only person who can be the Democratic Nominee.

You may one day square it with yourself that that's a ludicrous notion; that both candidates are more alike than they are different. That they both have gotten in the gutter, that both play politics and that both ran great campaigns with one of them squeaking out a small victory in the end.

You may.

Or you can take your vote and shove it. Because these are the options:

You vote for the Democratic Nominee.
You vote for the Republican Nominee.
You vote for someone else.
You write someone else in.
You stay home.

It's simple. Those are the options. And no, the world isn't going to end.

The Women's Rights movement isn't going to be set back 100 years.

The right to have abortions won't be overturned if you don't show up or continue the anger through November. The country won't suddenly take a different tract because Senator Clinton isn't the candidate we nominated and then elected to the White House.

Why?

Because the candidates are virtually the same.

So those are my feelings. And those are your choices. Don't expect Senator Obama, me, or the countless others to genuflect, wash your dishes or suck up to you from here until November.

And if you're one of the 600 disgusting people who partake in thinly-veiled racism and vile discourse at Hillaryis44, TalkLeft or NoQuarter, kindly fuck off.

I don't think anyone wanted your trash vote in the first place.

To the overwhelming majority of Clinton Supporters and Obama supporters, meaning 99.9999% of them - we'll continue the discourse as we always have. And hopefully, we'll elect Democrats in November.