Oh, the humanity.

It's terrible to have such a close primary, where the votes of Democrats all across the nation* matter in picking the candidate. What a terrible burden not to have the candidate selected before Super Tuesday. What ever shall we do?!?!?

*offer not valid in MI or FL

FTA: In short, the system is flawed but it has been flawed for a very long time. A brokered convention with a knock-down-drag-out fight might damage the party but it might also be the only way of drumming home the reality that the system needs to be changed. Not updated or tampered with but repealed wholly and decisively and replaced with a system where people, not delegates or superdelegates or mathematical equations chose the nominee.

To the DNC you chose this crazy system, to the candidates you chose to run knowing it was broken and to the media pundits and hosts who clearly have picked their favorites I have news for you. A real brokered convention would probably create far better ratings than the Democratic love-fest I see on television every night. In short you would make more money, have more viewers and actually get to cover a race for once instead of declaring a winner after Iowa and New Hampshire.


Wow, THIS.

Didn't make it past "Incase."

So we're posting some amateur blogger's opinion posts as news stories now?

Those that are more careful in the process of picking the leader of the free world--clearly, they are worthy of scorn and derision.

American Democrats--the timid center-right in any other western democracy.

"B-b-b-b-but no, they're red pinko socialist communists!!! Don't you understand??!??!"

mferris: So we're posting some amateur blogger's opinion posts as news stories now?


fark tagline. read it

FTA: ...and to the media pundits and hosts who clearly have picked their favorites I have news for you. A real brokered convention would probably create far better ratings than the Democratic love-fest I see on television every night. In short you would make more money, have more viewers and actually get to cover a race for once instead of declaring a winner after Iowa and New Hampshire.

Great article, but author, don't kid yourself. The media does love it, and they KNOW it.

mferris: So we're posting some amateur blogger's opinion posts as news stories now?

dailykossayswhat?

Wouldn't vote 'Dem' on dare so I don't have a dog in this fight but...

The fix is in, with the annoucement today that some are calling
for Florida and Michigan to have their delegates seated in toto and without regard to those states breaking DNC rules; yeah, states where the OTHER candidates played by the rules and Clinton didn't.

Who's surprised by THAT?

Clinton is gonna be your candidate NO MATTER WHAT and you better get used to it and to being out of the White House.
Again.

FTFA Their attempt to marginalize the popular vote by breaking up delegates, avoiding winner-take-all scenarios and giving weighted power to a group of current and former elected officials and DNC members has come back to bite them on the butt....the system needs to be changed...and replaced with a system where people, not delegates or superdelegates or mathematical equations chose the nominee.

(emphasis added)

While some of the other criticisms are valid, avoiding winner-take-all scenarios creates a system more likely to put the nominee in line with the will of the people. Avoidance of winner-take-all is one of the few good things about the Democratic Party's current process.

Look at the Republicans for contrast. The majority of people who voted in the Republican primaries want someone more conservative than McCain - but since Romney and Huckabee split that vote up, McCain was able to pull out an insurmountable lead due to the Winner-Take-All states.

The author also rails against allowing non-party members to vote in the primaries, another pretty stupid position given they are about 1/3 of the electorate.

It's hard to argue for the current system, but this guy's analysis thows out more than just the bathwater.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

mferris: So we're posting some amateur blogger's opinion posts as news stories now?

vs. opinion of some journlist who paid $95,000 in college tuition for the license to publish his opinion, damn what the world is coming to!!!

mfaby: Wouldn't vote 'Dem' on dare so I don't have a dog in this fight but...

The fix is in, with the annoucement today that some are calling
for Florida and Michigan to have their delegates seated in toto and without regard to those states breaking DNC rules; yeah, states where the OTHER candidates played by the rules and Clinton didn't.

Who's surprised by THAT?

Clinton is gonna be your candidate NO MATTER WHAT and you better get used to it and to being out of the White House.
Again.

Not so fast there, Tex. Even if that happens and goes into effect tomorrow, Clinton will still be behind by 13, not to mention the unknown results of the upcoming primaries (Obama is a lock for Hawaii, is ahead in Wisconsin, and has been steadily gaining on Clinton in Ohio and Texas), and that Clinton's superdelegates have been jumping ship for the past week.

It's not out of the realm of possibility for her to win, but it's far from a sure thing.

mfaby: , with the annoucement today that some are calling
for Florida and Michigan to have their delegates seated in toto and without regard to those states breaking DNC rules;

Well, if some are calling for it then it will certainly happen. Because some always get their way.

From the AP today regarding Clinton manager Ickes

In a conference call Saturday, the longtime Democratic Party member contended the DNC should reconsider its tough sanctions on the two states, which held early contests in violation of party rules. He said millions of voters in Michigan and Florida would be otherwise disenfranchised - before acknowledging moments later that he had favored the sanctions.

Campaigning in Wisconsin after Ickes' remarks, Clinton echoed his contention that a suitable arrangement could be worked out to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations.

"The rules provide for a vote at the convention to seat contested delegations," she said. "This goes back to the 1940s in my memory. There is nothing unusual about this. My husband didn't wrap up nomination until June. Usually it takes awhile to sort all this out. That's why there are rules. If there are contested delegations the convention votes on it."

Ickes explained that his different position essentially is due to the different hats he wears as both a DNC member and a Clinton adviser in charge of delegate counting. Clinton won the primary vote in Michigan and Florida, and now she wants those votes to count.

On Saturday, Ickes reiterated the campaign's view that new "redo" votes in Florida and Michigan aren't necessary. He said many superdelegates are elected lawmakers or governors who are supposed to exercise their independent judgment to vote contrary to public opinion if they believe another candidate has a better chance of winning.

I'm just happy that this will all be a non-issue after March 4th, when Obama takes both Ohio and Michigan and Clinton contemplates her graceful exit.

mfaby: Wouldn't vote 'Dem' on dare so I don't have a dog in this fight but...

What if I double triple dog dared you?

I_Approve_Of_This_Message: I'm just happy that this will all be a non-issue after March 4th, when Obama takes both Ohio and Michigan and Clinton contemplates her graceful exit.

Graceful? HAHAHAHAHAHA

/waiting for the Clintons to come up with a massive lie about Obama that'll toast him

I find it interesting that Obama is moving forward, taking state after state in an attempt to win the election, and Hillary is going after the super delegates and the FL/MI delegates.

Ironicly that the party that screamed about a candidate winning the popular vote but losing the electoral college is contemplating a similar scenario for their nominee.

I_Approve_Of_This_Message: and Clinton contemplates her graceful exit.

naivete`is cute but won't get you laid

Do-or-die Hillary (new window)

mfaby: Wouldn't vote 'Dem' on dare so I don't have a dog in this fight but...

When we're curious about the retard perspective we'll be in touch. Until then, thanks, but your input isn't needed or wanted.

Thanks for those record deficits by the way.

The Why Not Guy: mfaby: Wouldn't vote 'Dem' on dare so I don't have a dog in this fight but...

When we're curious about the retard perspective we'll be in touch. Until then, thanks, but your input isn't needed or wanted.

Thanks for those record deficits by the way.

But he may have a job on Hannity and Colmes.

The system isn't that bad. It's better than the GOP one, for example.

I'd probably change it a little, by granting the superdelegates votes only if no one wins the majority of pledged delegates (by having a significant 3-way split).

mfaby: Wouldn't vote 'Dem' on dare so I don't have a dog in this fight but...

The fix is in, with the annoucement today that some are calling
for Florida and Michigan to have their delegates seated in toto and without regard to those states breaking DNC rules; yeah, states where the OTHER candidates played by the rules and Clinton didn't.

Who's surprised by THAT?

Clinton is gonna be your candidate NO MATTER WHAT and you better get used to it and to being out of the White House.
Again.

Now that's funny. Republicans have been wrong about everything so the opposite is a good bet.

There is a simple solution to this mess:

1) Retire the use of electoral primaries and caucuses. Everyone makes it to the general election.

2) Use some sort of preferential voting system so that whoever is elected has the backing of the majority of people.

3) Require that a person must enough signatures equal to at least x per-cent of a state's population before they can make it onto the ballot, so that you can avoid the 100+ candidate ballots such as we saw with the election of the Governator.

Oh no, might such a system eliminate the pandering of the fringe elements in favor of more moderate candidates? But then, how ever could whackos like Cynthia McKinney ever make it into office?

mfaby: Clinton is gonna be your candidate NO MATTER WHAT and you better get used to it and to being out of the White House.

How is she planning to use the super delegates to win the general election?

Fun facts about this primary you probably didn't know:

1) Obama is slightly ahead in non-caucus states won.
2) Without superdelegates, neither candidate will lock up the nomination before the convention unless they win at least 80% of remaining pledged delegates.
3) If Democrats used winner-take-all in some form, Obama would still be winning.

Source

/pro-Obama?
//from the NY Times?
///then it must be true

i agree with him mostly, except for "you would make more money doing a brokered convention". in what way? they make the most money by covering the event for the longest period of time. it sells the most ad dollars. while talking heads might be moaning, don't think for a second that CNN, MSNBC, et al. aren't delighted to get all of this 'easy' news+viewership, all the while patting themselves on the back for 'getting the people involved'.

Bullshiat!

Myself and others I know switched to Republican when voting Dem wouldnt count.


What the fark!

Oh, if only the Democratic Party had the good fortune to be stuck with a nominee that the party leadership and pundits have hated for years because their entire field of contenders proved to be crazy, unsuited, or ridiculous early in the primaries! If only they had that good fortune like the Republicans. Those Republicans get all the breaks, I tell you.

I'm not sure why anyone thinks that the democratic voters are somehow responsible with the "mess."

The voters didn't create the mess, why should they deal with it?

I_Approve_Of_This_Message: I'm just happy that this will all be a non-issue after March 4th, when Obama takes both Ohio and Michigan and Clinton contemplates her graceful exit.

Their attempt to marginalize the popular vote by breaking up delegates, avoiding winner-take-all scenarios

yes, damn those democrats for marginalizing the popular vote by insisting the results mirror it more closely.

DAMN YOU DEMOCRATS!

If the DNC goes back on its decision to not count the delegates from Michigan and Florida, especially after the other Democratic candidates agreed to follow the rules and Hillary chose to break them, it will be the straw that breaks the camel's back for me.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is in the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

THIS

I hope Obama wins Texas so Al Gore can come and tell the Clintons to shut the hell up for the good of the party and go home. They are like spoiled children. We already had one in the White House for the last seven years we don't need two more to put their self interests and thirst for power ahead of the country.

VictoryCabal: It's terrible to have such a close primary, where the votes of Democrats all across the nation* matter in picking the candidate. What a terrible burden not to have the candidate selected before Super Tuesday. What ever shall we do?!?!?

*offer not valid in MI or FL

I too fail to see the 'mess.' I live in Texas and vote Democrat. Every 4 years, my vote in the national election does not count (boo hoo) because I live in a 65% Republican state. My vote in the primary does not count because I live in a state that schedules its primary after Super Tuesday.

This year, my vote will actually make a difference. Also the press is having a field day with this shiat. Can't be bad for them.

[reposted from my own earlier comment]

I am so tired of this premature whining about superdelegates (re: "OMG backroom dealz!!! evil!!"); if you are concerned about that possibility before there's even a strong likelihood of it coming to pass, please slow your roll and STFU, for now. The situation's gotten to this for 2 related reasons: the primary season's order of operations, and a Democratic party that's still too evenly divided. If we Dems weren't too pansy to agree upon any candidate by now, the superdelegate stage of the process would be superfluous. Since the voters' choice hasn't yet been determined, our possible tie-breakers might have a chat so we can keep the party going. (Frankly, the basic concept of the superdelegate makes some sense: why should non-Democrats have a significant role in deciding whom the party nominates later this year? So long as outsiders can meddle, some party elders should keep watch.) By contrast, if there had already been a candidate who'd wrapped up all pledged delegates needed for the goal by now, the party bosses should STFU and orient their support and plans around that winner.

"I understand the plight of the Democratic party and the very liberal elements of the media (I am looking at you MSNBC) who are so caught up in the new frenzy to throw party rules to the wind and find a way to get a nominee ASAP."

There goes that fictional liberal media again.