by Deb Cupples | Just after Hillary Clinton beat Barack Obama last night in Kentucky's primary (65% - 30%), the Obama campaign sent out an email signed by Obama himself. The relevant text is this:
"[I]t's clear that tonight we have reached a major milestone on this journey.
"We have won an absolute majority of all the delegates chosen by the people in this Democratic primary process."
Basically, Obama used 10 words to describe what for months has only required 2: "pledged" and "delegates."
How does winning a majority of pledged delegates qualify as a "major milestone"? It doesn't, because winning the majority of pledged delegates does not make Obama the nominee. Period. [Correction below]
Under the Democratic Party's un-democratic rules, super-delegates can vote for whomever they want (and they can switch), regardless of the pledged-delegate totals or popular-vote count.
Facts aside, some media have given air time to Obama's surrogates to create potentially misleading headlines and sound bites about the pretend "milestone."
For example, a CNN video shows John Roberts interviewing Tom Daschel, who tries to persuade viewers how important this pretend "milestone" is.
Roberts asks : "If it doesn't mean it's the end, what exactly does it mean and why point it out?"
Daschel re-states that it's very important.
Roberts asks (again): "But what does it mean?"
Daschel spoke but failed to adequately explain.
It's all about creating vague impressions, which is why (I suspect) that Obama's email doesn't talk about winning a "majority of pledged delegates" -- but instead talks about winning a "majority of all the delegates chosen by the people."
This gives the impression that the will of the majority of voters is to name Obama as the nominee.
Actually, the popular vote is the best indicator of the "will of the people," and we won't know which candidate has won the popular vote until after all primaries are finished on June 3.
That and Florida's delegates, alone, could total up to 211 if the DNC decides to count all of them. That decision will be made on or about May 31. Remember: Florida could win the appeal, because Florida's Democratic leaders were not responsible for moving Florida's primary date: Florida's Republican leaders were.
Thus, Obama's vague claims that most Dem voters are on his side is -- at best -- premature. Mission Accomplished, anyone?
Another issue: many of Obama's victories do not necessarily reflect the "will fo the people," because more than a dozen of his victories were in states that had caucuses (not primaries).
Caucuses tend to draw far fewer voters than primaries do, partly because caucuses are held in a shorter period of time. Generally, caucuses attract people with flexible schedules and people who are politically active (hardly a representative sampling of most of America's voters).
That's why caucuses are less representative of a state's voting population (i.e., less democratic). Check out the examples below (3 caucus states v. 3 primary states):
...................................Delegates................#Voters
Wyoming (caucus) ..........12.........................8,753
Georgia (primary).............12..................1,046,485
Hawaii (caucus)................17.......................37,247
Rhode Island(primary)......18.....................184,904
Iowa (caucus)....................45.....................239,000
Oklahoma (primary)..........38.....................401,230
Correction: originally, I had 2,500 listed for the Iowa caucus, based on CNN's reported results. A NY times article (linked above) states that about 239,000 voters participated in the Iowa Caucus.
.The Caucuses: about 285,000 people decided who got Wyoming's, Hawaii's and Rhode Island's combined 74 delegates.
The Primaries: more than 1.6 million people decided who got Georgia's, Rhode Island's and Oklahoma's combined 68 delegates.
In short, at least 5 times more voters participated in the states' primaries listed above than in the caucuses -- yet more delegates were awarded based on the caucuses. And that's only because Iowa had a six-digit turn out, which is not typical of other states' caucuses.
The upshot: Obama's having won delegates from more than a dozen caucuses has made him appear more popular than he may actually be among the broader population of those states' Democrats.
Between now and the convention, super-delegates must decide which candidate will have a better chance of beating John McCain in November -- an election that won't be about caucuses, disproportionately weighted delegates, odd arithmetic, or clever spin.
November will involve a straight, winner-take-all system of capturing states' electoral votes based on how the actual majority of a state's voters vote.
Memeorandum has commentary.
More evidence of the failed caucus system. Obama won the Kansas caucus handily, however the latest polls from KS on a McCain vs. Clinton or McCain vs Obama matchup show Clinton garnering much more support. Doesn't make sense. How could Obama have been the overwhelming favorite in Feb, but bring the lowest support of the three candidates now? Doesn't make sense unless you look at how the caucus system begins with the premise of disentranchising voters by only allowing a vote to those who are able to get to the caucus site for one specific hour at night...and in KS that one hour happened in the middle of a blinding snowstorm. The real voice of the "people": that only comes through in the ballot box. Since most of Obama's delegate lead comes from caucus states (and many of those states, like KS, are solidly Republican for the fall election), an Obama candidacy throws away any chance the Democrats have of winning back the White House. It's sad and dishearteneing to see the Democratic leaders blindly following what they know is a doomed path.
Posted by: Mary | May 21, 2008 at 07:24 AM
OK Mary, come on down! It's time to play, "let's cherry pick a poll that supports our argument."
Hillary won California! But Obama polls better than her against McCain! The primary there must be flawed! Villaraigosa's LA machine politics corrupted the process!
Hillary won Nevada! But Obama polls significantly better in that SWING STATE against McCain! Clearly caucuses are biased in Hillary's favor!
Hillary won New Mexico! But Obama polls better in the latest poll in that SWING STATE that includes both of them against McCain! Clearly something questionable happened in that extended recount!
All together now: "primary results do not equal general election results". Facing John McCain is very different than facing Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.
---
Deb, your Iowa numbers are state convention numbers - the actual numbers are drastically higher.
As I've said many times, if all the states ran primaries, Obama's pledged delegate lead would be smaller, but given the demographics, his popular vote leads would be MUCH higher. The demographics were on his side in those elections. To wit: look at this map, and tell me you can tell a primary state from a caucus state. I sure can't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Results_by_county_of_the_2008_Democratic_Presidential_Primaries.png
Posted by: Adam | May 21, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Adam,
I just went back to CNN, and it doesn't indicate that those are convention numbers for Iowa. I also went on Google.
If my numbers are wrong, I'd like to correct them. Do you know of another place to find voter turn out for Iowa and results?
I already checked the Iowa dems site, too.
Posted by: D. Cupples | May 21, 2008 at 05:54 PM
I've heard that the Iowa dems reported 239,000 Democratic voters in the caucuses. One source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/us/politics/04elect.html
Posted by: Adam | May 21, 2008 at 06:01 PM