This is an earlier post that I made some changes.

Hillary has a few options in front of her. I hope she takes a week off before she makes any decisions. I remember the enormous pressure put on President Bill Clinton to sign the special prosecutor law.  Hillary, please take you time.

The pressure you have received to drop out is plain wrong. Especially since no has enough pledged delegates for the nomination, and the nominee has to rely on super delegate support for the nomination. My hero FDR, came into the convention of 1932 with the most delegates, but did not claim the nomination until he was nominated at the convention.

If you suspend your campaign, like John Edwards, you can keep your delegates until the convention. During the next 3 months the GOP will begin its attacks. I remember Dukakis was 20 points ahead of Bush in August of 88.

Team Hillary, I hope you consider suspending your campaign, but keeping your delegates. The important thing is not irreversible unity in June, but rather a Democratic victory in November. We never know what the next 3 months holds. That's a lifetime in politics.

There's more...

This diary has come out of a discussion about caucuses, but my response has become too long for a response so I have changed it into a diary.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/6/4/17544 3/8888

1.  Forcing a reform of this nature will not be received well in states that are used to holding primaries and caucuses by their own rules, and their respective ties to historical precedent.

2.  Caucuses are not in and of themselves elitist.  Caucuses are not a measure of the same thing that a Primary is.  This is the fundamental flaw with trying to consolidate the caucus results and the primary results.  Caucus measure excitement/activism for a candidate.  Primaries measure overall support for a candidate.  A candidate needs both overall support, and strong activism to win.

The Caucus is a valid measure for whether a candidate will be a good candidate in the GE since it is the strong activism (people that caucus) that will be most active in supporting and furthering the cause of the candidate during the campaign leading to the election.  This is true above and beyond what most people who vote in a primary would be willing to do (i.e. not get involved beyond the final vote).

There are really a series of complicated issues that need to be dealt with when reforming the primary system.

1.  Popular vote doesn't mean anything in the current system.

For good or bad, this is the case due to the mixed nature of the primaries.

Options for fixing this issue:

a.  Eliminate Caucuses entirely. (Mentioned above and with reservations)

b.  Eliminate Primaries entirely.  (Same sort of objection as above)

c.  Make every state run a binding caucus and primary (like Texas).

Option c. allows every state to retain their traditional selection type while allowing delegates, superdelegates, party insiders, and the country at large to gage both popular vote and activist support for each candidate in each state in an apples-to-apples comparison.  In order for this to work some delegates from each state would have to be won under each contest.

2. Popular vote tallies and contests are not consistent because the contests allow people to participate in different levels.

Primaries allow the following:

a.  Only Registered Democratic voters

b.  Only Registered Democratic voters that voted democratic in the last contest.

c.  Only Democratic and Independent voters

d.  Any voters

As you can see, this variety again imposes an uneven standard to the popular vote and makes the comparison between the votes impossible.  This is just like trying to add fractions without figuring out the common denominator and normalizing them so that they can add up correctly.

The solution, again, is to force one methodology on all of the states so that the contests can be compared evenly.  States will have the same objection to this as they will to other changes (like dropping the caucus system all together), but unfortunately there is no other way to fix this issue without a national standard.  I propose that it become a part of the Democratic Party Charter and that all states vote on the method thought to be most in line with Democratic principles.  This way all states would then have to comply (or suffer the fate, sanctions, of a state that has violated the rules).

3.  US territories that have no effect on the election of a president (since their states command not electoral votes) get greater representation than states that do.  The problem with allowing this is that since the election is won on electoral votes, the party is handicapping their possibility of winning by giving such a large say to territories rather than emphasizing the wishes of those whose votes do count towards the election of a president.

These territories have no reason to come into the fold of the US if they can enjoy the same or greater privileges in terms of candidate selection as do states (and DC) who have to play entirely by federal rules as states.  If they want a say they can join a state, or become a state.  Perhaps have a reduced voice, but this voice should never be larger than states that command actual electoral votes as they are the ones (at this time) that decide the president.

4.  The Number of Superdelegates, and their influence needs to be put into check.  The party has a rightful place in helping to select the best candidate. This becomes necessary from time to time under extreme circumstances.  However, as we have seen in this primary, their influence is far too great.

a.  SDs can give one candidate a lead before any voting has occurred.  This is undemocratic and should be admonished by the party.

b.  SDs comprise 20-25% of the total delegates.  This outsizes and outweighs the legitimate choice of the electorate.  The SDs do not like the role they were forced into this year.  They don't want the power to decide who the nominee is above what the electorate has chosen.  So why are we giving them such a strong say in the decision, it makes no sense.

c. SDs votes are always non-binding, but they cannot effectively be locked in at any time before the convention allowing the present situation to occur again.  That is to say, encouraging a bitter convention floor fight that will doom the party's chances to win the election.

5. Last but not least, the calendar needs to be revamped so that all of the states feel they have had their fair shake at selecting the nominee, while not making things so states feel their history is trampled, and allowing for a diverse section of the populace to influence the early selection process.  This, by far, is the most difficult question politically since states get pitted against states.  I do not pretend to know what the best solution is, but here are some that I thought were interesting:

a.  National primary (everyone goes at once).  

Pros:  no one has an unfair advantage in selecting (or eliminating) a candidate from the running.  Addresses basic fairness issues about which states go first.

Cons:  Small States get overshadowed; Historical precedent for select states is trampled.  Does not allow for enough time to put campaign pressure on candidates to see if they can handle the heat (Vetting).

b.  Regional rotating primaries.  States are divided into 4-6 primary regions and each region rotates from election to election as to which goes first.

Pros:  This levels the playing field, and allows for easier travel (is less cost or wear on candidates).  Addresses basic fairness issues about which state goes first.

Cons:  Tramples historical precedent for some states.  Small states could be overshadowed.

c.  Rotating initial primaries (As we have them now before super Tuesday but with rotating states)

Pros:  Similarity to current familiar system, allows diversity into early nominee selection process.

Cons:  Tramples historical precedent for some states.  Doesn't address the basic scheduling issues and allows for an uneven campaign with inordinately long lulls and ultra-packed periods of time (which at times doesn't give states enough time to consider a candidate seriously).

d. Retain the current system.

Pros:  Familiarity.

Cons:  The current system.

Anyways what do you think?

There's more...

Congratulations to both Democratic frontrunners!

Hillary Clinton has won the popular vote by over 300,000 votes.  Barack Obama has won 130 more pledged delegates.

Here are the final totals:

POPULAR VOTE  (all primaries and caucuses)
Hillary Clinton: 17,785,009
Barack Obama: 17,479,990

PLEDGED DELEGATES
Barack Obama: 1766.5
Hillary Clinton: 1639.5

Currently, 2118 delegates are needed to win the nomination, according to the DNC.  A successful appeal of the RBC's recent decisions on Florida and Michigan would change that threshold to 2210, but that's less relevant now because the pledged delegate allocations are fairly final (pending completion of state conventions) and, again, neither Clinton nor Obama will have enough pledged delegates to reach either 2118 or 2210.

Since we got a lecture from party  member and SuperD Donna Brazile Saturday at the RBC meeting on the importance of her momma's lesson about following the rules, let's review the DNC's rules for winning the nomination.

It's not complex.  In a nutshell:    If a nominee does not win a sufficient number of pledged delegates to secure the nomination, the automatic (or "super") delegates must vote to determine who the nominee will be.  The automatic delegates, who are elected and unelected party officials, can use any criteria they each find appropriate when voting, but the original intent and purpose of the super delegate system was to ensure that the party nominate the most electable candidate for the general-election battle.

Most importantly:  The automatic delegates cast their votes at the Democratic National Convention along with the pledged delegates.  This year the convention will be on August 25-28 in Denver.  It will certainly be an historic event as presidential conventions go because of the extraordinary task at hand for the automatic delegates.  Their votes, by the way, will be cast by private ballot.

That's the status of the Democratic Presidential nomination process.

Now, Barack Obama can "declare himself the nominee" (FOX News characterization last night), he can throw all the big parties and make all the pretty speeches in as many hope-change-unity rallies he wants.  He can campaign with vigor against John McCain.  (And so can Hillary.)  The Clinton-hating party clique can "proclaim" that Obama is the nominee; the mainstream media can continue to ignore reality...None of this is surprising, and none of it matters...

Because there will not be a nominee until August.  There will not be -- there cannot be -- any nominee until August.   And even the "presumptive nominee" status is a stretch because normally that claim is made by a candidate who has reached the required number of PLEDGED delegates (as John McCain did).

And anyone who thinks that Hillary Clinton supporters don't understand all of this...is delusional and seriously underestimates the loyalty and passion of her quiet yet determined army (although some of us aren't that quiet).

We are informed and engaged constituents committed to a brilliant and inspiring leader.  We are NOT going to fold our tents and hop on board Obama's train just cause that's what we are told to do by people who, frankly, are experts at losing elections.  NO.  We have collectively determined that we'd actually prefer that the Democrats win the Presidency this year.  No more McGoverns, Carters, Kerrys, Gores, Harts, Deans....Nothing personal, guys, but your track record stinks.

In the 2000 Presidential Election, Al Gore won about 550,000 more votes than George Bush.  Given the consequences of that election fraud, I thought it would be a cold day in h**l before Democrats would let anyone steal the election from another Democrat...But then again, these are the General Election losers running our party so...

So, while Obama is zipping around the country and world celebrating "victory," let the rest of us remain sober and focused in respect of these basic and indisputable FACTS:

1. Hillary Clinton has now officially won more votes than any person to seek the presidential nomination of EITHER political party in history, and her candidacy accurately represents the will of the people who voted in the Democratic primaries and caucuses.

2. Hillary Clinton won ALL of the major states except Illinois.

3. Hillary Clinton finished the primary season with momentum, out-performing expectations in several races such as, most recently, Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky, Puerto Rico, and South Dakota (see Obama's predictions spreadsheet); Obama, in contrast, is wheezing across the finish line with a downward trajectory that bodes poorly for the general election.

4. Hillary Clinton assembled a coalition of loyal voters that can guarantee victory against McCain, including white women, hispanics, catholics, jews, and lunch-bucket workers.

5. Barack Obama is still a relative unknown, remains unvetted by the media, and is teetering on the brink of being clobbered by the GOP, RNC, 527 Oppo Teams due to his treasure chest of bizarre skeletons.

In light of these cold, hard facts, Hillary Clinton bloggers and supporters will continue doing what we've been doing:  Passionately making the case that Hillary Clinton will be the best President, that she has a superior chance of beating John McCain. It's do-or-die for us, and for the country. And we have every intention -- indeed a duty -- to carry that message all the way to Denver.

Note:  popular vote totals from ABC News and pledged delegate totals from Real Clear Politics.

Cross posted at TexasDarlin
TexasDarlin, all rights reserved

There's more...

Super delegates should weigh in BEFORE Tuesday's primary in Montana and South Dakota.

The polls are showing Barack Obama currently leading in those two states; but even if he were to tie with Hillary, he would only get around 15 delegates total.  This means he needs at least 33 super delegates to put him over the top.

There's more...

This attitude that has embodied Senator Obama and his campaign is turning voters away in record amount.  This style has dogged the campaign from the beginning and it seems to have only intensified as we progress on in this election.  That most likely explains why Obama has not been able to secure the nomination from his early surge.  

The reason I'm sure the Obama campaign set out to call for an end to the election early.  There was no way he could win the nomination the longer he had to campaign for it.  

There's more...