Florida and Michigan shouldn't count, but presuming either they revote or HRC has more total votes with them excluded, why isn't that a compelling argument for superdelagates -- especially those who are "at large" (e.g., Al Gore himself) and not those representing a congressional district (who should arguably go with their voters choice).  

Every vote should count equally -- if one candidate wins because some state's voters were more powerful than others, that's bad, and the Dem rules don't compel it.

Can you really say that 1 caucus vote = 1 primary vote?  It seems to me like Hillary once again trying to change the rules in the middle of the game.

No, that's ridiculous. I was just as angry about the 2000 presidential outcome as any other Dem, but not because of Gore's popular vote victory.  Winning more popular votes is pure symbolism. You have to win by the agreed upon rules and in 2000 general that means getting more electoral votes.  In the 2008 Dem primary, that means getting more delegates.

I'm no fan of HIllary but I cannot imagine that she would be so craven as to have a strategy like this.

Broder was not suggesting that seating the Florida and Michigan delegations in a manner that treated the two "primaries" as if they were legitimate was inevitable.  He was just suggesting that seating them in some way is inevitable.  Some have spoken of new caucuses.  Others proposed  a system whereby those two states get delegates but the delegates are assigned to Hillary and Obama based on their respective share of the total popular vote in the other 30 or so states that held primaries.  

It is the job of the press every time Hillary says in an interview (as she did at least twice yesterday) that she is "ahead in the popular vote."  She is only ahead if you count Michigan and Florida.  Yet she was not called on it in either of the two big interviews she gave yesterday.  Counting those states is ludicrous for a variety of reasons, but counting Michigan is especially ludicrous, because no other name was even on the ballot.  Hillary therefore counts ALL of her Michigan votes toward her popular vote total and treats none of the 40% uncommitted as an Obama vote.  

I agree with stgla.  If there's any parallel to 2000, it's in Clinton's attempt to use Florida to steal an election.

This would be horrible, for the reasons spelled out in the comments above. Caucus votes aren't counted. The Obama campaign can issue their own estimation of caucus VOTING (based on turnout estimates and exit polls) that shows them up by like 5% nationally in the popular vote.

Are the Clintons actually adding Michigan's vote to their column and not giving "Uncommitted" to Obama? Because it would be bad enough if they were just adding Michigan. But not giving Uncommitted to Obama is just dishonest. And that's not like them.

People keep talking about Florida and Michigan as if their 350 delegates are Hillary's ace in the hole but from what I can gather from delegate breakdowns online and assuming that Michigan's uncommitted delegates swing to Obama it appears that Hillary has only about a 50 delegate advantage between the two of them. So if Obama comes into the convention with enough of a lead in the state delegate count that he can magnanimously consent to seating Florida and Michigan and still be ahead then I think it becomes prohibitively problematic for the super delegates to override his nomination.

Stgla -- I agree that the "popular vote" thing wasn't the outrage of the 2000 election, but after the election I think most Dems were critical of the electoral college system as antiquated and anti-democratic.  Caucuses can be extrapolated -- take the national turnout average and multiply the results.  Imperfect, I know, but again try to look at this apart from the candidates -- the superdelagates shouldn't be backrooming on "who is more electable" or "who is going to give me more favors for their support."  To the best we can, every vote should count *equally* -- yes, the Dems primary rules damage that with their deference to voting districts in so many states (these are highly gerrymandered), but there's absolutely no rules on the superdelagates.  Total votes (overall or the superdelagates voting area) isn't just as good as any other measure, it's better.

Again, to be clear, I don't think Florida or Michigan's votes should count at all (though I wish they would re-vote.  Though that would give them what they wanted all along: power over the nomination process!)

Great post.  GUARANTEED this is Clinton & company's backup plan.  They are already laying the groundwork for the argument that she is ahead in the "popular vote" nationwide, and therefore the most democratic thing to do would be for the super-delegates to reflect the will of the people as a whole, rather than the people broken down state-by-state.

I think this argument is entirely illegitimate, for many of the reasons outlined above, but since when has that stopped the Clintons?  Again, I guarantee this is their backup strategy if they wind up trailing Obama in earned delegates.

Hopefully, making a last stand in Texas will work for Hillary as well as it did for Crockett & co., and the groundwork Hillary is laying now for a counterdemocratic coup de partie will be moot.

Rhubarbs, how is this plan "counterdemocratic"?  The superdelagates have to vote for someone.  They can base their vote the following ways:

1) the candidate they horsetrade with -- countedemocratic

2) the candidate they believe is best and/or more electable -- counterdemocratic

3) the candidate who wins the most delagates -- semi-democratic because the Dem system isn't proportional and it merely endorses it.  Plus, it makes the superdelagates wholly irrelevant.

4) the candidate who wins the most votes, either overall or in "their territory."  -- democratic

Really, what would you say to a Clinton voter who saw his/her candidate win the most number of votes and with a system that has hundreds of these superdelagates free to vote for who they wanted?  That it's *more fair* for the superdelagates to ignore the popular vote?  

The only thing illigitamate about Clinton's plan, if this is it, is that it attempts to count Florida and Michigan.  

lymon, as I mentioned in another thread, if she can't win with delegates, how can she say she will win in the electoral college? If anything Obama has shown himself to be a master at accruing delegates given the institutional advantage he started out with. To put it another way, this is like a football game. Before the game we agree whoever has the most points wins (ie. most delegates) but not Hillary is saying after the fact it should be whoever has the most yards. This is not the way the rules of the game were laid out, so why should Hillary be able to change the rules after the game?

one other thing lymon one of the problems with that line of reasoning is that superdelegates are primarily politicians, representing the entire country. Obama is winning in far more states. Hillary running up votes in some states does not equal more superdelegates in that state, those are a finite number. Essentially do you believe these Obama state superdelegates are going to risk going back to their state after handing Hillary the nod? I tend to believe they will use their discretion in ways best to advance their own career. Even though this supports Obama, I don't think this is good. This is why I rely on pledged delegates to be the determiner, no matter if it be Hillary or Obama.

Aren't most of these votes Democratic strongholds?  Shouldn't the fact that people in States where Republicans tend to win think Obama is their best bet, show that he is more electable in the General?

She could probably get the supremes to back her - I'm sure Antonin would find some strong legal rationale.

blackton -- dunno if you'll see this as it's a stale thread, but your comments miss the point -- there's nothing anti-democratic about Clinton's "total vote" theory (again, caveats as to the shams in MI/FL).  I believe the superdelagates will do whatever they perceive is in their political interests to do and windsock accordingly.