home

The Problem With The Dem Nominee Selection Process

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:49:31 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Scott Lemieux writes:

[U]nder different rules Obama might have campaigned in a way that would have maximized his vote rather than delegate count. You can't assume that a small vote advantage would have held up under a different set of rules, and under the rules we have whoever wins the delegates wins the state, period.

As Lemieux tells it, the current system is not designed to pick the nominee who gets the most votes from actual voters. And I agree. But frankly, I do not understand what Lemieux means when he infers that delegate maximization is not connected to voter maximization. Sure the way the delegates are alloted dilutes the will of the voters. But that does not mean the candidates could do anything to address that fact in their campaigns. At least not in a primary. The horribly flawed Texas system that grants some voters more say than others is not a feature of the system, it is a horrible flaw and there is nothing either candidate could do to adjust to that.

< Rezko Trial: Day Two | Ohio Flooding: Some Polling Places Moved, Lots of Cross-Over Voters >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Problem With The Dem Nominee Selection Process | 62 comments (62 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    In my Opinion though (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:53:14 PM EST
    this whole thing is just a reflection of our National System of Presidential election.  The Electoral College was set up as a substitute to the Senate selecting because there was a distrust of the wisdom of the masses.  This IMO is just a reflection of that feeling among the Party Elite.

    I assume. . . (none / 0) (#1)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:52:44 PM EST
    But frankly, I do not understand what Lemieux means when he infers that delegate maximization is not connected to voter maximization.

    he means that a voter-maximization strategy would focus more on high turnout primary states while a delegate-maximization strategy would give at least equal weight to caucus states.

    Or, it means a smart campaign (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:57:42 PM EST
    doesn't write off rural NV or Ohio, due to delegate apportionment rules.

    Parent
    Explain (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:01:45 PM EST
    Nevada OVERweighted Republican rural districts, as Texas OVERweighs urban African American districts.

    Niether candidate did anything different as a result, Obama just had advantages in the relevant favored groups.

    The system was not designed to favor Obama, but it did. And nothing Clinton or Obama did or could do would change that.

    Parent

    To put it another way (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:02:53 PM EST
    what is Obama doing in Texas that he would do differently if the delegate allotment was based on the total statewide vote? The answer is absolutely nothing.

    Parent
    Bill Clinton has been on the stump (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:03:46 PM EST
    in SE Ohio, which has lots of delegates, even though not heavily populated in comparison to Clevland, Toledo, Columbus, Cincinnati, etc.  Thought I read Obama was on the ground more than HRC in rural NV for the same reason.

    Parent
    I know of no overwieghitng of rural districts (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:10:02 PM EST
    in Ohio.

    That Bill Clinton is stumping in rural Ohio merely means he is stumping in rural Ohio. Nothing more.

    Parent

    LA Times writer agrees w/you. (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:19:48 PM EST
    OHIO

    Parent
    Nice work (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:23:34 PM EST
    Under the Democrats' arcane rules for awarding delegates, whoever dominates the north -- particularly the northeast -- could win most of the 141 Ohio delegates at stake today. Forty-nine are awarded proportionately based on statewide results.

    The other 92 are awarded proportionately among the 18 congressional districts. But the districts in the north -- which have more Democrats -- award more delegates per district than those in the south. In fact, the 10 mostly northern districts (some extend south of I-70) will award 56 of the 92 delegates.

    But four of the six districts that will award an odd number of delegates -- giving the winner of each district the chance to pick up an extra delegate -- are in the south, a possible advantage for Clinton, who polls show is doing well there, buttressed by Strickland's endorsement.

    And actually points to the fact that Obama will use a voter maximization strategy to get the most delegates he can by driving his base, A-As to the polls.

    Parent

    If that is what he means (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:59:54 PM EST
    Then it makes no sense when most primaries and caucuses came out in small groupings.

    On Super Tuesday he would have a point. But on no other day.

    Parent

    As an example. . . (none / 0) (#26)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:18:58 PM EST
    I think it's clear that Obama put a lot of effort and resources early on into developing caucus operations in red portions of red states.  That's a delegate-maximization strategy since those districts will have relatively small numbers of voters compared to more strongly blue areas, especially where primaries are held.

    Parent
    Instead of doing? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:20:38 PM EST
    What? Campaigning in California? Spending money in California? What did he do differently?

    As I say, Super Tuesday, I buy the argument somewhat. Not any other time.

    Parent

    Instead of media, I suppose. (none / 0) (#35)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:24:54 PM EST
    The problem with this theory is that it mostly applies when the candidate has to make choices about where to apply resources -- something that hasn't really happened to Obama in this campaign.

    Still, he clearly undertook a strategy to produce delegates in places that Clinton didn't really attempt to do.  Did Clinton not do that because she didn't have enough dough?  Because she buys into the "only blue states and districts that might go Dem in the election are important in the primary"?  Because she's just dumb?

    Parent

    That argues for Clinton (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:27:07 PM EST
    not being able to maximize her vote as opposed to Obama.

    Lemieux's argument makes no sense to me.

    Parent

    Not designed for the most votes (none / 0) (#6)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:02:36 PM EST
    Therefore not designed to rally the most voters, only the most activist of voters.

    It's not designed to develop a consensus nominee that people of different belief systems can rally behind.  It's designed to pick a "niche" nominee that suits one group while everyone else has to hold their noses and vote for them.

    Hence, I really like having 3rd party choices to keep candidates "on the right track".

    Winner-take-all States (none / 0) (#7)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:02:40 PM EST
    I think that's what Lemieux is referring to.  If we had those, you don't need to make a great effort to maximize turnout.  A win is a win.  You get all the delegates.

    But if we had winner-take-all states, Obama would be back in Chicago, thinking about running for Governor.

    Or not. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:11:26 PM EST
    But if we had winner-take-all states, Obama would be back in Chicago, thinking about running for Governor.
    If the Dems had winner take all, Obama would still be leading.

    Good try though.

    Parent

    And Texas would be huge tonight (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:13:47 PM EST


    Parent
    Sure... (none / 0) (#22)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:16:30 PM EST
    ... but the point still remains that Robert Porter is flat out wrong when he states that if we had a winner-take-all system, Obama would be at home.  

    Obama would currently be leading, and that chart doesn't include Wisconsin.

    Parent

    True enough (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:17:35 PM EST
    But he would be the underdog at this point I think.

    Parent
    How so? (none / 0) (#28)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:19:57 PM EST
    If he wins today in Texas, he would have a commanding lead, especially in a winner-take-all situation.  

    Parent
    Assuming (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:24:40 PM EST
    Obama wins Texas, true. Assuming it is a tossup, no.

    But you are right, she would be a slight favorite only with PA coming up.

    Parent

    I was thinking of ... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:23:51 PM EST
    the model that the Dems used in '84 or Pugs used this year.  In those models, Obama wouldn't be leading.  Some winner take all, and some proportional.

    I don't think either party has ever used all winner take all primaries and caucuses.

    Parent

    How can you say that? (none / 0) (#49)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:03:20 PM EST
    Unless you cherry pick the states that are proportional and which are winner take all I don't see how you can know that.

    Parent
    Following the model from '84 ... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:45:39 PM EST
    as I said I don't think either party has ever used only winner take all states.

    I worked on the Gary Hart campaign in '84.  We were killed by this process. We'd winner proportional states, then lose winner take all states.

    It was still a close race.  And Mondale needed the supers in the end to put him over the top.  But we were significantly behind, so there wasn't much of ruckus.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:05:53 PM EST
    That is counter to his argument.

    IF we had winner take all states THEN you could argue voter maximization would not be as central a part of the strategy.

    But Dems do not, ergo voter maximization remains the central part of the Dem strategy.

    Larry had a better point in terms of choices for using resources in different states. But that was just a Super Tuesday issue. By the way, the general election has the same choices.

    But the Dem system of delegate allocation - the proportionality as opposed to winner take all means the voter maximization is the central goal of the Dem candidates.

    Parent

    Well, sorta ... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:11:55 PM EST
    But it really means maximize voters where voters count more.

    In caucuses, and even certain counties in primaries, a vote can be almost 5-10 times more powerful in the process of delegate selection.

    Parent

    Explain (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:13:07 PM EST
    Are there congressional districts in Ohio and Texas that are overweighted?

    Parent
    If I may speak. . . (none / 0) (#23)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:17:06 PM EST
    for the original commenter, I believe he means that some districts are advantaged by a factor of 500% or  more with respect to districts in other states.

    Parent
    Hmm (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:18:05 PM EST
    I doubt that statement.

    Parent
    Net Total is all that matters (none / 0) (#43)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:37:45 PM EST
    The gross delegate accumulation isn't important it's the net total.  You might as well zero out everything but the net gains.  Because that's really all you get.

    And this year that meant the million plus voters in New Jersey were equal to the 100,000 plus caucus attendees in Idaho.

    Parent

    Show me your math (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:45:47 PM EST
    And to be cear, you said voters, not delegates.

    Parent
    What math? (none / 0) (#51)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:11:49 PM EST
    Obama got a net total of 11 delegates in Idaho (12 according to some).

    Hillary got a net total of 11 delegates in NJ.

    They don't release any official number of attendees in Idaho caucuses but estimates were around 100,000.

    The number of voters in NJ topped 1 million.

    So by Obama maximizing his vote total in Idaho, he was able to make Hillary's NJ win irrelevant. And he did this with far fewer voters.

    His 80,000 votes in Idaho were equal to her 600,000 votes in NJ.

    Parent

    That's wrong (none / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:26:02 PM EST
    Clinton got many more than 11 delegates in NJ.

    Parent
    Look it up (none / 0) (#53)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:38:30 PM EST
    Of pledged delegates, she got 59, he got 48.  That's a net total of 11 pledged delegates.  (Or those have been the estimates.)

    Look it up.

    Parent

    he's talking net gains (none / 0) (#54)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:42:14 PM EST
    BT, Clinton got 11 more delegates than Obama in NJ, and Obama got 11 (or 12) more delegates than Clinton in Idaho.

    Parent
    And in a proportional system (none / 0) (#59)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:56:31 PM EST
    net gains are all that matters.  

    Axelrod saw this and had the money and organization to capitalize on it.  

    Clinton proved her organization could do this if it was in place, and funded.  She did it in Nevada.  But money problems and bone-headed strategy made them choose to cede too many of those caucus states.

    No Democrat will ever make this mistake again.

    Parent

    not money problems... (none / 0) (#65)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:30:36 PM EST
    Clinton proved her organization could do this if it was in place, and funded.  She did it in Nevada.  But money problems and bone-headed strategy made them choose to cede too many of those caucus states.

    The Obama campaign had a grassroots effort lead by maybe a couple of dozen (at most--my guess is less than a dozen, given that the state's population is heavily concentrated in maybe half a dozen counties) paid staffers.  What those staffers got paid in total for their efforts was probably the equivalent of a couple of 30 second ads on the local network affiliate in Los Angeles.

    Parent

    your idaho numbers (none / 0) (#57)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:55:56 PM EST
    actually, there were only 21,224 caucus participants in Idaho, 16,880 of whom caucused for Obama, and 3655 who were for Clinton.  Obama got a net gain of 11 delegates in Idaho while having the support of 13225 more caucus participants.

    In New Jersey, Clinton got a net gain of 11 delegates while having the support of 110,390 more votes than Obama.

    Parent

    Those aren't voters ... (none / 0) (#60)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:58:12 PM EST
    they're state convention delegates.  

    Parent
    Maybe you could be right ... (none / 0) (#61)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:05:05 PM EST
    some caucuses don't list actual turnout.  Nevada didn't. And that site listed them as "state convention delegates" not voters.

    Anyway, if that's the number it makes my case even stronger.

    Parent

    Anyway ... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:16:13 PM EST
    the point is that Obama's campaign maximized turnout where it would get them greater net gains per voter.

    Those happy little Idahoans magically transformed into ten New Jerseyites on Super Tuesday.

    Parent

    no, they really are people (none / 0) (#63)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:20:12 PM EST
    I checked it against local newspaper reports... for instance, Blaine(?) County was reported to have problems because of the number of participants... and that matched the number reported by the state at the link I cited.

    Parent
    delegate selection (none / 0) (#9)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:03:40 PM EST
    here's an example... lets say that your state allocates 3 delegates to each congressional district, and in a two person race you need only approx 17% (1/2 of 1/3) to get one delegate, so in most districts each candidate will get one delegate, with the third delegate going to the candidate who has the most votes.

    So, if you have a 60-40% lead in a district, you're pretty much guaranteed 2 delegates, but the only way to get that third delegate is to raise that percentage to 84% to 16%.  

    Accepting that (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:08:39 PM EST
    is the argument then that Obama stopped trying to win votes in districts that were likely to be split and only concentrated his resources on maximizing his vote in those districts that could reap delegate benefits? Well that still does not support the point as all it means is that the voter maximization was targeted to some districts over others. What may have been lost in one district was likely made up for in the other district.

    Lemieux's argument is rather silly I think.

    Parent

    not maximization (none / 0) (#30)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:21:18 PM EST
    BT, I think you are confusing "mazimization" with "optimization".   A strategy that is designed to maximize the number of delegates will devote its resources in the most efficient fashion -- if a candidate has 45% of the vote in a district, and wants that second delegate, s/he'll work that district until s/he feels that there is a comfortable margin, and then divert resources elsewhere.

    Parent
    You make it sound like it is an exact science (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:25:48 PM EST
    No one can know the percentages they will get to within 5 or 10 with any comfort.

    I am not buying THAT at all.

    Parent

    of course its not an exact science... (none / 0) (#44)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:40:43 PM EST
    ... but we are talking about the theoretical difference between delegate maximization, and vote maximization.

    And the difference is that when trying to maximize delegates, resources will be used differently than when trying to maximize votes.  

    The simplest example is the general election.  Every state is "winner take all" -- and candidates don't try to maximize their national vote totaks, because they are irrelevant.  Instead, they use their resources in the most efficient manner to ensure that the reach a total of 270 electoral college votes.  Some states get completely ignored by one party -- like Georgia.  Sure, the Democratic candidate could get lots more votes in Georgia if they spent time and money there... but absent a national landslide, they aren't going to win Georgia's EC votes.  So Dems "write off" Georgia.

    Parent

    Theoretical is the key word (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:45:01 PM EST
    Lemiuex has no real world point here.

    Parent
    I should stay out of this, (none / 0) (#58)
    by jerry on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:56:29 PM EST
    but what the hell, it's the internet....

    Lemieux is a horrible apologist for whatever side he is on.  That side can do no wrong, the other side can do no right.

    I interpret his blog as damage and try to route around it.

    Parent

    Knowing There are some things that (none / 0) (#16)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:12:20 PM EST
    could not be fixed before the Primary (mostly because no one ever expects it to be this close, and so it never comes up, naturally) I prefer to focus on the things that didn't need to be made worse.

    So.  Sure.  The things that could never have been fixed favor Obama.

    And so do the things that were made worse, and the understanding that the person who helped make them worse does not like the Clintons will linger until the situation is resolved to some satisfaction.  And it might not be.

    Rule Change? (none / 0) (#31)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:22:43 PM EST
    Slight 'rule change' in Ohio.  Jefferson County is allowing voters 10 days to cast ballots with the Board of Elections due to flooding and the inability to get to polling places.

    Does anyone have any demographics on the county?

    What? (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:26:10 PM EST
    Link?

    Parent
    Here you go (none / 0) (#50)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:08:19 PM EST
    link

    Parent
    Jeff Co. (none / 0) (#48)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:55:13 PM EST
    in the 2004 democratic primary, there were approx 15,000 voters.  In the 2004 general election, there were around 19,000 votes for Kerry.  I can't find voter registration information, but 2006 census estimates shows that the county is 92.4% white, and 5.7% AA.  Median household income was around 33,700 (as opposed to the state average of around 43,300)

    In other words, it looks like a good county for Clinton, but its not very large so it won't much matter.

    Parent

    The texas system (none / 0) (#39)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:31:53 PM EST
    the flaws in the Texas system are the fault of the way in which Texas districts are drawn -- and is pretty much the same system used in other states.  

    Republicans like to create two kinds of districts... one that is as close to 100% "democratic" as possible, and ones where the GOP has a 20-25% edge over democrats.  This keeps democratic representation to a minimum, but as a result these heavily democratic districts get the most delegates.

    I know that (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:33:44 PM EST
    But it is worse in Texas as it is broken up by STATE Senate  districts and weighted against the last GUBERNATORIAL contest.

    It is especially egregious in Texas.

    Parent

    TX is the perfect example.... (none / 0) (#41)
    by ineedalife on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:34:56 PM EST
    of how the proportional delegate system is set up to win last cycle's election and puts this cycle at risk. The Hispanic community is turning out but is under-represented in delegates because Kerry sucked so much in TX 4 years ago. A winner-take-all system does not arrogantly pre-judge where the votes are coming from.

    It's sort of a moot point he's making (none / 0) (#42)
    by spit on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:36:20 PM EST
    because the superdelegates are also part of the rules, and if they are convinced to use the popular vote as their major criterion for support, that's well within their right.

    How the supers make up their minds is IMO how this thing gets decided in the end. If Clinton were to have the popular vote lead, the idea is that that will be used to influence superdelegates, and that it also takes away the argument that they are potentially "handing" the election to Clinton "against the will of the voters". That's all perfectly consistent with the rules.

    Voter Max != Delgate max (none / 0) (#47)
    by goldberry on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:48:09 PM EST
    They are two different things and it DOES mean that some votes count more.  If more Clinton supporters are married with children, it is much more difficult for them to go to the caucus.  So, it's not that Clinton has fewer voters and thus fewer delegates.  It's that her voters can't vote in the second round so her delegate count is artificially suppressed. They're still out there but they're not going to be counted.  So, Obama wins by default unless Clinton hires a stateful of babysitters and buys considerably more than $!1,000 worth of pizza.  

    In this primary season, does any (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:45:01 PM EST
    state except TX have a primary, followed the same date by a caucus where 1/3 of the delegates are selected by persons who already voted that date in the primary?  Seems like one person, two votes.  Incredible.

    One benefit to me is... (none / 0) (#66)
    by Oje on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:33:05 PM EST
    This year's nomination process made evident an alternative, and now necessary strategy, to win the nomination. In the past, we were inured to accept state-based strategies from the electoral college map of recent years. The entire narrative about the nomination and the election was reduced to a few swing-state horse races or first-in-the-nation states. That is not likely to change in the general election until we amend the Constitution to elect Presidents based on popular vote.

    But, the Democratic party now has a different kind of election system in place. Since Super Tuesday, I have been struck by the ideological coalition-building aspect of the proportional delegate race between Clinton and Obama (captured in a general way by the demographics). These constituencies proved to be the key to sustaining candidates in a long and geographically-dispersed process. Regardless of whether we completely rework our election calendar or not, Democratic candidates will begin to think about their political coalitions as 50-state constituencies and plan their campaigns accordingly in the future.

    So, I hope this will be a banner year for Democrats if only in its potential to once again point the way to transforming disparate Democratic "interest voters" and independent/disaffected Republicans into big tent coalitions.

    The Problem With The Dem Nominee Selection Process | 62 comments (62 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment