http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Don't get me wrong, I think Obama would make a fine president (I think the same of Clinton), but the vitriolic partisanship I'm seeing in this letters section is really turning me off to his supporters.

The author makes some pretty good points: Clinton HAS won most of the big states that actually vote democrat, along with many swing states. The popular vote really IS very close. And disenfranchising Florida and Michigan (both swing states) was and is idoitic. The democratic nominating process clearly has some serious flaws.

It is possible support your candidate, while acknowledging and trying to fix a broken system. Unfortunately, what I'm seeing these letters is blind partisanship. To paraphrase a famous patriot: "My candidate, may s/he always be right, but my candidate, right or wrong."

I've always taken some pride in being a Democrat, thought that compared to Republicans, many of us were better educated, more egalitarian, more interested in the power of rational thought over arbitrary standards of right and wrong. I'm afraid that some of you are causing me to rethink that position.

1. "Winner takes all" is a terrible system. Please consider supporting the National Popular Vote: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

2. I know it's the current fashion to hate caucuses, but it's kind of funny: Our New England Town Meetings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_meeting), which are heralded as wonderful and historic democratic institutions, are a lot like caucuses.

I don't usually reply to another letter with a letter here, but I've got to respond to Michael Lafferty's letter.

I posted early on, with my opinion. I'm not part of some organized oppositions.

Please. Just because there was a swift and dramatic response doesn't mean it was somehow organized. It could easily mean that the article is crap.

Which it is.

of Sean Wilenz-- don't know what he looks like, but still-- doing a one armed hand stand while balancing twirling sticks on his nose and in his free hand, balancing rotating plates, and two more plates, rotating on his super-pointy loafers, struggling to appear composed.

To me that's the visual equivalent of this exceptionally tendentious, screwy article. The only thing he offers that make sense to me is his criticism of the prejudices built into the caucus system. But the pesky constitution says that the states get to determine how to conduct elections, not academics from tony universities. If you want to end the caucus system(s), just persuade ALL the candidates in 2012 in both parties to boycott all of them-- even Iowa. You know, on principle. Then the state legislatures from Texas and Iowa-- yes, even Iowa-- will act.You know, on principle.

(hey, quit laughing...)

Look: this poll versus that poll versus that other poll, ad nauseum-- nobody really knows which one, Obama or HRC is more electable versus McCain.

In my book all three of them leave a lot to be desired, but I'm hoping that the barely standing skeleton of what the democratic party used to stand for means that it still makes some, perhaps only microscopically detectable, positive difference if you vote for the dem nominee instead of that of the Rapture party.

PS: DLF's title is very droll-- kudos.

All that was necessary was to read the headline on this one to know absolutely for certain that at least 90 percent of the reader comments would be something on the order of, "Clinton shill Sean Wilentz is a complete POS and so is salon.com for having the audacity to publish this POS which argues that that POS Hillary Clinton is actually a better bet because of all those POS popular-vote states which aren't smart enough to hold [bring in celestial choir] caucuses. Furthermore, rules are rules and even if they're asinine, they do favor MY candidate, so for the moment they're perfectly fine, and you can take those POS states MI and FL and stuff them where the sun don't shine."

People, this was an opinion piece, clearly labeled so (which is far more than the Masters Of The MSM are willing to do these days). Far as I know, opinions are still legal, and many of you have had NO compunction about posting the most vile slurs of Hillary Clinton and her supporters on this site, not to mention uttering loud hosannas in the wake of any opinion piece favoring Obama. But, ah, let Sean Wilentz raise his voice in support of Clinton, and you immediately form an online lynch mob.

So, tell us: just how long will opinions remain legal under President Obama, that is, those unfavorable to him. A month? A week? Mere hours?

instead of football, the score would be *much* closer.

Boo fucking hoo.

Excellent article. The DNC came up with this asinine system and we the people will pay the price. His short term plan might get him the nomination, but it will destroy any Democratic prospects of winning the presidency in November. As for Obama, he should do what is right and agree to a revote in Florida and Michigan.

Without diving into Wilentz's highly dubious argument that the Democratic Party's primary system should replicate our electoral system--pinnacle of perfection that it is--let's quickly debunk his parallel universe.

The issue is primary voter preferences. Wilentz's argument dies here, because he does not acknowledge the possibility that voters might vote differently in a winner-take-all system than they have in the (reality-based) proportional system already in place. So, honestly, what relevance does Wilentz's article have?

Go ahead and rehash old arguments in favor of Clinton if you want, but voter preferences in this election are grounded in the system that is in place.

A: make one player out to be the bad-guy, and ignore relevant facts if they complicate your argument (in this case, MI/FL were not contested., + O leads in popular vote polls.)

B: strive to see the vantage point of both sides, keep language neutral, and includes ALL relevant facts no matter what.

I hate A. That's why even if Fox were gung-ho liberal, I could never watch it.

Salon should never include type A journalism. Why complicate the truth? It already is anyway.

And you could well have persuaded me! You mention a McCain match-up including the effect of the electoral college. That really interests me, and might influence my opinion, but you've so clearly slanted the information in your article, I don't trust you.

Geez, Sean.