This is just silly:
Hillary Clinton will take the Democratic nomination even if she does not win the popular vote, but persuades enough superdelegates to vote for her at the convention, her campaign advisers say.
The New York senator, who lost three primaries Tuesday night, now lags slightly behind her rival, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, in the delegate count. She is even further behind in “pledged” delegates, those assigned by virtue of primaries and caucuses.
But Clinton will not concede the race to Obama if he wins a greater number of pledged delegates by the end of the primary season, and will count on the 796 elected officials and party bigwigs to put her over the top, if necessary, said Clinton’s communications director, Howard Wolfson.
No shit. And she would be completely within her rights to do so. Would it be sleazy, and a sure way to make sure she depresses Democratic turn-out and probably make her so disliked her legislative agenda would go nowhere, even with a friendly Congress? Quite possibly. But this is the Clintons we are talking about, and winning is everything (and don’t tell me that statement is Clinton hate- the dynamic duo have always considered themselves to be the pragmatic winners of the Democratic Party).
The Clinton campaign is banking on this scenario. This is why we are getting with lubed up with all sorts of stories like this from Clinton surrogate Lanny Davis:
There is certainly a valid concern expressed by those who fear that the 796 “superdelegates” to the August 2008 Democratic National Convention — Democratic elected officials, party officials and VIPs – might make the difference in delivering the nomination to the candidate who wins fewer pledged delegates out of the primaries and caucuses. To some, such a result would seem “undemocratic.”
But let’s not rewrite history. When the superdelegates were first created by the Democratic National Committee in 1982, they were intended to be independent, able to vote for any candidate, regardless of the outcome of the primaries or caucuses in their own congressional districts or states.
And this from Clinton pollster Mark Penn:
Again and again, this race has shown that it is voters and delegates who matter, not the pundits or perceived “momentum.” After Iowa, every poll gave Barack Obama a strong lead in New Hampshire, but he ended up losing the state. And after a defeat in South Carolina, Hillary Clinton went on to win by large margins in California, New York, Florida, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Arizona, Tennessee, Oklahoma and Arkansas.
As history shows, the Democratic nomination goes to the candidate who wins the most delegates – not the candidate who wins the most states. In 1992, Bill Clinton lost a string of primaries before clinching the nomination.
And this nonsense from Clinton surrogate Harold Ickes:
The person I spoke to paraphrases Ickes, who is spearheading Hillary’s super-delegate hunt, this way: “We’re no longer using the phrase super delegates. It creates a wrong impression. They’re called automatic delegates. Because that’s what they are.”
The worry appears to be that the phrase “super-delegates” implies that “they have super-powers or super influence when they don’t,” the source says, describing Ickes’ thinking. In other words, the phrase suggests that they have greater than average clout and that they have the power to overrule the democratic process, giving it the taint of back-room power politics.
The new term “automatic delegates” appears to be ostensibly a reference to the fact that these folks are super-delegates automatically, by virtue of their office or position.
It is right there in front of you- they intend to win this nomination even if they lose the popular vote. They are just setting the groundwork for it right now, and anyone who is even remotely surprised that the Clinton camp would literally crawl over glass to win needs to have their head examined.
Which, of course, is why it is so important that you make sure you go out and vote for Obama. Try to get him to win every state from here on out, and make the margins smaller when he loses. Make the super-delegates think about going against the popular will. A clean, undeniable win is the only thing that will stop her, as we KNOW they have no scruples about taking this nomination any way they can.
*** Update ***
And this does not even delve into the bullshit they are going to try to pull with Florida and Michigan.
*** Update #2 ***
An almost identical post from the Poliblogger.
*** Update #3 ***
From the other side of this issue, Tom Watson.
Chris O.
I’m not voting for HRC if party insiders overturn the will of the elected delegates and give her the nomination (possible exception being if it turns out to be very close, say 25 or so). I’m sure I’m not the only one.
John S.
This is just as I have always thought.
Clinton would burn down the Democratic party and run as a Communist if she thought it would get her on the ballot. That’s why I laugh every time I see someone post something to the effect of “Obama supporters won’t vote for Clinton because they are bad Democrats.”
As always, it’s more important what the candidates do than what their supporters do. So I guess from now on when I see someone post that about Obama folk, I’ll just reply that “Hillary doesn’t care how the people vote and will try to win at all costs because she is a good politician, but a bad Democrat.”
And as sleazy as Hillary is being about all this, she is still a better candidate than McCain.
Ugh
Hillary Clinton is the only person that can get John McCain elected.
Xenos
What bothers me about the Clinton line is that their surrogates are out there talking about how superdelegates tipping the nomination against the popular vote is OK, and then you see McAuliff pushing for seating the delegates from the uncontested Michigan and Florida primaries because to do otherwise would “disenfranchise” the Florida and Michigan voters. This is not just offensive, but nauseating.
Is this what Clinton-hating feels like? I am beginning to feel sorry for the republicans who have had to deal with this!
A week ago I would have been happy to vote for Clinton in the general election. Now, forget it. I have been voting a straight Democratic ticket since 1984, but Clinton winning on these terms would make me quit the party. Exit stage left.
rob!
my vague dislike of Clinton has turned into utter revulsion.
how can so many people not see her naked ambition and not get worried?
PigInZen
Well I for one would really chafe at such an event. I’ve been involved in the local Democratic Party as a precinct chair and township chair. I don’t know if I could forgive the party for allowing such an event to happen. It would be a serious blow to my enthusiasm for the Democratic Party. And I suspect that I’m not the only one out there that feels this way. Actually, I know I’m not. I’m in the Donna Brazile camp and will most likely disown the Democratic Party if this occurs.
There would be no better way for the Democratic establishment to destroy the recent success than for the nomination process to be decided like this. We’re talking permanent minority status. It would wreck the party.
neil
The question is, if Obama does end up getting the nomination, will Clinton work against him to make sure he and his supporters are punished for going against the royal family?
Elvis Elvisberg
We’re talking permanent minority status. It would wreck the party.
And therefore the country, because the other party is pure jingoism and know-nothingism.
neil
Anyway, the superdelegates are the key. Are they going to jump behind Hillary when she’s lost the popular vote, is behind in pledged delegates, is way behind Obama in national opinion polls and is underperforming against McCain by 10 points compared to him?
Maybe, because Democrats do love to lose.
Prince Roy
I am an Independent, and as much as I can’t bear the thought of any current GOP candidate becoming president, I am putting the Democratic Party Establishment on notice. I will under no circumstances vote for HRC. If she obtains the nomination I will vote third party. It is as simple as that. The Democratic Party: unmatched at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
I find it utterly ludicrous to hear Hillbots saying that HRC will draw more support from independents than Obama. That is absolute nonsense.
Here is why:
–she did not oppose the war, but tried to rationalize her vote by shoving all the blame on Bush. (She had no power of independent judgment?)
–she supported Kyl/Lieberman, which essentially is the extension of the Bush doctrine into Iran.
–she is a leader in a dem controlled Congress that has caved in and kowtowed to Bush on every significant issue.
–she has yet to publicly condemn Bush for his unlawful expansion of executive branch powers. Nor has she led a fight to end his administration’s spying on US citizens without a warrant.
–if she is elected, and were to be re-elected, there will have been a Bush or Clinton in the White House from 1989-2016. This is not healthy for a democracy. While it ranks last among my concerns, this is a legitimate issue.
minstrel boy
why not start calling them “enhanced” delegates. you know, like the “enhanced” interrogation techniques that sound so much more palatable than torture.
these kind of word games and spin cycles are revolting.
NonyNony
Well sure. That has always been her most attractive quality as a candidate – the willingness to fight hard and, if needed, dirty to win the election. If her supporters didn’t know that then they weren’t paying attention. It’s just that you’re not supposed to turn those guns onto your own party. I don’t know why anyone would be surprised – it’s not like her husband wasn’t a master of attacking his own party for political purposes.
Possibly. Superdelegates cast their votes for a variety of reasons. I’ll bet some small percentage actually will vote what they think is best for the country. Some percentage will vote in the manner they think is best for the party as a whole. So those votes are going to come down to individual consciences.
But I would count on most of them voting in a manner that they think will be best for themselves. Because, despite all of the justifications for it, the superdelegate system was a way to get patronage for the high-level Dem pols back into the game after the primary system removed it. So, really, for a good chunk of Clinton “supporters” among the superdelegates, it’s probably just a matter of finding out what she promised them in exchange for their support and making sure they get it – or get something better – if they switch their votes.
We’ll see if Obama is able to use his Magical Unity Pony to convince these guys. If he and his pony can get them to back him, I might start believing that he’s a cynical enough bastard to be President.
John S.
You must have been reading my anti-oligarchy screeds!
Teak111
What motivates a SD? Diplomatic post, high govt position? Hill probably has the machine in place to make these offers to SD. Eliot Spitzer, gov of NY, was on Colbert and is a SD. He’s voting for Clinton. I got the impression many of these deals are already in place. SD are the Clinton’s safety net. Doubt Obama has the insider experience to have many SD deals in place.
Zifnab
Whatever. At this point, a vote against Clinton is a vote for McCain. She knows she can pull this bullshit in the convention because she will still be the least bad candidate on the ballot.
What’s more, if Hillary clinches the race with Super Delegates, as much as I don’t like the system I will be forced to admit she won within the rules. If you don’t like how the Democratic Party picks its Presidential Nominees, then complain about that. I’ll definitely be writing angry letters to Howard Dean come Jan ’09 to cut this super delegate nonsense out of the system. But I won’t begrudge a candidate for playing by the rules, just because the rules work to her favor.
Bush bet Gore in 2000 with voter intimidation, fraud, and a stacked SCOTUS willing to turn a blind eye. If Hillary beats Obama, she will only have succeeded by attracting a powerful contingent of voters, winning over a sizeable level of support from congressional and gubernatorial delegates, and running a compelling campaign. She’ll win because she won, not because she cheated. That’s good enough for me.
Obama’s MUP may be what’s best for this country, but I’m not going to let Hillary’s mediocrity be the enemy of Obama’s perfection and the ally of McCain’s incompetency.
ThymeZone
Well, I must say, I am the closest thing to a straight-ticket Dem voter you will ever find, and based on what I read here, if these people are seriously thinking of trying to hijack the nomination after Obama’s run, basically pulling a Bush-SCOTUS-Florida on the Democratic party, then I say, fuck her and the horse she rode in on. I don’t think I could support that ticket. I’d be rooting for Bloomberg at that point.
The Clinton camp is apparently so tone deaf that they don’t realize that even suggesting what is stated in the top post here is enough to drive another wave of voters into the Obama column in the remaining primaries and caucuses. It hasn’t ocurred to them that some of his appeal is that he is not her.
The Other Steve
I don’t think it will ever get to this. Clinton will drop out on March 5th.
wasabi gasp
That minor doofus with the “Iron My Shirt” sign has now been outdone by the major doofus’ of the Clinton team, as it appears her new slogan is “Shine My Shoes.”
zzyzx
God I hope so. I can’t handle another 4 years of manufactured outrage and always fighting for the short term even if it will hurt long term goals.
My number one reason for opposing the Iraq War was that Bush was using all of his political capital with his allies to win a rather minor prize.
4tehlulz
I’ve gone from having no problem voting for HRC in November to holding my nose when I do it.
Because, for all the reasons Prince Roy cited, she’s still less likely to get us into a stupid war in Iran (or East Asia) than Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran McCain.
dougie smooth
John,
As a former Republican, current Obamican, it would really help us here in Wisconsin if you banked some phone calls and let the voters here know why your thoughts. The primary is open here, and Obama needs to pull Republican and Independent voters away from the now irrelevant WI GOP primary. Madison and Milwaukee will be well canvassed but the upper reaches of the state are where we need to make contact.
That goes for everybody here; Republican, Independent, or Fascist. Get to work.
Woodrow "asim" Jarvis Hill
They are flat-out counting on ordinary people not noticing.
And they’re sadly right about that.
Pb
…and, therefore, screw them. If Hillary gets the nomination like that, then I won’t be voting for her in the general, and I’m sure I won’t be alone.
ThymeZone
Yes, like we were forced to admit that Bush won within the rules in 2000.
No sale to me. If she purloins the nomination that way, after the crocodile tear lies about “disenfranchising the voters” in Florida and Michigan, a very large part of the Dem base will walk away from her faster than the GOP base is walking away from McCain right now. I will be looking third party, and if people like me are looking third party, all bets are off.
If she wins the thing fair and square, great, I will put her sign in my front yard. Otherwise, count me out.
However … all this said … I really don’t think the superdelegates would give this to her. I think they are too politically savvy to not understand that they’d be killing their party.
Don’t forget, we still haven’t seen the final burst of Obama support yet. I think the biggest days are still to come in this primary season.
ThymeZone
Well, they saw that lake of oil, and calculated that we’d be in energy heaven for decades with that oil under our control.
Don’t tell me that isn’t what motivated them, they knew where every truckload of oil Hussein was selling was going and who was buying it, but they couldn’t keep track of the WMDs. Even CNN was tracking Hussein’s oil sales. But they just couldn’t figure out where the weapons were.
Figure it out.
John S.
You beat me to it. You can play by the rules and still come off as a sleazebag.
I agree. As TOS said above, I think when March 5th rolls around and the voters make it obvious that the only way she is coming away with this thing is to pull off the greatest pyrrhic victory of all time, she’ll pull her head out of her ass and walk away.
Wilfred
They’re bluffing, trying to keep down the Obama vote by using the fear factor of a fractured party. Obama should call it right now and say that if that scenario happens, him winning the popular vote and losing to machine politics, he’ll make a third party run and submarine the whole thing. Fire with fire – force the DNC to show some balls to.
LarryB
Well, maybe true now, but I guarantee you this wasn’t plan A. I’m sure the Clinton campaign was just as floored as the rest of us by the power of the Obama wave.
ThymeZone
Heh. Just a slight improvement.
And, what Wilfred just said. In fact, until I know for a fact that he won’t go 3rd party, he is my candidate this year no matter what the Democrats do in Denver.
And I urge all who agree with that to start saying so loudly right now to anyone, including superdelegates, who might listen.
Justin
You nailed it, John. Obama is going to have to pry that nomination from Clinton’s cold dead fingers.
chopper
i dig this country more than i hate machine politics and weasely politicians, so even if HRC wins the nom. against the popular vote by twisting enough SD arms and making enough promises, i’ll still vote for her in the general against mccain.
then i’ll walk away from the democratic party for the rest of my life.
screw this noise.
jenniebee
For some background (and a broader perspective) go read digby
chopper
bad idea. he’d come off as not caring at all about the party. blackmail isn’t a good way to win a party’s convention. there’s gotta be another way, and likely some smart people in obama’s campaign have already figured one out.
Xenos
The Democratic Party is damn close to over as it is, given the performance of the current congress. If it were to die, I don’t think anyone would much miss it.
Wilfred
i don’t read it that way. the Clinton play is to keep the Obama turn out low, giving her a chance to reach the big winning margins she needs. Her play is to tell Obama voters, that it doesn’t matter if they turn out or not – she’ll still win with the supers. It’s the same ‘inevitability’ noise; even here the assumption is that she would ‘automatically’ have the votes of the supers – look at Ickes’ phrasing and the Penn ‘big states’ discourse’. It’s all of a piece.
Obams needs to get out the vote, and tell his supporters that he is willing to do what it takes to beat the machine. That’s his discourse and now it’s becoming more and more apparent just what the machine is. Game on.
The Other Steve
That’s why I think this thing is over March 5th. If it’s clear from the outcome of March 4th that Clinton does not have the majority of delegates, there’s going to be considerable pressure for her to drop out.
I’m talking a good old-fashioned Mitt Romney “We’re a nation at war, and for the good of the country I must drop out” speech.
Or not. Maybe Obama loses in a blowout, then we’ll go on for a while. But I think if Obama lost in a blowout on the 4th, chances are he’d be crippled in upcoming states. So again, it would probably be a good idea if he dropped out.
rawshark
I disagree that it’s a legitimate point. Its only a legitimate point if the superdelegates give her the nomination. If we vote for her then we voted for her. What’s far more lgetitmate is that McCain will appoint the kind of people who don’t believe government should be regulating business, to run regulatory agency’s. That’s what Bush has done. We can’t have anymore of that.
TheFountainHead
Oh man, every time I need a pick me up I refresh the hillaryis44.com page and get new gems. Here’s a dazzling one from “SpacegirlArt” this morning:
qwerty42
Matt Yglesias has had two recent posts on this: one on superdelegates and the other on support for the candidates. My feeling is that this year the Democrats have two remarkably strong candidates, each with intense levels of support. That is fine, and I do not know when this last happened. I voted for Obama as I think he is best positioned for the 21st century and all. But my goal is removing the current administration and undoing (to the extent that is possible) the disastrous, and to me disgraceful and squalid, policies it has followed – foreign and domestic. Its assumption of extraconstitutional powers is terrifying, and must come to an end. If Hillary is the nominee, she has my vote. My take on the superdelegates is that if they are needed, then they are to act in the best interests of baseball or the party, whatever. If it really is close, then that is what they do. Sorry, dems da rules and have been for a generation. I’m not Penelope Pureheart on this; victory in November is the goal. i don’t get into assuming some “rovian” tactics or the like — perhaps some may have missed it, but ol’ karl isn’t in the Whitehouse anymore and his methods are well on the way to destroying the Republican party. folks need to get a grip: you will have to make a choice in November; it may not be the one you want, but that is just too bad. Unless you wanna vote for Nader and get a war with Iran or whatever. is this really difficult to grasp?
TheFountainHead
Duh.
Which is exactly why a wrangled victory for Clinton on the backs of the Super-delegates is a very bad thing. It divides the party, it makes our general election campaign about process and politics, not policies, and on top of that, it turns away a lot of the not so hardcore Democrats and Independents who have been backing Obama–whom ANY candidate is going to need to win in November. I’m hoping that the powers that be in the Party (who have done a complete backflip on Clinton already, I think) recognize that nominating Hillary weakens the Democratic ticket at every level.
Paul L.
Do not be silly. It is hate because you are criticizing a Democrat.
Hillary Clinton – Selected not Elected.
Wilfred
Nice try, but FEAR is not going to make Obama supporters think that they were not fucked over by machine politics. Obama’s message is to change the game, not play it.
If elected, mine too. If selected – no vote, no money, no help.
ThymeZone
No, not at all, it’s a surrender.
It basically says, ignore the most exciting primary season we have ever seen, and what it means, and go with the powerful and established interests because, you know, McCain is worse.
Not buying it. This primary season is about rejection of that whole ball of wax. It is being rejected out there in voting booths from coast to coast. These things have consequences. We did not go through this process in order to annoint an old Pol to give us more of the same.
I totally reject your argument.
rawshark
Just like George!
ThymeZone
And … this thread has motivated to — once again — send money to the Obama campaign. I’ll go broke over here before I will sit here and let the Clinton machine try to steal this nomination.
Give till it hurts, people.
jenniebee
Yeah, can we see some of the reasoning behind why this isn’t healthy for democracy? Because all I’ve ever seen is just the statement that it isn’t good. As far as I can tell, a surname is nothing more than a concentrated faction – what’s the difference between a Bush and another member of PNAC? or a Clinton and another DNC pol?
What I think is unhealthy for a democracy is for one party to be dominated by a single family or machine, while the other party remains less focused. Better to fight fire with fire than to allow a single hereditary power base dominate unopposed.
TheFountainHead
Same TZ. I keep hearing this meme from Clinton supporters: “Bambi is only winning anything because he’s got the repugs voting for him! It’s so despicable!”
Do they not get that that’s THE VERY POINT of the 50 states strategy? Do they not understand that that’s the only way to accomplish anything?
p.lukasiak
more Hillary bashing from Cole.
It never occurs to those suffering from HDS that there are good reasons to ignore leads in the number of states, or ‘pledged’ delegates, or ‘votes’.
The job of the “automatic” delegates is to determine which candidates can win, and if the answer is both, which is best for the country.
An ability to come up with big vote margins in places like Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina, and racking up delegates in caucus states where Bush won by 20% or more in 2004, is the kind of thing that should be ignored. As should victories in blue states where hell will freeze over before a republican wins them this year — states like Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and DC.
Here is a list of the states that the automatic delegates should be concerned most about — these are states where the margin was 10% or less (i.e. a 5% shift or less would have changed where the electoral votes went.)
Dem +10% to +7%
Connecticut
Illinois
California
Maine
Hawaii
Delaware
Washington
New Jersey
Dem +6% to +3%
Oregon
Minnesota
Michigan
Pennsylvania
Dem +2% to
p.lukasiak
(looks like my previous comment was truncated..here’s the end….
Dem +2% to
John S.
I realize that you are free to disagree, but the concern over oligarchy is legitimate. You may not think it is a valid reason, but the oligarchy is real whether you like it or not.
It doessn’t matter if the people vote for an oligarch – she is still part of the oligarchy nonetheless. Some have argued that Obama is also part of it, but obviously to a much lesser and less obvious degree.
p.lukasiak
oh, this is annoying… apparently, you can’t use the “less than” sign…
John Cole
P. Lukasiak,
If you are going to accuse me of Hillary bashing, you might not use their newspeak “automatic delegates” BS.
rawshark
I don’t disagree about the oligarchy. I disagree that its a reason to vote against her.
ThymeZone
Their parser tries to treat it as part of an HTML tag.
John S.
Egads, you Hillary spinners need to do a better job than that.
These states haven’t even voted yet, so what the hell are you blathering about?
Lemme guess, this is all good news for Hillary.
jenniebee
Isn’t that broadening the definition of oligarchy to take in everybody with better than single digit name recognition?
Cato the Elder was fine, but electing Cato the Younger? That would destroy the Republic!
John S.
Against Obama, I think it is perfectly valid.
Against McCain, I think it takes a backseat to crazy fucking warmongering.
OxyCon
Actually, they should call the caucus states “Super Caucuses” because these states are minimalizing the votes of Hillary supporters and unfairly giving too many delegates to Barack Hussein Obama.
jenniebee
Technically, the term for them is PLEO
Billy K
But…but…why would Hillary want to slay a Magical Pony?????? :(
Wilfred
This of course was the same rationale used for denying women, poor people and blacks the right to vote.
Now Paul I have a question for you. Let’s say the popular vote was ignored and the choice was thrown over to the super delegates and let’s say that they broke dead even with one left over. One person to decide the election,which is perfectly possible, or better a group of, say, 20 people, which is more probable. Do you really think that would be a good thing?
I think I’ll do a one page treatment of this scenario and pitch it to a studio.
rawshark
I say they should just put ‘Super’ in front of all words.
Dennis - SGMM
Once again, remember how amused we were when every criticism of Bush was attributed to BDS?
How about calling them “The delegates whose votes are worth 9300 of ours” instead?
Your spin is that, no matter what, Hillary would be best for the country. Was the AUMF best for the country? Not showing up to vote on the Dodd-Feingold Amendment yesterday? How about NAFTA (Two-for-one, eight years of White House experience – remember?) Losing the Congress to the Republicans, best for the country or not?
Best for the country. That’s rich.
John S.
With the help of some other commenters, I came to the conclusion that our entire system is oligarchic/oligopolic in nature. However, it is a tiered system (in my opinion):
Top – Familial
Middle – Political
Bottom – Corporate
Given the very nature of how oligarchies operate, it isn’t at all a broadening of the definition. A small group of corporate interests with money control the lobbyists that control the politicians. The small group of politicians dominated by two political factions control the governance of our country. And within that group are a few families that wield extra power. There really aren’t too many families with the clout of the Clinton, Bush and Kennedy families out there, but then again the top of the pyramid is small.
p.lukasiak
These states haven’t even voted yet, so what the hell are you blathering about?
What I’m saying is that if the pledged delegate count is close, the uncommitted and superdelegates should ignore the results of the primary process entirely, and make their decision based on who is most assured of victory in November — and if both seem assured of victory, who is best for the country.
If these delegates think that Obama has a 95% chance of winning in November, and Hillary has an 75% chance, they should go with Obama…and vice versa.
If they think that both have the same chance of winning, then they need to decide which democrat would make the best President.
I don’t care if Hillary winds up with 100 more ‘pledged” delegates than Obama because of victories in the states coming up…. if that happens, the same process should take place. The question isn’t how big a margin Hillary racks up in Pennsylvania (or any other state) in the primary — its whether she or Obama has a better chance of winning in PA (and every other ‘swing state’) in November.
Luke
Let us wait and see what the results will be!!! For the record, my vote in Ohio will go to Clinton.
chopper
and how is installing a machine democrat who wins against the populist, grassroots-backed reform candidate by getting other machine democrats on her side going to accomplish that?
Wilfred
Why, with a Super Pony, that’s how.
Svensker
I have a true case of HDS and will be very angry if she loses the popular vote but gets the nomination via super delegates (and who thought up that system, anyway?). BUT I’ll still vote her come November simply because there is a slightly better chance that she will not bomb Iran, unlike Mr. Straight Talk Express. That’s my only reason (well, SCOTUS, too) — Hillary over McCain = slightly fewer dead people, possibly.
p.lukasiak
Now Paul I have a question for you. Let’s say the popular vote was ignored and the choice was thrown over to the super delegates and let’s say that they broke dead even with one left over. One person to decide the election,which is perfectly possible, or better a group of, say, 20 people, which is more probable. Do you really think that would be a good thing?
No, of course not.
But I don’t think that would happen — if its close, then the DNC should do extensive polling in the key states to determine who has the best chance of winning in November — and (I would hope) that Obama and Hillary would issue a joint statement releasing all their “automatic” delegates from any previous pledge of support. Under those circumstances, I think an overall consensus could be reached — and if, in fact, the scenario you suggest did happen, I would hope that a Clinton/Obama ticket would emerge.
(The only reason that I say just ‘clinton/obama’ and not vice versa is that Clinton in the second spot would attract way more (especially negative) media attention to Billary making it more difficult for Obama to get his own message out.)
chopper
and california, and new jersey, and…
i mean, ignore all the states that will likely go blue in november no matter what and how many states and pledged delegates does hillary have?
besides, your argument about red states ignores important states that are trending blue, like VA. you also have to note the sheer volume of democratic registrations even in traditionally red states driven by obama’s candidacy.
rawshark
Now I’m more in agreement with John S.
She won’t appoint conservatives to positions that should not be headed by conservatives. She won’t appoint John Roberts or Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. ETC…..
John S.
I agree. Unfortunately, I don’t see that there is any argument for this that puts Hillary in the ‘win’ column. You win swing states by appealing to Independents and Republicans, who have both shown a willingness to vote for Obama. They will not vote for Hillary. So how does she end up being better positioned to win any of these states?
John S.
More like there is very little chance Hillary will take a backseat to anyone (even the voters!). She is way too big of a narcissist.
Zifnab
Right, right. Sure, sure. And if this weren’t politics, I would totally agree with you.
But, as usual, the super delegates will vote in their own best interests. Sometimes that means voting to win special favors for their districts. Sometimes that means voting to win special positions come Cabinet-appointing time. Sometimes that means voting to win personal favors from a contender or his/her lobbyist friends.
Voting for what is “best for the country” will fall to the back of the list for two reasons. One, Obama and Clinton aren’t substantially far off on policy. Both champion the same basic platforms and wrangle mostly over implementation. Neither actively support the war. Both are dyed-in-the-wool Dems. They are both “best” for the country. Two, the country at large is not the typical Senator or Congressman’s concern. His state and/or district is.
All that said, Obama does amazing things for down-ticket races. From a strictly in-house standpoint, barring sweetheart deals or bribery, the superdelegates all benefit from an Obama ticket. If you’ve got a friend running in a swing district, Obama the man you want leading the race. If you’ve got a colleague looking at a tough re-election, Obama is your new best friend.
I think that alone should be enough to spill support over to Obama’s side. For christ’s sake, he’s got Ted Kennedy at his back. I’m not particularly worried about Obama winning.
Dennis - SGMM
But that negative media attention wouldn’t make it more difficult for nominee Clinton to get her message out? Why would it be necessary for Obama as VP to get his message out, unless that it’s so that he can carry Clinton?
p.lukasiak
besides, your argument about red states ignores important states that are trending blue, like VA.
actually, VA was one of the states on the list that was truncated (the margin in 2004 was 8.21 points). I also added to the list of states that should be considered (despite being outside the 10 point margin states like Indiana, North Carolina, Arkansas, Kentucky and Tennessee — States that are either trending democratic (IN, NC), or should be contested to make sure that the GOP has to spend time and money in them (AR, KY, TN).
BTW, the reason that I don’t put CA and NJ in the “hell freezes over” category is that the the Dems will have to spend significant time and money in those states in order to ensure a win — the GOP will campaign in those states, if for no other reason than to ensure that the Dems do have to spend time and money there.
John S.
War of the Oligarchs.
I get the impression that the Kennedys being the older and more entrenched oligarchic family have never been too thrilled about the rise of a new oligarchic family to steal their thunder.
I wonder what the Bush family would do the ascendancy of a rival Republican oligarchic family.
Tsulagi
And I see that as a good thing. If Hillary stays within the rules, even if pushing hard against them, literally bitchslaping the Magical Unity Pony taking the nomination from him, I could pour a little good Scotch to that.
That same glass is there for the MUP if he’s willing to get a little bloody wanting the presidency bad enough. Or, he can hope to transcend all that floating over it. If that actually works for him leaving Hillary all bloodied with nothing to show for it, fine with me.
But if he’s not willing to fight when he needs to, then how the hell would a President Obama deal with an opposition party entrenched on some issues? Oh, that’s right, magical transcendy beams would shoot from his eyes blissfully leading them into submission. Sounds like a plan.
But both have to start thinking, planning, and acting now how they’re going to take the nomination from the other. I’ve seen an analysis on CNN a couple of times where they’ve done the math. Assuming they’re correct, if either Hillary or the Big O were to run all the remaining states with a 70-30 margin in each (not likely), neither would have enough pledged votes to win on first ballot. Howard Dean seems likes he wants to avoid a messy convention confronting the problem in advance, but this could get nasty. Obama better start wearing a cup over his magical pony.
Ed Drone
Super! Now super that super is super the super replacement super for super the super space super character, super how super do super we super handle super “Super”?
Super! It’s super not super just super for super supper super anymore.
Super Ed
rawshark
superLOL
p.lukasiak
In short, no.
Whichever candidate gets the nomination is going to be faced with the GOP smear machine, and a complicit mainstream media. Obama is going to be assaulted with a mountain of crap if he is the nominee, just as Clinton will be.
The difference is that the media will pretty much ignore any attempts to smear Obama if he’s in the VP slot — but the media’s CDS will be given full play if Clinton is in the second slot. (I mean, just consider how much time Matthews et.al. will spend obsessing over the idea of Bill Clinton role as the husband of the VICE-President….)
chopper
yeah, that right there’ll totally reverse the last 8 years of government overreach.
Xenos
What ever happened to the Romneys, anyway?
Time to drag the Kennebunkport harbor.
qwerty42
ok, i suppose this is a worldly-wise view – someone who has see ’em come, seen ’em go. and based on this rich perspective, you can say … what?
chopper
man, the more i hear of this the more i see the superdelegate system as ripe for abuse.
i mean, i understand why the superdelegates were created in the first place, so that the dems don’t necessarily run a whackjob loser in a highly-contested many-candidate primary. who knows, if a primary is essentially split like 3 or 4 ways somebody with no real chance of winning in november could take the nom with the right kind of voter triangulating.
but that isn’t the issue here. obama isn’t some wacky way-out-there leftist whackjob with no chance of winning in november. hell, his policies are pretty damn similar to clinton’s. why the hell should superdelegates be the deciding factor in this election? this isn’t what they were created for.
chopper
i’ve seen the clintons come and go, surely. they’re just not reform candidates.
they’re great to have in charge when everything is going pretty well. good at steering the ship good and straight, although they do miss out on some good chances to enact more progressive legislation. but when the boat is headed towards a waterfall, ‘good and straight’ doesn’t cut it.
quickdraw
Tell it to Massachusetts.
BCT
I think the possibility of Clinton getting the nomination with less primary delegates than Obama is almost impossible, and all of this hand wringing is silly at best. But it is a great tactic for drumming up anti-Hillary sentiment and is working wonders at that. It’s also a great way for Obama to catch up with the Superdelegate count. Nonetheless I signed Moveon’s petition today.
This attitude that Hillary has some magical power over the superdelegates that can overturn the will of the people is bullshit, and no, Obama doesn’t have messianic powers to do it either. She’s working the refs and so is Obama, and it’s not an attack when she does it and defense when he does it. Both are trying to rack up superdelegates, but only Clinton is being accused of trying to steel the nomination with them.
Hillary supporters have every right to be pissed that Michigan and Florida probably will have no say is selecting the nominee. They are two blue states and they probably would have gone Hillary if their legislators hadn’t screwed up. It doesn’t look like they’ll get their act together so Hillary is missing two of her best states, nor will those votes be included when tallying who has the majority.
I might as well throw a little more into the fire here. No one talks about the influence of Edwards delegates, they could swing it too (I know he only got 26,(sigh).
Personally, I think Obama has it. Every argument favors him right now, even the ones that probably shouldn’t favor anyone.
Off topic, Firefox spell check doesn’t recognize Obama yet, now that’s a conspiracy.
Conservatively Liberal
Gee,I remember someone tossing out a ‘STFU’ the other day when I said something along the line that Hillary and her camp will do anything to win the primary. What you wrote did not surprise me a bit John, not one bit. Like I have said before, I believe that this is the only shot Hillary is going to get at this, and she is going to do everything she can to get it.
Her strategy was the front loaded primaries and winning the big states with the other candidates splitting up the remnants. As Kos calls it in a post at the GOS, ‘Clinton’s “insult 40 states” strategy’. IMO, she thought she would have this wrapped up on Super Tuesday, and her having to loan her campaign five million dollars right after Super Tuesday shows that she went all out up to that day. She probably figured that the coffers would be refilled after her sweeping victories on Super Tuesday.
Instead, Barack kept up with her and she was caught short afterward. You can tell that her campaign never figured that some young upstart might be able to actually beat her by going to the states she decided to skip and winning them for himself.
Obama makes it a point to appeal to everyone that he can, while Hillary has calculated who she needs and who she does not need and has responded accordingly. Only the big states and Super Delegates matter to Hillary, and she believes that wasting her time on everyone else is not worth it.
Hillary has Wisconsin next, but where is she? Texas. Guess Wisconsin is another of those states that does not matter. What about the FISA vote? Hillary stayed out campaigning, Barack took time out and voted against it. Priorities? I like his better.
Hillary = “I” and “You”
Barack = “We”
That pretty much says all that you need to know about this election. She is not one of us, he is.
jenniebee
There is no way on God’s Green Earth that either the Bush, or the Clinton, or even the Kennedy family is a greater center for lasting political power than is the Lone and Almighty Ghost of Ronald Reagan.
John S.
LOL
D-Chance.
Uncommitted surrogates. Find them, send them out in front of the cameras. Supers need to follow the lead of the primary/caucus delegates in case of a plurality.
Yesterday, Willie Brown was on CNN (unable to find transcript), defending super delegates. After all, the supers are a buffer there to protect the party. Too easy for the Green Party or other independents to have too much sway in certain states or primary elections. Having super delegates means real Democrats will be nominating their representative.
Given that Obama is getting so much support from independents and Obamacans… get ready for the next claim from the Clinton camp: Obama supporters aren’t “real Democrats”.
tBone
Yeah, let’s concentrate solely on Democratic strongholds. Fuck Red State Dems – if they want their voice to count, they can move to a reliably liberal area. So what if their primaries and caucuses this year are drawing in thousands of new Dem voters and helping to build the party in traditionally Republican regions? Those new voters won’t be enough to absolutely guarantee victory in those states, so fuck them too.
I swear, sometimes it’s like the 2006 elections never happened.
Xenos
I take that back – what a difference three hours can make!
Let’s see if they can keep this up for another day or two.
Hypatia
.
That really helped in Massachusetts.
Why is the Kennedy name a plus if you’re already agitated over dynastic questions? The Clintons are one president and his wife, while the Kennedys are close to obtaining Habsburg status, even though their litters seem to lose IQ points with every generation.
I have not heard, but has anyone asked Obama his position on the matter? Will he take the nomination if he loses the popular vote, or will he surrender the nomination selflessly to the People’s Choice? (I suspect he would find some way to explain that the popular vote isn’t really the popular vote.) I realize that for him to win the nomination by this scenario is unlikely and the question would be largely hypothetical, but I was just curious.
I also note that Obama has scored many of his most notable successes in caucus states, where the ‘democratic’ procedures are notoriously questionable.
In any case, y’all are getting your panties into a twist over nothing. The superdelegates will not go with Clinton if she does not have a popular majority.
If you call having the Supreme Court interfere with the rules and the process ‘winning within the rules’ then yes, he did.
We have two good candidates here, everybody. (We had three, in fact; I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more impressive triple shot lineup than Edwards, Obama, and Clinton, not to mention the men like Biden and Dodd who had no real chance.)
LonghairedWeirdo
Well, that she won’t refuse the nomination if she’s nominated is definitely deep in “well, duh!” territory. Who would? If *anyone* received the nomination, under almost any circumstances, and turned it down, I’d assume it was a PR stunt.
I think the concern is overplayed, though. If Obama wins the next set of contests at 60+%, it’ll cause all but the most loyal (or most tightly held by the short-hairs – or do I repeat myself?) delegates to break for him.
zzyzx
I’m starting to think that all Obama has to do is not be blown out the big states. Texas is weird enough (in terms of allocations) that he’ll probably come close to breaking even there. If he can win VT, WI, HI, and RI and stay close in OH, it’s probably over.
In that case, he’d have about a 55-60 delegate lead (including supers) with 400 SDs left. Also left though, would be WY, MS, IN (which I’m putting in his column because it’s next to IL… that could be my mistake), NC, OR, MT, and SD which are all states he should do very well in. That also is about 400 delegates. The best case scenario for Clinton is that those two cancel out.
That leaves PA, Guam, KY, WV, and PR where she’d have to win 57% of the vote, and that’s assuming a 60/40 split in SDs in her favor.
Unless one of the big states goes for her huge or she can start stealing states away from Obama, I don’t see how it happens.
Wilfred
McCain will go with Romney as VP, makes good political sense for both and brings Michigan into play for them.
I’m afraid a lot of people are going to stay home from sheer disappointment if Obama doesn’t get the nomination. If the Clinton people think all will be forgotten, they’re sorely mistaken. The Clintons are good at splitting, it’s a characteristic of narcissism, but this super delegate thing is a bad play.
Given this nonsense about wise heads in the party deciding what’s best for it and the country it’s hard to see the argument against what the Supreme Court did. If you’re going to be cynical about their intentions about doing what was right for the country you shouldn’t question cynicism regarding the good intentions of the supers – fair play’s a jewel.
Chris Johnson
I’m very unhappy with Hillary Clinton over this, and the Democratic Party for putting up with it. Only ‘bomb bomb Iran’ will keep me voting for the Democrat in the event that Hillary comes up with a way to continue politics business as usual. She could at least give a nod to the concept of ‘throw the rascals out’, she could at least hammer on a ‘cleaning house, things are gonna be different’ theme and try and match Obama on that.
Instead she appears to be going ‘yay old machine, maybe it’ll let me destroy everybody and march on a road of bones!’ right down to fighting only for the superdelegates and not trying to win all the states.
I’m sorry, but I’m not ready to write the red states off as retarded psychopaths that should be ignored, yet. It’s Karl Rove, democrat flavor. She seems to have forgotten, or never figured out, that she’s running for a job where she represents ALL of the people.
I don’t give a CRAP how ‘realistic’ it is to try and represent and care about a deeply divided, dysfunctional country. That’s part of the job description.
I don’t give a CRAP how good the Clintons are in back-room dealings because I’m beginning to seriously see that as part of the problem, not just cost of doing business.
If that woman gets the nomination, I will know that my only chance to vote effectively against ‘bomb bomb Iran’ Republican is to vote for a Democrat who would do exactly the same thing if it suited her purpose- because she’d already have established she was ready to ignore my preference if it suited her purpose.
Hillary would bomb Iran too if she thought it would be politically expedient. Knowing that 70%, 80%, 90% of the people she represents don’t want that would not stop her- we’d have to rely entirely on convincing her that it wasn’t politically expedient to do that.
NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
ThymeZone
According to Carville, who is her supporter and not exactly inexperienced in these matters, unless she wins big in both Ohio and Texas, she is toast.
He minced no words about it last night. Straight up, she carries those states big, or she is finished.
Chris Johnson
Maybe if it’s seriously in question, it would help to go en masse to the Democratic convention and, from outside the place, chant OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA to remind superdelegates that there is such a thing as the voting public? Not just on a ‘wah I’ll stay home’ level, but physically there caring what the superdelegates do?
It would be way more fun than trying to protest Bush, because all the Democrats would have to do is nominate Obama and they’d be heroes. They’d have a chance to redeem themselves.
Hypatia
I didn’t say anything about the intentions of the superdelegates, good or otherwise. As for the Supreme Court’s decision being ‘for the good of the country’ — I have a lovely bridge I want to sell you.
Sounds about right. Do-or-die time.
Wilfred
I’m pretty sure Bush will bomb the hell out of Iran before he leaves office. He’s not going to leave that unfininshed. As for Clinton:
She’s as much of a war pig as McCain when it comes to Muslims, that’s why she voted for Kyl-Lieberman – the next blank check.
Fausto Carmona
If that’s how the Clinton camp wins, then they should also plan on skipping any conventions and go straight to McCain’s inagural. Does anyone think Clinton will win without the independents and African-Americans?
zzyzx
I don’t see how she wins Texas big. The setup in that state is so convoluted that Obama could easily go down 55-45 and walk away with 10-20 more delegates.
Kilkee
Saw the MSNC delegate counter (Todd) the other night, and his math is enlightening. In a nutshell, he says that if Obama wins WI by, say, 55/45, Hillary would have to win TX, OH, AND PA by 60/40 in order to actually beat him in the (pledged) delegate race. That doesn’t seem too likely to me, since she hasn’t won anywhere by that kind of margin, and he surely has more mo at the moment than he did a few weeks ago. I guess this is what Carville is alluding to, as well.
John S.
It’s not so much that she’s a war pig as much as she is a dutiful servant of AIPAC. Their involvement in the invasion of Iraq is very telling.
wobbly
And if Obama loses the popular vote, but comes in ahead with delegates and superdelegates, he will nobly concede to the little lady with the votes behind her?
Really?
Rick Taylor
Give me a break, John, you’re trying to say this is an example of Clintonion perfididy? You’re telling me Obama or any other ambitious politician would be any different? You can ask them to play by the rules, but of course a politician isn’t going to concede an election they win by the rules, regardless of what the popular vote says.
Obama won his Senate seat by using legal tactics, forcing a progressive Democratic opponent off the ballot. It was legal, but far more bare knuckled than refusing to concede an election when you don’t have to.
ThymeZone
Mwhuh?
Even for Texas, that sounds goofy. How does that work?
Rick Taylor
It sure is easier to win when you don’t have anyone to run against.
Ohhhhhh that horrible Hillary Clinton, she’s so nasty, she won’t even unilaterally promise to concede the election should she loose the popular vote. How horribly Machiavellian.
John S.
Shorter Rick Taylor:
ClintonObama did it, too!You have
BushClinton Derangement Syndrome!Seriously, can you Hillary supporters please stop sounding like Bush supporters?
zzyzx
Each district is granted delegates based on how blue they were in 2004. As a result, the African American and college student districts have a lot more clout than the Hispanic regions.
Moreover, Texas is this bizarre hybrid state. The primary is all day for 2/3 of the delegates, then at 7 there’s a caucus among people who already voted for the other third. No one will know who won that for months.
Conservatively Liberal
If someone asked me to run for their position because they were running for another position and if they lost the race and ask me to step aside so they could take back their old seat, I would tell them to stuff it where the sun don’t shine.
What was Barack, an insurance policy for Palmer? A placeholder? Boo-fucking-hoo. She gave up her seat to run for another, she lost, end of story.
If the situation was reversed with Hillary holding the delegates and Barack holding the popular vote, would Hillary nobly concede to guy with the votes behind him?
Nope, you know damn well she would not. After all, delegates are the only thing that counts, right? ;)
p.lukasiak
Thanks for that info, Rick.
As for Obama’s claim that he was well positioned to beat Palmer anyway, well, in 2000 Obama ran for Congress in a primary against the Democratic incumbent, and got trounced by a 2-1 margin. I’m sure Obama had volunteers and money for that one too… but apparently, Bobby Rush had his nominating petitions in order.
http://www.elections.il.gov/ElectionInformation/VoteTotalsList.aspx?officeid=73
p.lukasiak
oh, and speaking of Mr. New-Kind-of-Politics, Greg Sargent is reporting that Obama has given nearly $700K to the superdelegates supporting him (40% of his supporters), while Hillary has contribute far less to far fewer of her superdelegate supporters (h/t Taylor Marsh)
John S.
Well played Hillary fans.
When you can’t give anyone a good enough reason to support the latest maneuvers by your gal, go after her opponent!
Seriously guys, enough with the Rove playbook.
mere mortal
So, Conservatively Liberal, shall we agree that both (all?) candidates are sleazy should they accept a win that comes within the rules, despite some objection from their opponents’ supporters? Or is this just apply if your name is Clinton (or Gore)?
I remember this gambit in 2000, where the Bush camp and their media allies made all kind of noises about how Gore would have to be slimy to accept the presidency without the popular vote win. Oops, turned out not to be such a big deal since that went Bush’s way.
And how did John Cole come down then? Or again, are these behaviors only “sleazy” for Clinton or Gore?
Conservatively Liberal
If a candidate has a majority of the pledged delegates, they should win. Hillary or Barack, whoever the pledged delegates favor, it does not matter. The winner is the winner. I may favor Barack, but that does not change anything.
To those who think the super delegates should vote the way the state they live in did, ask yourself this question:
Are super delegates distributed proportionally, or do some states have more super delegates (per party vote in that state) than others?
As it is mere mortal, Hillary has already said that if she loses the delegate count she will take the nod if the super delegates decide to give it to her anyway. She does not care about anything but winning in any way possible, even if it goes against the will of the democratic voters in the primary.
And that is ok with you? ;)
John S.
This type of behavior is sleazy for anyone, even if they are named Clinton.
myiq2xu
I call bullshit. You will rationalize, flip-flop, contort logic, strain at gnats, and take whatever position is conveinent for the moment to justify getting the outcome you want.
“Rules are rules” and “its not fair to change the rules in the middle of the game” were your “principled” positions a few weeks ago when it worked in your favor.
Now that the very same rules you considered etched in stone might work against you, you want to change them for your benefit.
Funny how the Clintons get accused of being willing to do anything to win but it’s there opponents (and their opponents’ supporters) who act without scruples or principles.
I have yet to see proof of anything the Clintons have ever done to support that accusation. I’ve seen plenty of proof of the opposite.
I expect that Hillary will use every lawful and ethical means to win the election. Taking the position that some solution needs to be found so that Florida and Michigan are represented at the convention isn’t cheating, its advocacy.
The decision isn’t up to Hillary. The Clinton’s aren’t going to be smuggling the delegates into the convention in disguise. She’s acting openly, and I haven’t seen where she has stated that the only outcome she will accept is for her to be awarded all delegates from the two states.
Her original strategy was based in part on lobbying the Superdelegates to support her in order to acquire the necessary number of delegates to win. That was a strategy based on the rules, and is therefore not cheating.
I expect that even if the DNC rules against her regarding the Florida and Michigan delegates and rules in Obama’s favor on the Superdelegates that Hillary will accept defeat, shake Obama’s hand and congratulate him, and do whatever she can to help him and the party win in November.
I expect that she will publically and privately urge her supporters to do the same. She will not do what others have threatened to do and walk out on the Democratic party if they can have things their way.
And anyone out there who wants to flame me for this comment and tell me how evil Hillary is (and how stupid I am,) please include some evidence to back up your accusations about the Clintons.
Bill’s infidelities don’t count. Besides, we knew he was a horndog when we elected him.
tBone
Lawful? Sure. Ethical? Well . . .
Conservatively Liberal
I have stated here (in the very recent past) that I think the super delegate idea sucks. I don’t care who is/was winning at the time, it sucks. The stated purposes of the super delegates is to keep independents and republicans (or, heaven forbid, party activists) from placing a poor candidate (in the collective eyes of the party/super delegates) in the general. What it has become is a whole other thing, IMO. Super delegates should NOT be in play now. Period. If they are a safety valve (so to say), they should not come into play until the convention. The ones that are attempting to influence the races (note the plural usage) by casting their votes now tells me that they do not care to hear the collective voices of the voters/caucus members.
These votes are regularly used in a tit-for-tat trade for things like positions in the new cabinet, ambassadorships and the like. Both sides (Clinton and Obama) are guilty of doing this, but it is wrong. Not every delegate is selling their vote, true, but enough are that it distorts the picture of the actual delegates (pledged) to each candidate. IMO, this is an abuse of the super delegate system.
Super delegates are not geographically distributed across the country. So those who insist that the super delegates vote the way of their state either do not know that this gives some states an advantage over others, or they do not care because it would favor their candidate. I don’t know who it would favor, all I know is that it would not be fair to distribute the super delegates based on the state vote. Again, this shows that the super delegates should withhold their votes until the convention, and vote as they see fit at that point.
But…
Since the purpose of the ‘safety valve’ is to keep an unfit candidate from taking over, I would think that condition would have to be met for them to come in to play. So the question is: Is Obama a valid, viable candidate that is representative of the Democratic party, or is he an undesirable candidate whose values are not in line with the party, and who could/would cost the party the election?
It can be argued (and I bet it will be) that Obama is riding on a wave of independents and moderate Republicans, in addition to the Democrats who support him. Does this mean that he is the ‘outside’ favorite, and thus the ‘safety valve’ comes in to play so the insiders can save the day? Or is the party willing to take the risk that people who are not true blue Democrats just might be disillusioned enough with the Republican party that they would support Obama and so they throw their weight behind him in the general?
That is the big problem, right? What should they do in this case? Do they want to take a risk and ‘grow’ the party if the ‘outsiders’ who voted for Obama in the primary follow through and vote for him in the general? Or do they revert to politics as usual, give it to Clinton and call it good?
I am NOT a Democrat, but I was one up until 1992 when I switched to a small i independent (no party). While I still vote a mostly Democratic ticket, I will not ‘give’ them my vote blindly. Not any more. I, like most Americans, am a mix of conservative and liberal. I am in that crappy position of being in the middle of two extremes, so I get crap from both sides (depending on what pet issue of theirs that I do not like). My vote is earned, not just automatically given for the party candidate.
So while I think the super delegate method sucks, I am in no position to advocate change as I am not a Democrat any more. But that does not mean I have to zip my lips since I am not a party member. Last time I checked, I am free to speak my mind about any topic that I want to. After all, it is only my opinion that is being expressed, and I really do not expect anyone to listen to me.
I have the advantage of voting for who I see is fit for the job at hand, so at this time I am giving it to Obama. That does not guarantee him a vote from me in the general. I can say with confidence that he would really have to screw up to lose it though. BTW, Gore was my first choice, Dodd was my second choice, and Obama my third. So I have not been on the MUP from day one. At one time I even posted here that I would not support Obama either, but he has since changed my mind.
In my opinion, I think Obama would be an excellent candidate for President, and I believe that he would win against John McCain. I think that Clinton would not be a horrible candidate or president (if she won), but I have too many disagreements with her record to want to support her in the general. That, and since her hubby is a part of the ‘package’ deal, I have many disagreements with Bill too. I do not have this problem with Obama, and this is an advantage for him and a disadvantage for me. He could turn out to be the wrong choice due to things that I am made aware of as time passes, but based on what I do know about him, I feel I can safely support him over Hillary. I am desparate for a change in politics, and I think Obama is the way to go. Am I right? I don’t know for certain but I believe I am.
So, in the event that Obama wins the pledged delegate count, the Democratic party has to decide which way they want to go. Go old school politics, giving it to Hillary and risk pissing off a lot of Democrats, independents and crossover voters? Or give it to Obama and embrace change? My mind tells me that if the race reaches this point, there is a very good chance that Hillary will win.
If she does (under this scenario), then I will not vote for her. If she wins honestly, she would be far more likely to get my vote than McCain would, but I would really not be able to determine this until the election. I do not care for either of them equally, so it would be a flip of the coin as I see it now.
There, is that specific enough for you? I speak only for myself, but I am sure that there are others out there who feel as I do. Are we right? That is something only the future will show. Nobody knows who is right. Nobody.
Conservatively Liberal
Oh, you want Florida and Michigan to count? So do I. Count them, but only if the races are run again in those states. Since the Hillary supporters do not want to risk the chance of defections to Obama, they want the vote counted as it stands. That is patently unfair, no two ways about it. People who voted get counted, and those who stayed home because they were told their vote did not count do not get counted. And that is supposed to be fair? Or being the only name on the ballot is fair?
Want to count them? Then do it fairly. Let them all vote, this time with the knowledge that their vote will count just as much as the next persons in that state.
To do anything else is wrong. If Hillary does not want to let them vote again, then she is all for suppressing votes just because the results favor her.
Is a re-vote in Florida and Michigan fair? Or is that unreasonable?
Brachiator
This is just nonsense. This has nothing to do with law, and the ethics of what the Clintons are attempting is highly dubious. But the bottom line is that neither Hillary Clinton nor Oback Obama can exclusively lay claim to the nomination. It is up to the party to select its nominee. It is up to them to select a candidate who can win the general election.
It may be too early for anyone to cast a lot with either side. Obama’s momentum may flag, Clinton may find her voice. But so far, she has shown herself to be a fitful, largely inexperienced and clumsy campaigner, which is typical of someone who has been more on the sidelines and in the background, despite all her ludicrous claims of 35 years of “experience.” And her intense efforts to claim super-delegates and Florida and Michigan delegates suggests that she and her advisers are so intent on claiming the nomination that they are willing to cut loose Republicans, Independents and new voters. To use a sports metaphor, she seems more interested in winning the playoffs than in winning the Super Bowl.
But as I noted, if the Democratic Party wants to be something other than the lapdog to the Republicans, the party leaders will have to realize that it is up to them, not to either of the candidates, to call the shots.
She, and Bill, are fighting for their political lives. Consider a (for her) best-case defeat scenario in which she accepts a VP slot on a Obama/Clinton ticket. She would have less power than she might accrue as a senator, and after 8 years of an Obama administration, she would be very old news, and not necessarily a natural successor. Bill would have spent 8 years currying favor.
On the other hand, Obama has backed himself into a corner. An Obama/Clinton ticket might partly deflate his calls for a new direction, and alienate Independents and moderate Republicans. He is swinging for the fences, and might be able to bring Edwards on board, but he might best keep the Clintons at a distance, using them as campaign fodder, playing nice, but promising nothing to them. Similarly, I can’t see Hillary channeling the Obama charisma for her own campaign against McCain.
We’re all opinionators on this bus. Nobody has to prove anything to you or to anyone else, especially when you attempt you frame the argument so insipidly. You really should abandon this lame rhetorical riff.
mere mortal
Democratic voters in the primaries was NEVER the basis of nomination. I shall answer your question if you answer the one asked before (that you have dodged twice): Should Obama concede his won nomination if he did not win the majority of all Democratic voters in all primaries and caucuses?
Or is this just The Clinton Rules all over again?
Conservatively Liberal
The quote of mine can be read as:
In other words, the voters vote, the caucus goers caucus, the delegates are apportioned and everyone moves on. Does that make what I said any clearer? I used the term ‘will of the democratic voters’ as an expression of the delegates that represent those voters.
Which explains why I wrote that long-assed post up a bit that SAYS THE EXACT SAME THING.
Duh!
And now your answer to my question? :)
Conservatively Liberal
Oh, and in case you still do not understand:
“She does not care about anything but winning in any way possible, even if it goes against the will of the democratic voters that the pledged delegates represent in the primary.”
Better? ;)
D-Chance.
By a couple of Obama website counts, Texas may be within 5 or less delegates of breakeven. Don’t know about Ohio, but Hillary is looking at basically a stalemate in Texas as of now (note: Obama spin).
BTW, looks like Obama does know how to talk Democrat:
“Obama’s political action committee has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates since 2005, the study found, and of the 81 who had announced their support for Obama, 34 had received donations totaling $228,000.
Clinton’s political action committee has distributed about $195,000 to superdelegates, and only 13 of the 109 who had announced for her have received money, totaling about $95,000.”
A little palm grease goes a long way to moving the cogs of the machine…
Conservatively Liberal
Yup, and the super delegate system leaves things like this wide open for abuse. Yes, I said that. Abuse. I don’t care if it is Obama or Hillary, and the dollar amount does not equal the level of wrongness, they are both just as wrong. But they are operating within the parameters established by the party, so I guess that even if I think it is wrong, it is just fine with the party.
That still does not make it right. If you expect me to be outraged that Obama has paid out more than Hillary, nope. They are both equally guilty of working the system. Dollar amounts do not equal severity of the offense. If Hillary (or Obama) had not paid out a cent, then I would have something to sink my teeth into. As this is now, it is a draw.
They both suck on it, but it does not change my vote for Obama. All it does is confirm to me that the Democratic system, as it now stands, sucks. End of that story.
Next? ;)
Googootz
There are plenty of Republicans who view an Obama presidency as “not a disaster”, and preferable to either Clinton or McCain. I’m one of them. I’ll tell you this: If Clinton wangles the party nomination, then I’ll vote against her in November, even if it means voting for McCain or (gulp) Huckabee.
Jason Guthartz
Gee, how could Hillary even consider such a thing, given her strong belief in “the will of the people”?
source: NYT, Nov 2000
Googootz
Maybe she likes the possiblity of “faithless electors” working to her advantage.
A while back on Katie Curic’s show, there was a fluff piece where she asked each presidential candidate if they could bring only one book with them to the white house, what would it be (aside from the bible)? Didn’t HRC mention The Federalist Papers as one of the books she deemed important? If she really understood the essays, then she would know the electoral college is an important mechanism in maintaining the political autonomy of the individual states within the federal system.
Greg
Wow. I’m kinda shocked by this. But no matter.
I agree with many who are posting anti-Hillary comments–this really is beyond the pale. SO. GO TO OBAMA’S WEBSITE AND SIGN UP TO CALL PEOPLE IN OHIO, TEXAS, AND WISCONSIN. DON’T JUST SIT BACK & GRIPE. Let’s stop her while we still can.