If Obama and his supporters have a problem with Super Delegates deciding the nominee then...

[LiberalFighter]

then Obama should declare that he will not accept the nomination unless he receives the nomination with just regular delegates. And his supporters should also demand it.

Then he can unequivocally declare the SD's did not unfairly give him the nominee.

[IndieLeft]

1. I have said as much... and I'm an Obama supporter.

You are saying, of course, that the supers shouldn't count at all for either of them.

[LiberalFighter]

9. No... I'm saying that any candidate and supporters that have a problem with SD's

should put up or leave it alone.

If Obama thinks there shouldn't be any SD's then he should line up his wins so he wins without them. But it wasn't set up that way.

By the way. SD's make up 19.5% of the total delegates.

62.25% of pledged delegates would be 2025 needed to win.

Proportionally Clinton's SD's is 27.8% vs 28% for her pledged delegates. Boy that is some unfair advantage.

[AX10]

2. Declare it Obama!

[Bicoastal]

3. Won't be necessary at this point..

...the SD's will listen to the popular vote and the non-super delegate count. They wouldn't dare implode the party just for HRC--most of them are up for re-election sooner or later.

[LiberalFighter]

5. Some of those SD's are not elected at general elections.

Some of those SD's won't be up for re-election for up to 4 years.
Some of those SD's may not even run for office when their term is up.
Some of those SD's may be in states where the voters that matter support those candidates and don't consider this to be big issue.

[Bicoastal]

6. Doesn't matter....if they overturn the popular vote and popular delegate count...

...Denver 2008 will make Chicago 1968 look like a Playmate pillow fight.

Do you think anyone, least of all Hillary, wants to win the nomination that way?

[LiberalFighter]

11. Popular vote? This isn't the general election. It is a nomination process.

Not everyone is allowed to vote. Some are allowed to vote but shouldn't be allowed.

There isn't a popular delegate count.

The final pledged delegate counts are not based entirely by population of each state. There are states with fewer delegates than states with less population even without super delegates included. There are states that receive bonus pledged delegates because they didn't have their primary/caucus at an earlier date or they hold their primary when they regularly hold them.

It is up to the Party to decide the rules and those rules are decided by DNC members elected or selected in each state. But they aren't elected at the caucus or primary.

The same goes for state parties. They decide the rules and they are decided by state party officers and district officers. The voters don't get to decide what rules the Democratic or Republican or Libertarian or other political party will abide by. The closest the voters have in making that decision is electing precinct committee chairs and state convention delegates. They may not have that right in every state. In most cases the voters probably don't even know who they are when they see their name on the ballot.

[grizmaster]

4. The Obama supporters want to change the rules in the middle of the game

Sorry, but if Obama and his supporters want the rules changed they can work on changing them for the next election.

[Bicoastal]

7. And Hillary supporters want to outlaw caucuses because they lose most of 'em.

Or so I've seen.

[grizmaster]

8. Same goes for the caucuses

You can certainly argue rightly that caucuses are undemocratic, but if you want that changed you change it for the next cycle, not this one.

[LiberalFighter]

12. I would argue that the nomination process should be just caucuses.

With the requirement that attendees be bonafide Democrats at the least. I would also go so far at to restrict attendees to those that are involved in the Democratic Party as precinct chairs, vice chairs, regular volunteers, state convention delegates, county and district officers.

An advantage would be that the county governments wouldn't have to pay to conduct the caucuses. It would be the responsibility of the county parties to conduct at their own expense.

[bellasgrams]

13. After watching the caucuses I think they should do away with

them. Not this year, that wouldn't be fair. But next time. It seems like something out of an old time movie. I thought democracy was one person, one vote.

[SKKY]

16. Oh, like the Michigan and Florida delegates?

Come on now. You can do better than that, can't you?

[Dawgs]

18. And the Hillary CAMPAIGN wants to have MI and FL seated; even though they agreed against it.

Obama just thinks that SD's should vote as their constituents voted - all within the rules.

Hillary is the one wanting to change the rules, but nice try.

[newmajority]

10. And then Hillary refuses to do the same thing, and steals the nomination

like she tried to steal Florida and Michigan, right?

Rules apply to those "other people" but not to the almighty DLC, right?

[bellasgrams]

14. Hillary did nothing wrong. The other candidates didn't have to

remove their names. That was pretty dumb. They agreed not to campaign, and she didn't. She was smart in thinking ahead. On the otherhand, BO ran commercials in FL after agreeing not to campaign. The others didn't they complied with the rules.

[cloudythescribbler]

15. This notion of "selective self-enforcement" is perverse

Look, there is a certain setup. Obama and his allies had little say in it. He didn't choose that there would be so many caucuses, he just competed in them successfully. And the notion of the Superdelegates choosing a competitor rather than a candidate with a CLEAR lead in delegates and raw votes is noxious.

I can understand SD's stepping in if the outcome is very unclear, to avoid a brokered convention. But remember that by adding to the total number of delegates, they substantially RAISE the number (50% + 1) needed to get the nomination. So it's not as if their presence has a neutral effect.

I would say instead that if Obama wins an ABSOLUTE majority of the raw votes and of the PLEDGED delegates, he should DEFINITELY not be denied the nomination.

[ShortnFiery]

17. I'd venture to say that Democrats, in general, have a problem with "the party elites" SELECTING

our Democratic Nominee. If HRC has to IMO, "cheat to win" (change the DNC rules by seating MI/FL delegates OR having "party elite" super-delegates be The Deciding Factor in THE Nomination) then our entire democratic process is in shambles. As I've mentioned before, regardless of WHICH candidate, if our Party Elites (super-delegates) select our next Nominee, all HELL will break loose within our Democratic Party. :nuke:

[stillcool]

19. It should be interesting...

to see how it all plays out. If Obama ends up the clear winner in pledged delegates, and the Super delegates choose Clinton will it be perceived as the Supreme Court selection in 2000?

[goodhue]

20. I don't think Obama has a problem

He will lead in pledged delegates AND super delegates