Is it really about Democracy....?

[MonkeyFunk]

Or is it more about making sure a candidate you like wins.

I've seen countless threads saying that if Clinton wins either via superdelegates or seating MI and FL, there will be riots, the destruction of the party, etc. etc.

But simultaneously, I see the majority of people here cheering the possibility of Al Gore getting the nomination at a brokered convention.

How can it be undemocratic to enfranchise all voters, but perfectly democratic to nominate a guy who got zero votes and zero delegates? If Clinton wins with 49% of the vote, you people will explode. If Gore wins with 0%, you'll all cheer.

I don't think most of you give two shits about what's democratic - you want whatever will get you a candidate you like, voters be damned.

[suston96]

1. Wow, did you nail it.....nt

[FlyingSquirrel]

2. I can't believe I'm K&R'ing a MF post.....

Must be slippin.

:P

[Maddy McCall]

3. Precisely.

And what's going on at DU is an interpersonal war. It's not about supporting candidates...it's posting dreck to piss off the "other side."

[ProSense]

4. Where is the undemocratic angle in "making sure a candidate you like wins"? Here:

Even in winner take all, Obama leads!

[MonkeyFunk]

12. I'm not talking about current standings

or somebody's projections.

I'm talking about how many here threaten to birth cattle if either superdelegates or MI and FL tilt it towards Clinton, but just LOVE the idea of Gore getting the nomination.

Which one is less Democratic - giving it to somebody with 49% of the vote, for example, or giving it to someone with 0%?

[I Vote In Pittsburgh]

5. It is really about Democracy

and superdelegates overriding a pledged delegate majority is undemocratic.

[MonkeyFunk]

9. So why is nominating Gore

who got zero delegates, such a popular idea?

[Yael]

6. Fortunately, I don't think its going to come to that.

[MonkeyFunk]

13. Oh, I don't think it will either

but I just find it funny/sad/insane that so many people here say they'll throw a fit if Clinton wins with less than 50.1% of the vote, but they cream their jeans at the thought of Al Gore getting the nomination - with exactly 0% of the vote.

It shows their arguments about superdelegates or MI & FL being "undemocratic" are just unadulterated bullshit - they just want to get a candidate THEY like. Fuck the voters.

[Johnny__Motown]

7. I am not one of them, The most delegates won by certified primarys/caucuses should win, Not Al Gore

Also, it looks like Obama is still ahead even if the contests were winner take all, no matter which system you use.

If Obama wins the most delegates, without changing any rules, then he should win.

If Clinton wins the most delegates, without changing any rules, then she should win.


End of story


Isn't this the DEMOCRATIC party?

[terrya]

8. That's exactly right.

I'm seeing a lot of sentiment here for Gore to go riding on his white horse at the convention in Denver...without having once participated in a primary...but yet slamming Hillary Clinton winning with the superdelegates. They can't have it both ways.

[MonkeyFunk]

10. or winning by

counting the actual votes in FL and MI.

It's nuts - Gore's OK with no delegates, but not Clinton. And they actually have the balls to argue that it's undemocratic.

[fenriswolf]

11. im not rooting for gore

now if gore were to go 3rd party that would be differnet

and i wouldnt vote for a 3rd party candidate, not in this election anyways.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

14. give that man a kewpie doll!

[ElsewheresDaughter]

15. give monkeyfunk a kewpie doll!....in a nut shell!

huh?

how the hell did 2 of them post....:shrug:

[MonkeyFunk]

16. Yay!

I get two kewpie dolls!




:bounce:

:party:

[zabet]

17. Exactly.

:thumbsup:

K and R

[bicentennial_baby]

18. Here's how I feel:

1) I don't think that the MI and FL delegates should be seated. Allowing them to get away with breaking the rules set by the DNC when they should have just cancelled, sets a very bad precedent for party procedures in the future. If possible, I believe that they should try to work out a solution that is equitable to all, if they absolutely have to. And I can confidently say I'd feel that way if it was the other way around. I'm looking at the bigger, longterm picture.

2) I don't want Gore, or anyone else, playing king/queen maker, or jumping in at the last minute.

[MonkeyFunk]

22. It's interesting to see so many people

stand up for the right of Iowa and New Hampshire to go first. 6 months ago, most people here were very opposed to that idea.

[Spider Jerusalem]

39. ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4603524&mesg_id=4608697

Present a cogent argument that having other states go first wouldn't make a candidate's chances in the primary entirely dependent on his or her bankroll (given the comparative costs of campaigning in a larger area and attempting to reach many more voters, and the costs of advertising in larger media markets), if you can. That's the biggest reason NOT to have the initial contests in large states (not to mention that retail politics is MUCH harder in large states). The idea that having large states move to the front of the primary line is somehow 'better' or 'more democratic' is both ill-considered and wrong.

[MonkeyFunk]

43. Search my posts

I've never supported a national primary, and I've defended Iowa and New Hampshire's role quite often.

However, I'm not in the majority here. Most people claim to hate their powerful roles, while simultaneously demanding two states be disenfranchised in order to protect that role.

[southern_dem]

19. not me

Clinton or Obama, whoever has the most delegates in the primaries should get it.

[Stinky The Clown]

20. Amen

K&R

[Florida22ndDistrict]

21. RE: Is it really about Democracy....?

This is my take on the situation. I voted in the primaries this year, yet the DNC refuses to honor my vote. Being that Florida and Michigan are being disenfranchised, I see no way that the primaries this year can come close to democracy. Besides the fact that two major states have been disenfranchised, there is no way that either of the remaining candidates will pick up enough delegates to win this without the supper delegates. The numbers just are not there. Obama needs something like 80% of all remaining delegates, and Clinton needs something like 91% of the remaining delegates. Even if one were to drop out today, there are enough die hard supporters that would prevent the other from achieving their numbers by the electorate alone.

So when it comes down to it, I feel if enough democrats are willing to sign the Draft Gore Petition, and this petition is presented at the convention, it would leave a better taste in my mouth then what's being fed to me at the moment. Its the closest I will see to democracy in this primary cycle.

[George_Bonanza]

23. Blame your state party people, not Obama or Dean

What's the DNC supposed to do? Let MI and FL call the shots? Then you'd have every state in 2012 breaking rules en masse then demanding that their results be upheld. The DNC will not be credible anymore.

[Florida22ndDistrict]

28. RE: Blame your state party people, not Obama or Dean

Ah the blame your state representation line, yes I'm sure both Rep. Adam Hasner (R), and Senator Jeffrey Atwater (R) represent my interest with complying with the rules of the democratic party. Thanks, that makes my situation all better now. What would I ever do without you... :sarcasm:

The DNC is suppose to protect its party members from outside usurpation. Do you really think the DNC really has any credibility in my eyes at the moment? Do you think you have any credibilities in my eyes at the moment? If you are not fighting for the rights of our states to have a vote you are a joke. And for those that think we should have only 50% of the delegates seated, I ask, what are we slaves to you? Is this the three-firths compromise of 1787? Oh, they should only count for for half. Get out of here with that shit.

[George_Bonanza]

24. Yes, it's really about democracy!

No way in hell do I want Al Gore waltzing to the nomination after ZERO campaigning and having earned ZERO votes in the 2008 primaries.

[cooolandrew]

25. Gore isn't that undiplomatic to go in and take the nomination it's a pipe dream...

... I see Gore as gentleman and cannot see this happening in a millin years. He may well run in the future possibly.

[MonkeyFunk]

26. This isn't about Gore getting the nom

I don't think that will happen.

It's about people ranting about how undemocratic it would be for Clinton to win it, while simultaneously cheering for Gore to get it. I think they don't they give a shit about what's democratic - they just want Clinton not to get the nod.

[Maddy McCall]

27. That's the basis for a lot of the Obama support I see here.

It's more anti-Clinton than it's pro-Obama.

[boston bean]

30. That is why they

do not want the votes in MI an FL counted.

If it benefitted O to have them counted they would be screaming and hollering.

But since it's good for them to not count the votes, oh it's Floriduhs problem.

[avrdream]

29. Heh, heh.

Cutting to the chase again, Monk! Love it.

More, more, more!

[nonconformist]

31. Nailed. nt

[Political Heretic]

32. I'm consistent. I'm not AT ALL for Al Gore getting the nomination.

That to me, is just as bad as SD going against the majority.

[sandnsea]

33. That's about 5 people

I think most people know Al Gore is not going to be a candidate.

[MonkeyFunk]

34. There are far more than 5 people

here who cheer the idea of Gore getting nominated at a deadlocked convention.

[sandnsea]

35. Some don't support either candidate

They're still mad Gore didn't run. There are not that many people here saying that, I doubt I've seen 5 total posts. Looks more like something you picked up to rationalize seating the FL & MI delegates.

And I will repeat, if Obama wins and the Clintons take the election from him, well I'm glad I don't live in the city. People are nuts if they think that will go over peacefully.

[MonkeyFunk]

36. LOL

Read the Gore threads here and in GD the last two days. I'd say over 90% of the posters love the idea.

[sandnsea]

37. Maybe they're idiots I have on ignore

I haven't seen them. Which means they aren't Obama supporters.

[MonkeyFunk]

38. Yes, I'm sure that's it

you've got 90% of DU on ignore.

[sandnsea]

40. 90% are not going wild over Gore

Nice try, but it's not true. There's nothing on the greatest page. There's this piece about Gore simply being a mediator, and that isn't even going over well. So I just don't know where this 90% is hiding out I guess.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4613973

[MonkeyFunk]

41. a thread in this forum and one in GD

citing an Eleanor Clift article.

But you're missing the point.

There is, and always has been, a HUGE number of DUers who say they want Gore to get the nomination. Nobody except me and one or two others ever bothers to point out that it would be undemocratic.

But try to argue for enfranchising MI and FL and the so-called great Defenders of Democracy come flying out of every doorway to pile on.

[sandnsea]

42. You're mixing two different groups of people

People who want Gore, and people who want a fair election. What does that prove? Nothing. Obama supporters want a fair election with the voters deciding. Gore has nothing to do with it. I just posted a thread where people objected to interference from any party leaders. 90% of DU does not support throwing out Hillary and Obama for Gore. Two threads certainly aren't a basis to make the claim.

[MonkeyFunk]

44. I was gauging the posts in those threads

Yes, I agree 90% of DUers wouldn't want Gore installed at the convention. My guess is it would be about 60%.

[sandnsea]

45. My guess is still about 5 DUers

and who knows how many trolls.

[MonkeyFunk]

46. OK

I think your estimate isn't anywhere close to reality.

[sandnsea]

47. I still can't even find the threads

:shrug:

[MonkeyFunk]

48. Search for "Clift"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4607987

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2873441

[sandnsea]

50. Two different groups of people

Like I said way up there. Most of the people in those two threads are either Edwards people, or people who don't support Hillary or Obama. They don't care what happens in the election and have said so. There are only a handful of Obama, or even Clinton, supporters in both those threads. Although it is disgusting the number of people who are perfectly willing to upend the voter and install a candidate. Of course I never did believe DU was the sanctuary of the pure of heart.

[Iceburg]

49. Its about Money versus the People and the Planet they live on...

The Clintons and the Gores have consistently and courageously stood for the People and the planet -- they withstood 10 years of bashing, stolen elections, the Media (controlled by the moneyed).
The "community organizer" is backed by the Big Dirty Money, much of it foreign. March 4th we will get taste of who's who in the dirty world of Money.

[Little Star]

51. K&R n/t

[undergroundpanther]

52. I don't care who wins

as long as they are not a fascist and they make my life and people stuck in bad situations less painful. If they walk their talk.If they give a shit.If they do not preach social darwinism.And if they are willing to do what it takes to put justice back in high places and not let the rich get away with crimes.As long as they protect the weaker from the stronger I can handle it.But it seems nobody running is even thinking of keeping a real democracy progressive and alive..