Courier-Journal: Superdelegates face decision - Hillary nor Obama is expected to get 2,025 delegates

[Demagitator]

March 2, 2008

The Courier-Journal
By Joseph Gerth
[e-mail]


U.S. Rep. John Yarmuth announced his decision nearly a month ago: He's supporting Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination.

By contrast, U.S. Rep. Ben Chandler dreads the prospect of making a decision in the increasingly bitter race between Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

It takes 2,025 pledged delegates to secure the nomination, and neither Obama nor Clinton is expected to reach that total in the state primaries and caucuses.

So, assuming neither drops out of the race before the late August convention, the superdelegates could well hold the balance of power.

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080302/NEWS01/803020483

[cali]

1. The way I see it, pretty much everything hinges on Tuesday

If Clinton loses either TX or OH, and/or Obama wins more pledged delegates that day, SDs will flood in Obama's direction. To some degree, that's been happening in the last 12 days. Obama has been receiving lots of SD endorsements. Clinton has received very few.

Most SDs and party bigwigs do NOT want to see this race continue. They don't want it running into April, let alone going all the way to the convention. They understand that it's vital to get a strong candidate as soon as possible.

Conversely, if you see Clinton pulling a big upset and winning TX and OH by 10+, I think you'll see the opposite happen.

[SKKY]

23. Again, it's not just "winning" Texas or Ohio, it's the margin she needs to win by...

...More than a 65/35 split. Anything less and she can't make up the delegates.

[Upton]

30. Exactly, but the Hillary supporters don't want to hear that

[SKKY]

33. Yea, well, I guess they're holding on to the bitter end...

[Demagitator]

2. Superdelegates...

Does that sound very democratic?

______________________________________


Superdelegate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Superdelegate" is an informal term for some of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention, the quadrennial convention of the United States Democratic Party.

Unlike most convention delegates, the superdelegates are not selected based on the party primaries and caucuses in each U.S. state. Instead, the superdelegates are seated automatically, based solely on their status as current or former elected officeholders and party officials. They are free to support any candidate for the nomination.

At the 2008 Democratic National Convention the superdelegates will make up approximately one-fifth of the total number of delegates. The unforeseen and unprecedented closeness of the race between the leading contenders Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama following Super Tuesday has focused attention on the potential role of the superdelegates in selecting the Democratic nominee, inasmuch as in the aggregate they could come to be kingmakers to a degree not seen in previous election cycles. Such an outcome would result in the first brokered convention since 1952.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate

[thoughtcrime1984]

3. Well, then you may be happy to hear

that Obama is leading in both popular votes and pledged delegates. If this holds, and the SD's flock to him, then they have represented the will of the majority of the people. Happy day! :)

[Demagitator]

4. Popular votes among....

the Dems or the overall popular votes? Do the Repuke strategic voters for Obama count, because a majority of them will vote McCain in the GE?

[thoughtcrime1984]

10. Do you know for a fact that all Repubs crossed over for Obama?

Obama will be our nominee, and the SD's are not to blame, the damn voters are! :D

[tekisui]

25. Every state Obama has won, he has received the most Dem votes.

As well as the most Indys, and the most pukes.

The percentage of pukes is usually in the single digits, and Hillary receives a fair share of those, as well.

[Florida22ndDistrict]

5. Do the math

Super Delegates = 794
Pledged Delegates = 3,253

Clinton = 1,031
Edwards = 26
Obama = 1,184

Remaining Pledged Delegates = 3,253 – 2,241 = 1012

To win by pledged delegates alone, Clinton would need to pickup 994 more pledged delegates before the convention, or Obama would need to pick up 841 more pledged delegates before the convention. This means Clinton needs 98%, and Obama needs 83% of all remaining pledged delegates. Neither is going to be able to obtain those delegates realistically, so this will come down to the convention no matter who wins. All March 4th is going to do is push those percentages higher on both sides. What that means is that this race is down to supper delegates at this point. Both candidates have failed to unite the party with decisive wins. At this point, it may be better to start thinking about compromise candidates. No democracy this year. The peoples voice is not enough to beat the rules that rule over them.

[cali]

6. Ridiculous to talk about compromise candidates

nothing would spell disaster for dems more clearly than a so called compromise candidate. And in many ways there's been more democracy in the primary process this year. More people have voted and those votes have actually meant something. But back to the "compromise" candidate stuff: tossing aside either the first woman or the first black candidate for a white man would fracture the party big time. I don't understand why folks have a hard time grasping something so obvious.

[Florida22ndDistrict]

13. RE: Ridiculous to talk about compromise candidates

You have a strange definition of democracy floating around in your brain. The last time I check democracy meant rule by the people. In a republic the body of citizens who can elect people to represent them hold supreme power. This year, the final decision lies in the hands of super delegates and their vote is not a representative one. They can, and are choosing who they want. If you really want to nitpick, you don't disenfranchise the millions of voters in both Florida and Michigan if you want to have democracy either.

By the way, if you think a candidate should be chosen based on the color of their skin or their gender, god help our republic. Those factors should not even see the light of day. If you think disenfranchising millions of voters leaves no fracture in the party you are delusional. If you think handing the election to either of the remaining candidates based on the choice of the super delegates will not leave any fracture, you're are again delusional. While a compromise candidate is not democratic, neither are the events that have played out this year. Someone needs to unite the party, and both of the current leading candidates have failed.

[cali]

18. you don't get it at all.

There's nothing particularly undemocratic about the primary process even if it's one I don't particularly like. Hell, in many democracies, the party picks the candidate. Or are you suggesting that no parliamentary system can be a democracy. How strange, if you are. And really, you should educate yourself about FL and MI. Let me help: Both states agreed to the party rules. Then they reneged. Simple as that. The party, according to legal precedent, has the right to enforce its rules as it sees fit.

And no, I'm obviously not suggesting that one should choose a candidate based on sex or race. Do try reading for comprehension. It's a good habit to get into. I am suggesting that millions of voters are invested in these two candidates- emotionally, intellectually and financially. You prattle on about democracy and yet have no problem with a group of party insiders jettisoning the votes of millions and installing a "compromise" candidate. You admit that that's not democratic, and yet you support something that's far, far less democratic than the process thus far. Cognitive dissonance, much?

Lastly, at this point the party is not fractured. It's delusional to suggest it. All polls and studies show that democrats are overwhelmingly satisfied with both candidates. If we have a candidate within the next month or so, there's an excellent chance that that person will be able to unite the party.

You need a review course in civics.

[Demagitator]

19. How about a President Al Gore Poll...

that Dems only could vote in; to see if they would like President Gore as the compromise candidate; or to keep Hillary or Obama on the ticket; and if they keep Hillary or Obama -- are they willing to let the "Supreme Court" decide who exactly the clear runner is.

[cali]

20. What does the SC have to do with this, other than potentially FL and MI?

and that's very unlikely. And how would a poll settle anything or mean anything? If Al Gore or anyone else is installed as the nominee, I won't vote. And neither will millions of others. I will vote for Hillary if she's the nominee.

[Florida22ndDistrict]

29. RE: you don't get it at all.

While some super delegates can be removed by the electorate, there are many that cannot such as former democratic presidents, vice presidents, leaders of the senate, speakers of the house, minority leaders, and chairs of the DNC. These figures are not responsible to the people. They are basically the democratic party's royalty. With that in mind, you can't reasonably argue that the supper delegate system is a parliamentary system. While some of the super delegates may feel compelled to represent the people of their constituency they have no obligation and as I have stated, many can only be removed by death. What you have is a hodgepodge of directly elected pledged delegates for the purpose of electing a candidate, indirectly elected supper delegates, and party royalty mixed together in a sloppy mess. Then you have the 213 pledged delegates that would represent the millions of disenfranchised voters of Florida and Michigan tossed out the window this year to act as the cherry on top. Democracy is messy, but this is not democracy.

You are correct that the party has the right to enforce its rules, but if there were rules that would disenfranchise the voters of the states, would it not be wise to consult with the voters rather then the representatives of such states? As I have argued time and again, the party should have put in place rules that would punish the representatives not the people. It would have been more fair to punish the super delegates from Florida and Michigan rather then the directly elected pledged delegates. Not that New Hampshire's silver spoon is in anyway fair, but that's another issue.

Well if you are not suggesting race and gender, then there is no reason to mention such things. Being that you have mentioned it, it is obviously circulating in your mind. I understand that people are invested in their candidates, but you assume that there will be no fracture because it has not occurred yet. Fractures tend to happen once the trigger has been pulled. Neither of the two candidates have lost and neither have been picked by the supper delegates just yet. You have to wait for peoples reactions. There is already a fracture in the states affected by the DNC's decision to disenfranchise voters. People are angry and want to be represented as they should. The large majority do not place the blame on their representatives, but on the party.

I didn't say I don't have issues with installing a compromise candidate. At this point I take issue with a lot of things in this primary. It's a shity mess that needs to be scrapped in my opinion. Ideally I would like to see a new election run with a single day primary, but that is way beyond the scope of reality, and at this point you just need to suck up the fact that democracy was burned at the stake this year, and try to find a candidate that the party overall would be happy with. By the way, if a compromise candidate was to be the victor, at least I would have an opportunity to sign a draft petition in support of such a candidate. As it stands now, I went to the poll to cast my vote, and it means absolutely nothing. You can't get any less democratic then no representation. I was not too shabby in my civics courses either. I actually won awards.

[Demagitator]

32. I think it would be wonderful to have a compromise candidate

Gore would destroy McCain in the General election. I think, it would be wise for Hillary and Obama to put aside their egos; and let President Gore sit in his rightful home, the White House.

[Demagitator]

24. Why is this story not all over the MSM? n/t

[Florida22ndDistrict]

31. RE: Why is this story not all over the MSM? n/t

I couldn't tell you. I don't watch MSM, I'm more of a CSPAN, LinkTV, Pacifica, PBS, & NPR guy.

[MonkeyFunk]

7. It makes no sense to me

to pick a third, "compromise" candidate because two of ours are so strong.

[Demagitator]

8. A nightmare scenario...

The Supreme Court decides.

[Demagitator]

11. I nominate President Al Gore as the compromise candidate n/t

[thoughtcrime1984]

12. Maybe he should have ran for President

He didn't. Our best chance now is to get behind a candidate that has been running, one that is leading in votes and delegates- Barack Obama.

[TomClash]

9. Nonsense

When the money runs out on the Clinton campaign (or perhaps even before) it's over.

[davidpdx]

14. It is highly likely that the SD will put the nominee over the top,

but hopefully there is a clear frontrunner if that has to happen.

Tuesday is going to tell quite a bit of the story.

[Demagitator]

15. It is technically impossible to have a clear front runner...

because of the -- strategic Repuke voters -- for Obama.

_____________________________________


Tactical voting
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



In voting systems, tactical voting (or strategic voting or sophisticated voting) occurs when a voter supports a candidate other than his or her sincere preference in order to prevent an undesirable outcome.

Compromising (sometimes "useful vote") is a type of tactical voting in which a voter insincerely ranks an alternative higher in the hope of getting it elected. For example, in the first-past-the-post election, voters may vote for an option they perceive as having a greater chance of winning over an option they prefer (e.g., a left-wing voter voting for a popular moderate candidate over an unpopular leftist candidate in order to help defeat a strong right-wing candidate.) Duverger's law suggests that, for this reason, first-past-the-post election systems will lead to two-party systems in most cases. In those proportional representation systems that include a minimum percentage of votes that a party must achieve to receive any seats, people might vote tactically for a minor party to prevent it from dropping below that percentage, which would make the votes it does receive useless for the larger political camp that party belongs to.

Burying is a type of tactical voting in which a voter insincerely ranks an alternative lower in the hopes of defeating it. For example, in the Borda count or in a Condorcet method, a voter may insincerely rank a perceived strong alternative last in order to help their preferred alternative beat it.

Push-over is a type of tactical voting in which a voter ranks a perceived weak alternative higher, but not in the hopes of getting it elected. This primarily occurs in runoff voting when a voter already believes that his favored candidate will make it to the next round - the voter then ranks an unpreferred, but easily beatable, candidate higher so that his preferred candidate can win later. A United States analogy would be voters of one party crossing over to vote in the other party's primary to nominate a candidate who will be easy for their favorite to beat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_voting

[davidpdx]

16. I personally don't see any solid proof of this

And I wish Clinton supporters would stop saying repeating the notion that Obama is leading in delegates because of Republicans.

Place the blame where it belongs.

[Demagitator]

17. Texas Republicans cross over to vote for Obama -- MSNBC

Feb. 28, 2008

One of Sen. Barack Obama’s surest applause lines comes about halfway into his standard stump speech. It goes like this:

“They whisper to me. They say, ‘Barack, I’m a Republican, but I support you.’ And I say, ‘Thank you. Why are we whispering?’”

As many as a tenth of the Texans voting in the Democratic contests could be Republicans, and overwhelmingly they favor Obama, a first-term senator from Illinois, the polls show.

“I ran for Republican precinct chair. I went to the Republican state convention,” said one of them, Donald Rau of Austin, who has already voted in early balloting. “In this election, I voted for Barack Obama.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23394070/

[davidpdx]

21. Yes, I have heard him say that. It's actually pretty funny.

But the accusation is specifically that these people are voting for Obama and then will cross back over and vote for McCain. Something that again, there is no proof of.

[Vinca]

22. I've heard some Republicans are voting for Obama because

they genuinely support him and others are voting against Hillary because they know one or the other is probably the next president and they despise Hillary. You used to hear about them voting for Hillary because they wanted to run against her, but McCain is such a weak candidate I guess they're rethinking things. (Put McCain in Ohio or Michigan promoting free trade and he won't come out alive.)

[tekisui]

27. And the RW talking heads are telling their viewers to crossover for Hillary.

THis is a bullshit argument. Obama is winning the most Dem votes. He is winning the most Indy votes. And he is winning the most puke votes, which are a very small , insignificant minority of voters in the Dem Primary.

Obama is winning. Period.

These excuses threads are getting old. Hillary is losing. She has not ran a good campaign, and Obama has greater appeal.

[tekisui]

26. Bullshit.

[kentuck]

28. Another scenario...

The SD's could split down the middle and the race could end up so close that 26 delegates could swing it to one candidate or the other? Who still has 26 delegates? John Edwards!