Dear Establishment: If Super Delegates Overturn The Pledged Delegates, I'm Outta Here

[DrFunkenstein]

Basically, this thing is over. Clinton needed a big break in Texas and she got a statistical tie with little gain and lost time. Even if she wins big in Pennsylvania and beyond, the math just isn't there because of proportional representation and the way delegates are distributed.

The only way that Clinton could win is with a 2000-style overturning of the will of the people through backroom dealing. If that happens, I'm seriously considering becoming a passive player in the November drama out of sheer disgust.

Mind you, I have said repeatedly that I would support whomever won the nomination, but any hope of a mandate - let alone a sense of morality - would be thrown out the window.

[meow mix]

1. they wont.. especially now

they see whats happening more clearly than the average voter

[billbuckhead]

3. If Hillary get more votes and the superdelagates pick brand X

I'll never vote for a Democratic candiate again. It makes a mockery of the process to have some guy picked by the party elites and Republican crossover votes.

[Bitwit1234]

2. good bye.

[GumboYaYa]

4. I am with you. There is no way I will stick with the Democratic party,

if the political machine overturns the votes in the primaries and caucuses.

[Onlooker]

5. What are your demands?

Superdelegates must reflect the delegates, not the popular vote?
Florida and Michigan should not be seated?
Am I understanding you right?

I support Obama, but the situation isn't that simple if Clinton manages to close the gap. Let's suppose that Clinton manages to get within 70 delegates, leads in the popular vote, and that polls show her as a much better candidate than Obama, the argument that the winner should reflect the popular vote will resonate. This is purely political process and the results, no matter who wins, reflect nothing but the campaign's ability to manipulate the process in their favor.

[sybylla]

12. Seems to me the OP made it fairly clear

The super delegates should have a solid rationale for their vote - based on the votes of their state or district or some other solid reasoning. There should be no back room deals - and that includes seating the Florida and Michigan delegates in my book. Everyone knew the rules then the game started. Everyone accepted the rules when the game started. Any change of those rules that benefits one candidate over another now that the game is almost finished is only an attempt to manipulate the system and a prime example of what the OP is talking about.

I don't think the OP suggests this is a simple situation. It's not. But clearly the need for a clean, transparent and fair candidate selection process should be our primary goal as Democrats.

[Q3JR4]

32. I would be down with

seating the Florida and Michigan delegates, but only if they throw out the results of the previous election and hold a new election with both candidates on the ticket. That to me seems the fairest thing to do (not the mention the fact that it gets us over this disenfranchisement stickiness). Besides I don't think you can talk about following the DNC rules (as far as super delegates go) without there being penalties for not doing so.

On edit:
Spelling

[FormerDittoHead]

29. Exactly. What happened to the popular vote?

People here were jumping all over Hillary when she was behind when she wanted to play the delegate game...

It seems these same people here just want to win.

That's OK, but it does take them off the moral high ground, and doesn't give them much room for critizing Clinton for wanting to reserve the same option.

But ultimately, down the middle, fuck the delegates. This whole system is fucked up, from these BS caucuses to the delegates (and they way they're disproportionately distributed) to the super delegates.

In a democracy, the leader should be chosen by popular vote. It's that simple. If that's not the game or how it's played I say the game stinks.

At least I'm consistent. If either candidate wins the nomination but doesn't have the popular majority, it stinks, and for our party, it puts us squarely in the hypocritical column after 2000...

[lastliberalintexas]

43. Yes, either way we're facing a bigger problem than expected

There are scenarios in which both camps could be screwed over by the process, and that would likely leave an incredibly bitter taste in the mouths of those supporters and others who just want a fair process. I just keep hoping that the party leaders are actually prepared for what could be coming.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

6. Get A Grip. SD's Exist As Part Of The Process And Are There For A Reason.

All this hyped up melodrama of "THEY BETTER VOTE WITH THE PLEDGES OR ELSE!!!!!!" is just monumentally dumb as it relates to the rules and the process. If they were designed to vote with the pledges they would have no reason to exist. They are there for a reason, and a good one at that. Let them do their jobs and quit your cryin.

[DrFunkenstein]

15. The SDs Ar e There To Make Sure The Top Candidate Gets The Magic Number Needed

Not to overturn the will of the voters.

As for crying, how did you feel in 2000 when Republicans in the Supreme Court decided how Florida should vote?

Like I said, if Clinton could pull out ahead of Obama, I would support her. But not if it is some shady backroom dealing. If that is how the nomination is decided, what is the point of the whole thing?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

16. Please Learn About The Process, Prior To Trying To Discuss It.

Thanks.

[Bill McBlueState]

24. No, they're there precisely so they can overturn the will of the voters

Your argument that superdelegates exist to get the candidate "the number needed" doesn't make sense. Without superdelegates, the number needed would be lower, and the candidate with the most regular delegates would just be the nominee.

The superdelegates exist so party insiders can overturn us plain ole benighted regular voters, in case we choose the wrong guy. It's kind of Stalinist, but that *is* why we have them.

[in_cog_ni_to]

35. WRONG! They exist to prevent some unqualified fool from being elected.

They have NOTHING to do with the "Magic Number." They are there to choose the MOST QUALIFIED candidate....the one that can win in November. They are there to choose who THEY want to be the candidate, not who Mr. Hope thinks should be the candidate. That's the rules. Don't like the rules?

BUH BYE... :hi:

[mudesi]

40. For God's sake, OPERATIONMINDCRIME

You need to try to be consistent if you're to continue posting in your way.

You yourself railed against the caucus system as unfair to Clinton.

Learn from me.

[Seabiscuit]

7. Clinton "got a statistical tie"????

I wouldn't call her 18%/10%/4% margins in Rhode Island/Ohio/Texas a "statiscal tie". I'd definitely call that an "upset", and perhaps even a "landslide". Obama was supposed to walk away with all four states, and handily. He got creamed.

Calling those results a "statistical tie" is like calling a hurricane a cloudy day.

So here's all I see when I read your post:

[ProSense]

10. Upset? How can the person who was leading by 20-30 pts win by 3-10 pts be an upset for that person?

New definition of upset?

[scheming daemons]

11. "Obama was supposed to walk away with all four states"

On Feb 20th, Hillary had a 20-point lead in Ohio.... she won by 10.

On Feb 20th, Hillary had a 15-point lead in Texas... she won by 4.

On Feb 20th, Hillary had a 30-point lead in R.I..... she won by 18.


Obama SIGNIFICANTLY cut into her lead in all three states in the final two weeks..... he just didn't cut the lead all the way.

[hell-bent]

18. You don't win elections

by cutting the lead! The so-called leads were just bogus polling.

[JBoy]

19. The Clinton campaign has mastered the loweringing of expectations. n/t

[karynnj]

41. Obama was NEVER suppose to walk away with those states

At the time of the WI win, even after the Potomac primaries, he was done over 20%. In the last two week's the media blasted Obama, HRC hit him with the kitchen sink including at least 2 ridiculous unfair ads and the Canadian government assisted. In spite of all that, he cut the margin significantly in all three states. Except for RI which matched his VT, those are much smaller than the margins he had in WI, MD and VA.

The OP refers only to Texas as a near statistical tie - and when you consider it was a 2 step process - one that Bill Clinton was ok with i 1992 and 1996, it was closer than the 4%. It is beyond silly that the 12 other primaries or caucuses are suddenly less important than these 3. The delegate counts show that he got far bigger wins in his states - which is why he has about 150 more pledged delegates.

The OP is not alone in thinking he will be only passively involved. I've talked to my college student kids - one is in a study abroad program - all 8 kids are adamently Obama - and 4 will not even vote if HRC is the candidate. It means something when I am called by a kid at the other end of the world because she and her friends are concerned that HRC will STEAL this. Not a good way to revive a Democratic majority. Thank you, Clintons

[pegleg]

8. There would be no reason to stay in the party. Using superdelegates in such

aa manner would be undemocratic. However I think the same goes for the Electoral College.

[Citizen Kang]

9. It isn't The DEMOCRATIC PARTY

If some establishment hack can overturn the will of the people. Count me out as well if the pledged delegate lead is overturned by Bush-like political maneuvers.

[sandnsea]

13. I already decided that

She's done so much shit that goes against my principles that I will have to ignore to vote for her, but out and out stealing an election is just too much. I won't vote for President under those circumstances and rethink my entire belief system on making a change through the political process.

[screembloodymurder]

14. I've decided to retire to Canada.

I'll stay close and keep a residence in the U.S. but I no longer want to be subjected to the whims of this fascist regime.

[mculator]

17. wah

[TheZug]

20. The Bush/Clinton elite are only interested in power.

[Apollo11]

21. Dear Dr Funkenstein: Why do you think they're called "Super Delegates"

Maybe cause they got the POWER! B-)

[tritsofme]

22. What if pledged delegates are in conflict with the will of the people?

What if Hillary leads the popular vote and Obama leads in pledged delegates?

Both candidates would have compelling arguments to make as to why they should be nominee.

[Independent-Voter]

23. As of right now, HRC doesn't lead in either to popular or delegate vote.

[tritsofme]

26. As of right now.

Last night she cut Obama's lead in half.

She may overtake him after PA is over.

[susankh4]

25. Buh, bye....

We, as the unity party... will be dealing a blow to the GOP while ya sulk.

Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton 2008.

[kwassa]

27. Then Kerry, Kennedy, and Patrick should vote for Hillary

rather than support Obama. After all, she won Massachusetts.

[TeamJordan23]

28. I think nearly half of the Dem party will sit out if the election is stolen. nm

[Strawman]

30. Barring an Obama meltdown, I don't foresee that

Despite the extreme level of arrogance of some of these people, they are smart enough to know that would piss off a whole lot of people and take all the air out of the balloon for the gen. election campaign.

[oasis]

31. Dear super delegates: Please monitor the fallout from the ongoing Rezko trial and

if Obama is "perceived" by the American public to be too tightly connected with that crook, please act accordingly.

[in_cog_ni_to]

34. That's exactly what's going to happen. This trial will reveal many things

about Mr. Hope before the convention. The Super Delegates will flock to Hillary.

[backscatter712]

33. Don't panic. They won't overturn.

Most of them are elected officials - Congresscritters, governors, etc., and they know they'll split the party, lose in November and possibly endanger their own seats if they override the popular vote.

[rosetta627]

38. Agreed, they can't overturn

That's too blatant even for this faux "democracy."

And I believe that Obama has shown he's tough. He won't roll over like Kerry.

[southerncrone]

36. I'll be joining you.

:toast:
I may just get s**t-faced to kill the pain of realizing our "democracy" is truly gone.

[New Dawn]

37. I'd never vote for Clinton either.

She voted for the Iraq War and now she wants to steal the nomination.

[nutsnberries]

39. same with me and almost everyone i know. eom

[lastliberalintexas]

42. At this point, perception is probably more important that reality

Most people in this country are not political junkies, and they don't understand the delegate count issues or that Obama might win more due to the Texas system. What most people in this country know is that Clinton won 3 big states and has incredible momentum.


And I think ironically it could be Clinton who wins the votes but Obama gets the delegates and the nomination, which puts the party in a bad situation. Just as I think it's crappy that Clinton won the vote in Texas but Obama might get more delegates. Perhaps if nothing more comes from this election, the farce of a democracry we have may be exposed. Or maybe not. :shrug:

And I say this as one who is not a supporter of either. I think it would be crappy if Obama had gotten the votes but Clinton got more delegates from a state (in fact, didn't that happen to him as well?). Completely subverts the will of the majority of people and not something we little d democrats are supposed to like. I am not saying that the rules should be changed midstream, or that either of the candidates was ambushed by this. The party leaders are probably pulling their hair out thinking about the various nightmore scenarios they could face. But it's mostly of their own doing.