The primary (for the IL-14 Congressional seat as well as the Presidential contest) was Feb. 5; the IL-14 general election was today. Obama ran a bunch of pro-Foster ads out of his campaign funds.
Yes. Oberweis and Foster will be running against each other again in November. Let’s see if Foster can hit 60% in the rematch.
Thanks. Yep. That’s big news for Obama. This is the kind of thing that superdelegates care about, and is just as compelling an argument as “does better in swing states”.
I don’t understand. Why do the SDs care who wins a seat in Illinois?
Because he’s a Democrat, and it used to belong to a Republican. Obama has just shown that he can help get Democrats elected in formerly Republican districts. The supers, more than the voters, are very interested in increasing Democratic standing in Congress as well as in the White House.
Oh, no, Delegates don’t count! That would be opposing the will of the people!
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Note how when the system works in Obama’s favor, it’s fair. When it doesn’t work in his favor, it’s evil and nasty and cheating and will cause voters to desert in droves. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Now mind you, I was pointing out that a brokered convention was a real possiblity back in January
No one else thought so though.
Now I don’t think so.
Assuming that each do as expected - a win but not a blow-out win for Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania and some solid wins elsewhere for Obama with the rest splitting, then Hillary Clinton would need to prevent even 50 - 55 of the remaining 357 super delegates from choosing to support Obama to secure her victory. For him the super delegate bar isn’t so high.
Could they do that? Sure. But convincing the remaining super delegates (50 of whom are rumored to be Obama leaning already) to go against the pledged delegate result in those huge numbers will require a solid burden of proof that such is in the best interests of the Party. The default will be to endorse the choice of the people as expressed by the pledged delegate counts. And while one can argue that the few big states matter more than all the little states, and that caucus results should be discounted, and that the votes of Florida and Michigan should matter even they were not real primaries and cannot be counted, the fact is that such are unlikely to meet that burden of proof and that such an action would be more reasonably predicted to cause the party serious harm. Unless she totally blows him away in Pennsylvania. And maybe even then.
Could Hillary muscle her way into a VP spot? Maybe. But I think that somehow it will be settled before going to the convention floor.
The delegate complaint has been pretty much reserved for superdelegates not pledged delegates. So you might want to scale back on the rolling eyes smilies.
It’s kind of amusing. After dumping over $1M into the race, and having put out a last-minute email asking Congresscritters to lend any spare interns to their last-minute phone-banking effort, the NRCC is now trying to pretend this one didn’t really matter.
:snicker:
Why? If the delegates aren’t completely reflective of the “will of people” as indicated by the popular vote, why isn’t it a fair question?
If you point to the “rules of the election,” the ones everyone is subject to, as what counts in this race, sorry, but superdelegates fall into that category as well. More accurately, delegates and superdelegates are the only things that matter in this race. Them’s the rules. If you don’t like supers because they may run counter to the popular vote, well, so do caucuses (cauci?), or anything that assigns delegates in a manner counter to what the popular vote would have concluded. I know Obama has the popular vote right now, but this is in reference to specific state contests. I find it baffling, BTW, that the Dems assign delegates proportionately anyway, in preparation for national election that does not do the same.
That’s how I interpreted DrDeth’s post, and ISTM he has a point.
Explsin why caucuses do not reflect the will of the voters. And how do you know what the popular vote would have concludud in states that use only the caucus system?
DrDeth makes it sound as though Obama supporters have always been against pledged delegates and are only FOR them now that Obama is in the lead. This has, in my experience, never been the case and the argument has always been about superdelegates who are not bound by the “will of the people” (i.e. votes) but rather can circumvent that will by voting against it. I’ve never heard anyone here argue that the Democratic nominee should be decided by straight popular vote rather than pledged delegate selection but I’m open to seeing a cite and being proved wrong. Extra points if you can show it’s a regular thing.
This has always been the argument and DrDeth is confusing the issues when he tries to change Shayna’s statement into one of approval for the entire delegate process now that Obama is leading. You can say “those have been the rules form the start” and even have a valid point but that’s no excuse to imply that Shayna’s support of pledged vs superdelegates has changed or that she’s being disingenuous now by cheering a pledged delegate win in Texas.
Well, at least one superdelegate is now named Bill Foster and I suppose he cares 
Explain why superdelegates do not, since they represent the will of the Democratic party, acceptable to all who agree to membership, at least to the extent that they vote in an election subject to such rules. Explain why caucuses and popular votes within the same state, representing the same constituency (in theory), would select different candidates.
OK, I believe you. But why? Why are superdelegates evil and regular delegates are OK? If superdelegates are offensive because they can contradict the “will of the people,” so do “regular” delegates, to the extent that any delegate is assigned that contradicts the popular vote. Or do I misunderstand you?
Sorry, didn’t answer this. I don’t. If a state has only a caucus, that’s the “will of the people” as best we can determine. I personally think it’s a goofy system, but so what. My point was in response to the back-and-forth over Texas and Shayna’s notion that, “In this race, all that matters are delegates.” Well, no, in this race, nationally at least, superdelegates matter too. If delegates alone matter in Texas, then the popular vote is trivialized–and that’s apparently OK to some here because “that’s how it works.” OK, then don’t bitch about superdelegates, is my counter. They are within the rules, just like caucus delegates that contradict the popular vote.
withdrawn
Not to mention, there are differences between the positions of different Obama supporters here on the Dope about voters, primaries, caucuses, pledged delegates, and superdelegates.
While DrDeth is welcome to note inconsistencies within a particular Doper’s position (preferably with quotes), I had the sense that DrDeth was responding as if to a Borg collective, assuming the positions of any were the positions of all, and that differences amongst our positions were being regarded as inconsistencies in a single position.
But…but…isn’t everyone holding exactly the same position on everything the way cults are supposed to work?!