[QUOTE=John Mace]
As this thing continues forward with as narrow a margin as it has, MI and FL are going to be bigger and bigger wild cards. I can see the Dems having to do something to allow them to vote-- some sort of “do over” to make up for the blunder they made in disenfranchising those voters. Especially in FL. McCain is a viable candidate in that state (think of how many voters there consider McCain to be a youngster ), and if I were an official of the Democratic party, I would not want to piss those voters off.
[/QUOTE]
“Viable candidate?” Florida was won by 5% by the GOP in 2004 and every indication is that McCain is a stronger candidate in Florida than Bush was.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
“Viable candidate?” Florida was won by 5% by the GOP in 2004 and every indication is that McCain is a stronger candidate in Florida than Bush was.
[/QUOTE]
While this is true, “every indication” is that HRC or Obama are stronger candidates than Kerry was. Since ceteris non paribus, this is not very informative.
Just listening to On Point on NPR I hear the Governor of Florida said he’d finance another primary for dems. Basically saying, I’ll give you the ring you come and fight.
No matter what way this is spun, Clinton is not in the lead, Obama still holds that distinction for the time being. He’s going to have to retool a lot of his rhetoric to convince people he’s the best candidate.
Mr. Sunshine, checking in here. The is great confusion under Heaven, and the situation is excellent. People are turning out in droves to vote in primaries, they are making their voices heard. The ruling party, the Apathy Party, is in retreat, and even at the cost of non-stop squabbling and rhetorical bullshit, this is a Good Thing.
Hallelujah, brothers and sisters, pals and gals! Hallelujah!
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
“Viable candidate?” Florida was won by 5% by the GOP in 2004 and every indication is that McCain is a stronger candidate in Florida than Bush was.
[/QUOTE]
It is generally considered a battleground state, though, and Clinton does better against McCain there than Obama does even though McCain beats both. That is, if the election were held today, which it isn’t.
You’d think people would get out of the prognosticating business this cycle…
I agree that it’s not al bad for Obama, and not all good for Clinton. But here’s the problem. Obama got a little bit of scrutiny this week and he wilted. Additionally, with all of this discussion about his momentum, he really needed to perform much better last night. His lawyers even got the precincts to stay open late in districts in which he performed well, and he still lost by 10 in Ohio.
Clinton blunted inroads by Obama in all of her key constituencies. Obama is going to need to strike back at Clinton to put her away, and this creates two problems: a) he’s going to have to get specific - no more “see his website,” he is going to have to start explaining what he will do as president and how he will do it; and b) he’s going to have to get “negative,” which is basically Dem-speak for making direct, precise critiques of his opponent - there has been nothing remotely resembling a negative attack in this race to date. It doesn’t play well to the politics of hope. Furthermore, his attacks will have to go to Clinton’s senate experience, because I can guarantee you nobody wants to hear Whitewater or Norman Hsu again.
He gets traction with the AUMF vote, but I think that’s a limited appeal. One-issue anti-war voters aren’t going to dictate the election.
Personally, I caucused last night and it was easily one of the most pointless, stupid, and frustrating experiences I’ve ever had. I’m on a one-man mission to get rid of them, at least in Texas. It gave me a whole new take on caucus wins - both for Clinton and Obama. They have little to do with the will of the people, and a lot to do with misinformation, bullying, and other undemocratic principles. So yes, I would argue caucus wins, like the ones Obama had in Washington should be examined and compared when possible to traditional voting.
Hopefully the delegates will have the sense to back HRC if its close. Surely there exists a photo or three somewhere out there of Obama being chummy with Farrakhan, and releasing it in October could be fatal, and its not worth the risk when he’s not winning the big states anyway.
[QUOTE=Hippy Hollow]
Personally, I caucused last night and it was easily one of the most pointless, stupid, and frustrating experiences I’ve ever had. I’m on a one-man mission to get rid of them, at least in Texas. It gave me a whole new take on caucus wins - both for Clinton and Obama. They have little to do with the will of the people, and a lot to do with misinformation, bullying, and other undemocratic principles. So yes, I would argue caucus wins, like the ones Obama had in Washington should be examined and compared when possible to traditional voting.
[/QUOTE]
That’s a very good point, btw. Not to mention that caucus only states (unlike TX, which has both a caucus and a primary) tend to have much lower turnout. So, you get a skewed result of the general electorate plus the bullying effect.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
But Ohio is up for grabs, and Hillary won big over Obama there.
[/QUOTE]
Why does this make her more likely to carry Ohio against McCain in the general election?
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
Why does this make her more likely to carry Ohio against McCain in the general election?
[/QUOTE]
Because she won in demographics that are in play in November. By and large Obama simply won the demographics in Ohio that were going to vote for the Democratic nominee in November no matter what.
All the places/demographics (inner city, blacks) that Obama did well the Dems did very well in '04 and they still lost the state overall. Ohio is going to be decided by suburban swing voters, not by inner city blacks who are going to trend overwhelmingly Democrat no matter who is running.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Still, the idea that the superdelegates need to follow the will of the majority is rather an odd stance. Why on earth have them at all if all they are supposed to do is rubber stamp the popular vote?
[/QUOTE]
Well, that’s exactly the question: why on earth have them at all?
We know the reason we have them at all: after the 1980 election, the Democratic Party insiders decided they wanted a way of keeping another McGovern or Carter from winning the nomination without their approval. The superdelegates actually did help push Mondale over the top in 1984, but they’ve been a nonfactor in every nomination contest between then and now.
Democratic voters didn’t choose to have superdelegates. Democratic voters largely didn’t even know about them three months ago. And all of a sudden, this anachronism has leapt out of the history books to possibly decide the nomination. Why on earth shouldn’t Dem voters conclude that ‘no, they shouldn’t?’ I don’t see anything the least bit odd about that.
[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
Surely there exists a photo or three somewhere out there of Obama being chummy with Farrakhan, and releasing it in October could be fatal, and its not worth the risk when he’s not winning the big states anyway.
[/QUOTE]
I assume you mean this rhetorically, because I really doubt he’s stupid enough to pal around with Farrakhan when a simple, year-old “I like him” quote from Farrakhan seemed to hurt Obama this week.
For those that are insisting superdelegates “follow the will of the people…”
Let me re-empahsize John Mace’s observation above: why do you think the role of the superdelegate exists, if it’s only to follow the will of the people? If that were it, why not simply have pledged delegates?
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Well, that’s exactly the question: why on earth have them at all?
We know the reason we have them at all: after the 1980 election, the Democratic Party insiders decided they wanted a way of keeping another McGovern or Carter from winning the nomination without their approval. The superdelegates actually did help push Mondale over the top in 1984, but they’ve been a nonfactor in every nomination contest between then and now.
Democratic voters didn’t choose to have superdelegates. Democratic voters largely didn’t even know about them three months ago. And all of a sudden, this anachronism has leapt out of the history books to possibly decide the nomination. Why on earth shouldn’t Dem voters conclude that ‘no, they shouldn’t?’ I don’t see anything the least bit odd about that.
[/QUOTE]
Ignorance of the system isn’t really a valid reason to argue against it. Why should selecting a Presidential candidate be up to a bunch of voters who are mostly ill informed and stupid? There’s a reason we have representative government–because too many people would make deciding things impossible and because the masses aren’t well informed. It follows that using people who were elected by other party members (like superdelegates) to decide the candidate is most appropriate.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Well, that’s exactly the question: why on earth have them at all?
We know the reason we have them at all: after the 1980 election, the Democratic Party insiders decided they wanted a way of keeping another McGovern or Carter from winning the nomination without their approval. The superdelegates actually did help push Mondale over the top in 1984, but they’ve been a nonfactor in every nomination contest between then and now.
Democratic voters didn’t choose to have superdelegates. Democratic voters largely didn’t even know about them three months ago. And all of a sudden, this anachronism has leapt out of the history books to possibly decide the nomination. Why on earth shouldn’t Dem voters conclude that ‘no, they shouldn’t?’ I don’t see anything the least bit odd about that.
[/QUOTE]
I agree: why on earth have them at all. But the Democrats do have them. And as long as they do, expecting a bunch of bloated politicians to operate the way you or I might want them to operate is tilting at windmills-- or, to use one of your favorite phrases, wishing for a pony. The time to have gotten rid of them for this election cycle is long past.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
For those that are insisting superdelegates “follow the will of the people…”
Let me re-empahsize John Mace’s observation above: why do you think the role of the superdelegate exists, if it’s only to follow the will of the people? If that were it, why not simply have pledged delegates?
[/QUOTE]
“Following the will of the people” is in practice extremely difficult business. Aggregating individual preferences into a general social preference given a set of outcomes and binary relations is never easy and any such rule is imperfect by construction.
The purpose of the superdelegates is to overcome any short term shortcomings of the chosen preference aggregation rule, not to follow in accordance with the same flawed rule that drives the rest of the delegate assignment.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
For those that are insisting superdelegates “follow the will of the people…”
Let me re-empahsize John Mace’s observation above: why do you think the role of the superdelegate exists, if it’s only to follow the will of the people? If that were it, why not simply have pledged delegates?
[/QUOTE]
Interestingly before this election got into full swing I liked Obama more than Clinton. But the outright insane fanaticism I’m seeing from Obama supporters has honestly turned me more towards Clinton (note I wasn’t seriously considering voting for either of them–and still am not.)
My impression is Obama supporters would find a way to argue that the proper role for super delegates is whatever role most helps him. If the situations were reversed and Clinton had a lead they’d be arguing the super delegates should select him since he’d be a stronger candidate in November.
Obama’s supporters are honestly coming off like big babies to me on these forums. Many of them are saying if Obama doesn’t get the nomination then “waaah, boo hoo, boo hoo, I’m taking my ball and going home” and that they won’t vote for Hillary but will vote for some meaningless third party.
Most Hillary supporters seem to take the stance of “I hope we win but if we don’t we’ll support Obama and our party.”
[QUOTE=Marley23]
I assume you mean this rhetorically, because I really doubt he’s stupid enough to pal around with Farrakhan when a simple, year-old “I like him” quote from Farrakhan seemed to hurt Obama this week.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not talking about a recent one- surely ever since he decided to run for Pres he would have the brains to avoid him, but what about ten years ago? Why would there not be a photo somewhere, from a decade ago, when Obama’s “minister and mentor” has a relationship with him? Surely at some point they were at a party and took a picture together?
And I can’t believe more people aren’t turned off by his wife’s “this is your one chance at him” crap?
[QUOTE=Simplicio]
…, if she breaks even in the other states, but wins 60/40 in Pennsylvania, NC and Indiana (the three biggest states left), she comes within 8 or so delegates of Obama.
[/QUOTE]
But how likely is that? So far, I believe the only state she won by 60/40 or larger margin is Arkansas.
), and if I were an official of the Democratic party, I would not want to piss those voters off.