You admit in your first paragraph that it may be necessary for the Super Delegates to “subvert the will of the people”. If you acknowledge that necessessity then what’s your beef?
And how do you define winning fairly? More importantly how do you believe the Super Delegates define it?
That’s completely different reasoning. Just because one doesn’t think the Democratic candidate of their choice is going to win in November in a different race against a different, Republican, candidate doesn’t mean that said person doesn’t support the person they’re voting for. However, voting for somebody who you think isn’t the best person for the job* in the race you just voted in*, does.
Why else would 13% of Clinton’s self-reported voters say they didn’t think she was qualified, compared to 3% of Obama voters. To me, that says around 10% of her votes were from spoilers.
He never said they were necessary. He described why they were put in place.
But it’s not the Democratic candidate of their choice if they are a Republican spoiler voter-- it’s the one they think will be easiest to beat. In this case, Obama.
The poll just ask “more qualified”, not whether they thought one of them wasn’t qualified.And it wasn’t the best person for the job, but the more qualified for CiC-- one aspect of the job. We know that Ohio voters were concerned largely about economic issues, so if they think Clinton is going to be better for the economy, they may be willing to settle for her Iraq position (which, at this point, is really not much different than Obama’s).
That sounds like an acknlowledgement, or at least an understanding of the necessessity to me.
Fair enough.
I don’t think that significantly detracts from my point.
I strongly agree with the non quoted portion at the end of your post.
Do you mean about this question being about Commander in Chief, and not about who is the best person for the job? I can easily see someone saying they think Hillary is less qualified to be CiC because of her vote on the Iraq AUMF, but still think she is the better candidate overall.
Well, Pennsylvania is a closed primary. Whoever wins the Keystone can’t claim Republican hanky-panky. It is Obama’s to lose. He needs to close the deal.
So – the Republican spoiler voters had the tenacity and understanding of the process sufficient to show up and vote in the Democratic primary… but then were consumed by honesty as they left and revealed their true feelings to the exit poller?
You don’t understand how sneaky those Republicans are. You see, they knew long ago that this would happen (they engineered it, actually), and so they’ve had Republicans secretly switching their party affiliation in PA to Democrat just so they could spoil the outcome. It’s true, I tell you. I read about on the internet!
Why is it his to lose? Just because he’s in the lead overall?
Because he has enough of a lead that it’s virtually impossible for Clinton to overcome it. He will for sure go into the convention with the lead in pledged delegates, so yeah, he’s essentially already won the popular vote and the elected delegates. Hillary still has to make a case as to why those victories should be set aside and the nomination given to her.
the media was making way too big a deal about Hillary’s wins last night. Mathematically she gained almost no ground. After WY and MS, she will be even further behind than she was on monday.
It’s news to me that it takes “tenacity and understanding of the process” for those affiliated with one party to vote for the other party’s candidates in the Ohio primary.
All you have to do is tell the election worker which ballot you want, Republican or Democrat, and they check a box and hand you a form. It’s not rocket science.
According to reports, Hillary is now floating the idea that she’ll accept Obama as a VP candidate on her ticket.
If there’s still a fork in her, the tines are pretty bent.
Obama is going to need to risk mussing up his “man of peace” image and start getting down and dirty some more between now and Pennsylvania. For instance, I didn’t hear anything during the Ohio campaign about HRC’s not standing up for labor while on the board of Wal-Mart (during their anti-union campaign).
Yes. Although I would disagree with the person, I understand the thought process.
(What’s AUMF?)
Tenacity and understanding? Give me a break, I specifically remember hearing about crossover voting in the fourth grade. It’s not a new thing. I don’t see how voting for somebody in an open primary that you think would favor your candidate counts as dishonest.
You’re right. But we aren’t talking about having a national plebiscite on every issue that Congress or a regulatory process currently handles. That would be pure democracy, and it would suck.
But that’s an entirely different notion from that of our choosing our leaders in a democratic manner. At present, we choose every Congressperson, every Senator, every governor, in a democratic election, and nobody’s seriously suggesting we do otherwise. Why the Presidency should have a different set of rules, especially for the “Democratic” Party nomination, is beyond me.
Look, if you want my opinion of the Super Delegates then I’ll tell you I’m against them. I don’t like the fact that they are designed to subvert the will of the people. The reason why I said it was “necessary to have them” was that, that is what the party elders felt that way after the Dems put forward a few stinkers. I don’t think they are important, and if Hillary got more pledged delegates then I’d be happy with it.
The huge problem here is that we need some sort of ground rules as to who wins here. Hillary seems to keep changing the rules as she goes and the fucking press doesn’t stop and say, “wait a minute now” because it can’t. The rules are whatever the majority of superdelegates say they ought to be.
I’m so sick of these idiotic voters who made the choice based on Hillary’s “experience.” Who the fuck sees an ad on TV from Hillary and decides to vote for her? Seriously? What kind of fool can you be? Look on the internet, read a paper, do something! This is something Obama really needs to hit hard on. Seriously I have never heard of any one of her “accomplishments” He needs to hammer on that all week long.
Here’s some data (not a smoking gun, but still interesting) that suggest the major role the GOP spoiler vote played in both OH & TX. Take it for what it’s worth…
I took that original post to meant that PA was his to lose, not the whole nomination.
Authorization for the Use of Military Force.
Depends on what you define as “southern States.” If you mean:
Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Arkansas, Texas --then yes you are wrong–unless something happens that causes McCain’s campaign to implode (him coming down with a serious illness, with his advanced age, would probably do him in. Any big scandal.) He might be competitive in Virginia, Louisiana, and Florida. Florida is typically a battleground state so most people aren’t talking about it when they talk about the Republican stronghold in the South, likewise Louisiana has gone for Democrats in plenty of Presidential elections. Virginia has always been a stronghold for Democrats–it is only on the national level it has trended so strongly for Republicans in recent years.
So yeah, he might have a shot at those states. I personally don’t think he can beat McCain in Florida or Virginia, I think his best shot at a win in the south is Louisiana.
I think Obama voters are fooling themselves if they think he can win in the rest of the south which by and large voted for Bush with over a 10% margin.