I just want to make it clear that I was pointing out what I thought was evidence of crossover voting, and am not in any way surprised or appalled by it.
Thanks.
I was asking why PA was his to lose, given her long-standing lead there.
I think my use of the word “rightfully” wasn’t really very good in that case, so I can see where the confusion has come from.
We elect a President based on the electoral vote system, whichever candidate wins the most EVs, wins. EVs are given out based on popular vote contests across the fifty states in the union.
I’d genuinely rather see someone win who I dislike (say, Hillary Clinton) than I would see someone I like (John McCain) win the election but not actually been preferred by the majority of voters in states that he won.
For example say in Ohio 100,000 people vote (for simplicity’s sake.) Let’s say that Hillary Clinton has won the nomination. Let’s say that 45,000 voters genuinely want John McCain as their next President. Let’s say 30,000 voters genuinely want Hillary as their next President.
Let’s say 25,000 voters supported Obama in the primaries, and vote for McCain in the general. Let’s say that these voters actually more closely identify with Hillary, that on the balance, let’s say they would prefer she be President over McCain–the only reason they are voting for McCain is to “stick it to the Democratic Party.” They don’t have anything otherwise persuading their vote.
To me, that’s not an ideal situation because people aren’t voting out of what their interests are but out of a vindictive and childish desire to “punish.” That’s the sort of feeling I’ve gotten from some people on these forums who say they wouldn’t vote for Hillary out of spite. [Note in the example above, if they just didn’t vote for President or voted for a third party candidate, McCain would still win, we don’t have to presume they would vote for McCain directly.] But in truth I don’t take these people seriously. Most voters are going to vote based on who they prefer the most. I think most Obama supporters will support Hillary if she wins the nomination and vice versa because these are Democratic voters who just aren’t going to buy into the Republican platform.
Well, that’s the problem: many of them aren’t.
Obama has gotten a great deal of his support by expanding the political map in various directions. He’s greatly increased the level of political participation among young people. He’s pulled in a lot more independents and disaffected Republicans than most Dems are able to get. He’s turned nonvoters in their 20s and 30s into voters.
Now in November, I will hold my nose and vote for Hillary if the Democratic Party overrules its voters and stuffs her down our throats, even though it abandons any legitimate claim on my vote by doing so. But I’m a Democrat, at least for now. (Though over the past 6-8 months, I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about new approaches for a third party, precisely because of the party’s low regard for Democratic voters - its ‘base.’)
But these voters - millions of them, apparently - for whom this is their first association with the Democratic Party - they are NOT DEMOCRATS YET. They’re tentatively moving in that direction, but the deal is a long way from sealed. And there is NO REASON for them to stick around if the party fucks them over.
Some of them will vote for McCain, some will just stay home. But to expect most of them to vote for Hillary is just plain stupid.
BTW, for all of you who think the Democrats need to follow the will of the people, do you realize that delegates are not awarded in direct proportion to the popular vote? If Obama wins the popular vote, and Hillary wins the most delegates, would you have a problem with the superdelegates tipping the balance in favor of Obama?
Because, it isn’t analogous to electing a congressperson, senator, or governor. You’re not electing anyone to anything. You’re making a decision about who should run for office, that’s fundamentally different than a genuine election between candidates. You’re making a decision, and because the Democratic party is the more “expert” entity when it comes to making political strategy decisions, it deserves more say than do moronic voters who don’t really know anything about political strategy.
It looks to me like we could still be at a stalemate 2 months from now:
Mar 8: Wyoming 12 delegates (advantage: O)
Mar 11: Mississippi 33 delegates (advantage: O)
Apr 22: Pennsylvania 158 delegates (advantage: C)
May 3: Guam 4 delegates (advantage: O)
May 6: North Carolina 115 delegates (advantage: O)
May 6: Indiana 72 delegates (advantage: ?)
I am well aware of the sinister plan orchestrated by Republican voters. 
The conspiracy can go both ways. Virginia had an open primary with McCain as the presumptive Republican nominee and Obama won by a significant margin.
Or another question: if Michigan and/or Florida want to rehold their primaries and have it count this time, will Obama supporters want it to happen?
Only if MI is a caucus. 
Because Obama’s campaign has had undeniable momentum, excitement, and great press coverage, it has been genius. If his phenomenal- and I say that genuinely- campaign can’t recover from Clinton’s distractions and steal Pennsylvania, it does not bode well for Obama in the GE.
I don’t see why. PA has a demographic that favors Clinton over Obama. Just like Ohio did. In fact, if you look at Ohio, you’ll see that it’s right next to PA. Besides, the big mo is partly loving Clinton now, not Obama. I don’t know that either can claim to have net momemtum.
Then we apparently have a philosophical difference here regarding the nature of political parties.
And I’m sorry to find that you consider the American people to be a bunch of morons. I don’t.
No no no no no. When Clinton wins, it’s because of her superior campaigning. When Obama wins, it’s about favorable demographics. You must’ve dropped your campaign script.
I do realize that. And if it’s a split decision, then (a) I doubt that either candidate will have much of a lead in either category, and (b) it’s fine with me if the superdelegates, in effect, break a tie. Somebody’s got to.
Breaking a tie, I’m good with. Reversing a narrow but clear outcome, not so much.
This Obama supporter would. I want my guy to win or lose a fair fight. That’s all.
Aside from the $$ necessary for a do-over, it would be the perfect solution all around. Obama and Clinton could compete openly in both states. Obama would get the FL/MI issue resolved without having to accept a bogus deal; Hillary would get the chance to win FL for real this time, which right now it looks like she’d love to have the opportunity. The DNC’s rules would be complied with. And FL and MI would get their states in play at an even more crucial juncture than they’d hoped. What’s not to like?
Obama surely would fair better in a do-over than in the Soviet-style Michigan primary in January. I voted against Hillary, preferring uncommitted to her in January. I’d be happy to vote for Obama if there is a repeat. I would much rather see my state disenfranchised in the convention than see the bogus January result stand. In Florida, Hillary’s claim is somewhat less bastardized because Obama’s name was actually on the ballot. But in neither case can you tell voters their votes don’t count and then three months later say “just jokin’”.
Every other state trying similar shenanigans to increase its likelihood of being pivotal. You make a rule, you have to enforce it for future rulings to have any credibility.
Georgia Democratic Party chairwoman Jane Kidd has endorsed Barack Obama for president, giving the Illinois senator another Georgia superdelegate vote.
DAYTON, Ohio – Mirroring the unofficial results of the Democratic Presidential race in Montgomery County, Dayton Mayor Rhine McLin today announced her endorsement of Illinois Senator Barack Obama.
None today for Hillary that I can find.
How is that a stalemate?
Obama was last polled at a 15 point lead in Indiana in February.
It looks bad for Hillary. Her slight wins tonight aren’t helping her win.
Obama has thusfar won more votes, states, and pledged delegates than Hillary and I don’t see how that will change given the current status of the race. I see North Carolina being another potential blow-out for Obama, being smack between SC and VA. That’s a huge win.
Add up NC, MS, and WY and you’ll have a larger number of Delegates that HRC will simply try to ignore.
Obama has from very early on, has planned to win with the largest number of pledged delegates. That’s the name of the game at least until Hillary decided that she had to change the rules to win…