The thing is, there’s really no one “fair way” to run an election. Any way you structure it will have advantages and disadvantages, and any way you set it up, some people will be better positioned than others.
It’s off topic so this I won’t keep bugging you about it after this post, but a same day vote for everybody would favor the candidate with the largest war chest. To be viable a candidate would have to have enough money to dump into every state all at once in order to get their name out there. Smaller name candidates wouldn’t have a chance. I don’t think Bill Clinton could have ever won under such a system.
The current method of a few small states first allows somebody to gain name recognition without a huge early expenditure and to possibly leverage that exposure into more funding later. If that system wasn’t in place, people like Mitt Romney could practically buy their way into the front runner position of every election.
I’m a regular contributor to the party, and local races. I’d certainly stop contributing to the party, and any local contests would suddenly have a litmus test. I vote at the ballot, and I vote with my dollars too. Sadly, I think my dollar vote would wield more power in this situation.
Kind of. While they are made of elected officials, they are also up of party higher ups who were not voted for. Also, they were automatically made into superdelegates (no doubt by exposure to gamma rays, cosmic rays, irradiated spiders, and/or various toxic chemicals) as opposed to being elected specifically to the job. Also also, the knowledge of their dark and shady existence was not well known, making it hard to argue that they are doing what they were voted into office to do. Then there is this guy.
On the general effects of Obama winnig but losing to superdelegate involvement, I agree with Airman. Democratic credibility is flat gone and a lot of voters will stay home, all but handing the election to McCain.
Personally, I’d vote McCain or third party and would certainly lose a lot of interest in voting for the dems in the future. Hard to stay enthusiastic about voting for a candidate if you know the party could concievably override your vote depending on the whims of people you may or may not have voted for.
Well, I’d argue that elected officials act as our proxies, because although they may know how we generally feel (via polling), we can’t actually vote, as citizenry, on every single issue that they’re confronted with, so we entrust them to use their best judgment on case-by-case decisions, legislation, etc.
In this case, however, we don’t need them as proxies because we are casting votes ourselves. Their imput is redundant (or, worst-case scenario, cravenly political and counter-productive). I don’t have a problem with the DNC coordinating and organizing things to streamline the selection process, but the superdelegates thing is something that’s just inviting abuse.
Never mind. Noticed that the kid was voted into the DNC. :smack:
I would imagine it would be hard to get black voters to turn out at the polls for any future Democratic candidate, since this would convince many (not all) that the system is rigged against them.
And I still think the most likely scenario is one where Hillary supporters vote to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations, with the idea of giving Hillary a thin “lead” in popular vote, and enough political cover for the superdelegates to then swing her way.
The best way to defeat that scenario is for Obama to continue rolling up victories, by as wide a margin as possible. (Come on, Texas; get with the program.)
It is personally disheartening to me as a Democrat that Hillary would even consider playing the superdelegates to grab the nomination despite a popular mandate to the contrary. Surely she must realize that even if she gets the nomination that way, she would get destroyed by McCain in November.
Oh, and if my representative John Lewis casts his vote for Hillary, despite knowing how heavily his state and his district went for Obama, he can say goodbye to my vote forevermore.
I would hope that even die-hard Hillary supporters would begin to question whether they want to give her their vote at this point.
Frankly, if the Democrats do such a thing, they’re idiots. Look, Obama and Clinton have approximately equal amounts of Democratic supporters-- this much is obvious. But Obama has impressive numbers of independent and even some Republican supporters-- Clinton has no one beyond the Democrats. The general election is not a primary! Especially up against a candidate like McCain, who for some reason (don’t ask me why) has popularity outside his party, the Democrats need Obama, not Clinton.
I thought the superdelegates existed for precisely this reason - they are party leaders who have given themselves the power to override the popular vote in cases where the popular vote is reasonably close and they think the good of the party would be better served if the other candidate ran.
Sure, right now you’re saying they’d better not, but would you be saying the same thing if Hillary were getting the popular vote and the superdelegates were leaning towards Obama?
This isn’t a general election. It’s the election the party itself has set up to choose its own leaders. They can set it up however they want. Caucuses aren’t exactly a model of procedural decorum - elections can be won or lost based on an argument local party leaders had and were swayed one way or the other by some means. So if they want to reserve for their party leaders the right to cast deciding votes in close popular contests, they can do that. If you don’t like it, you can fight for reform or leave the party.
But it’s not necessarily such a bad thing. Consider this scenario: Obama peaks a few weeks too late. Hilly wins huge on Super Tuesday and in a few subsequent contests and has a commanding lead. But here we are, with Obama giving stirring speeches and rising in popularity - but with Clinton having the nomination all but sewn up. In the meantime, she’s looking increasingly damaged and unelectable. Wouldn’t you be glad those superdelegates had your back and could force the party to make the sane choice at the convention?
Or imagine that after a candidate locks up enough delegates with the support of the superdelegates, It’s all over. And then come late spring that candidate does or says something really stupid. Maybe multiple times. Popularity plummets. Republicans lick their chops in anticipation of a general election. Wouldn’t you want the ability to have a do-over? At least when the popular vote is close enough that there’s no clear favorite anyway?
I would not return to the US until after the Clinton regime is over and in November I would write in Barack Obama on my ballot. We can do that in Nevada.
I’m pretty sure these votes are secret. Some people have gone on record for one candidate or another but a great many haven’t. Even those who have come out in support for one or the other are permitted to “change their minds.”
Some time in the next several days, HRC will be cornered, forced to swear that she would never, ever even consider such a dreadful thing! and has no idea where such a rumor got started! Because casting her as the candidate of the political professionals looking to use the system to thwart the people, well…that writes itself.
Actually, her campaign started the “rumor”, except when you start it yourself, it’s not a rumor anymore, it’s just a fact.
By any means necessary. She’d rather destroy this party than accept defeat.
I, for one, have responded to every email from the DNC requesting donations, with my flat out refusal, until such time as Dr. Dean grows some balls, shows some leadership and publicly announces that rules are rules and under no circumstances will Florida and Michigan delegates be seated. And if they ask me again before doing that, they can take me off their list, because I will never support them again. It’s not possible to “win” something when your opponent never even steps out onto the field. And you know what? I’d feel exactly the same if the tables were turned. I’d be disappointed and pissed at the DNC, but I would accept it and fight for the contests that count. Thems the breaks.
And I know a lot of people say this and it’s really just an empty threat, but my husband and I talked about moving home to Denmark where his entire family is, if Hillary gets the nomination. With the exception of another Bush term, I can’t imagine anything worse for our country than either her or McCain in the White House, and if those are our only choices, I’m not sure I could stay.
If Superdelegates decide this, I will throw away my vote on the Green Party.
Then you’d better start warming up your throwing arm, because one way or the other, superdelegates are going to decide it. There simply aren’t enough pledged delegates left in the remaining states for either of them to get a decisive victory on those alone. Even if Obama wins every state with 60% of the vote, he’ll still need over 100 superdelegates to put him over the top.
The only question now is, do the remaining uncommitted superdelegates throw their weight behind the one who looks like they’re going to be the winner of the popular vote and the most pledged delegates, or to the one who calls in the most favors.
I don’t give a rats ass about how many favors they may owe Hillary. If thats how they want to do it…by “you owe me a favor” dealings rather than the will of the people they can certainly count me out. The thought of that sickens me. I might be joining you in Denmark, Shayna.
If Obama keeps winning like he has been, the super delegates will fall into place. I know that doesn’t sound like an authoritative opinion, but it is just the way I see it going down.
Clinton could have lost all the elections she has lost and still been in the running, but she can’t keep losing by such huge margins and stay a viable candidate. Because of the way the Democrats appoint delegates, she can afford to lose many of these elections. She can’t afford to lose them in a land slide, it strikes at the very core of any primary candidate’s candidacy–“is this person winning?” If they aren’t, they get knocked out. You have to actually win some of these things to stay in the race, I think either way it’s all over March 4th for the Dems. If she doesn’t improve before then she’s going to do badly March 4th because people don’t vote for losers.
Interestingly I consider Obama much worse than a third term for Bush and exponentially worse than McCain as President.
About four years from now when Obama is driven out of office as the worst President since Jimmy Carter, I’ll have an “I-told-you-so” grin, but I’ll also be weeping for our country on the inside. Obama is like a child in the woods, and unless he pretty much hires the best staff any President has ever had and they do all his work for him he will be unspeakably inept as a President. The more I hear from the guy the more convinced I am that he’s the worst kind of empty suit, electing him would be akin to electing Jared from Subway as President (someone who has no real ability but is seen as a “motivational speaker.”)
I’m less worried about the possibility of this happening as I think Obama is either going to win Texas and Ohio outright or lose them narrowly. I think we give the Clinton machine too much credit for their grip on the superdelegates.
I think what will happen is that losses in Ohio and Texas will force her out of the race and all of our worries will be for naught.
Now if it DOES happen:
I personally would write in Obama for president. I think a lot of people would. The party would revisit the idea of superdelegates and give them less clout. They may well revisit how they allocate delegates to districts and eliminate districts with even number of delegates as they can turn a 55-45 win into a 2-2 tie.
In the election, McCain trounces Hillary with most independents and some dissatisfied Democrats. Senator Rodham returns to the Senate, finishes out her term, and retires to write her memoirs.
Funny in all of this impassioned debate, no one is saying “ya know, if Hillary was the Pres and Obama the VP, they’d be unstoppable and steamroll into the White House with the largest democratic party majority since, well since probably forever.” Nope, it’s all about *my * candidate. Or pools say my candidate could beat McCain but your’s won’t…