MyDD :: Democratic Nomination Process Made Simple

Democratic Nomination Process Made Simple

by orionwest, Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:58:40 PM EST

There has been a lot of Obama partisans calling for Hillary to quit the race but that is just purely psychological warfare. It is an attempt to make her look stupid to remain in the race. Not only is this pathetic but the people doing it are part of a larger misinformation campaign that includes a major portion of the media. Yesterday it was painful to listen to voters on talk radio threatening to riot at the convention if Obama has this nomination stolen from him. Little did they realise there is nothing to steal! If there is a riot at the convention the people responsible are the ones filling the airwaves with false information.

Let's do the math as Mr. Todd does it on MSNBC since he is one of the main sources of this misinformation.

1. 2024 Delegates are required for the nomination.

Funny I looked at Obama's total which is 1726
Funny I looked at Clinton's total which is 1592

So neither candidate has crossed the goal line! Therefore neither of them is entiltled to the nomination! So it would be stupid for either of them to drop out. In essence there is no math to speak of since neither of them will win the required number of delegates in the remaining contests. A team doesn't get a touchdown for merely coming close to the goal line.

2. Pledged Delegates

These are the people you vote for in the state primary. They are allocated to individual Congressional Districts based on a district's past loyalty to the Party. Since the population of a district is not a consideration a smaller district may have more delegates than a larger district. They are divided porpotionaly according to who won which Congressional District. This makes it really hard for either two strong candidates or two weak candidates to get to the 2024 number with pledged delegates. The individual campaigns usually choose fanatical suppoters to insure that at the convention the opposition can't get them to change their vote by getting them that car or house they've been wanting to buy. Yeah, they can change their mind at the convention and vote for someone else even though you voted for them to support a certain candidate but that is a legal basis to put them in front of a firing squad. (just kidding)

3. Super Delegates

Usually elected individuals like Congressmen or Senators but can be anyone who has been an extremely loyal Democrat. These delegates are not required to use any standard other than their own judgement. In other words they could just toss a coin to decide their choice!

If a candidate doesn't get the required delegates for the nomination in the primaries then they are entitled to make their case to the Super Delegates as to why they should be the nominee. However at any time during the primary they may prevail on any Super Delegate for their support. In doing so they may use any means short of physical intimidation to get a Super Delegate's vote.

4. The Convention

On the first vote at the convention if no one gets the 2024 golden number then things get steamy. On the second vote all delegates become Super Delegates voting for whomever they please. That's when things become really interesting with all kinds of dealing going on like a night in the Governor Spitzer room.

Today we have Clinton and Obama locked in a contest where the two candidates are very close. Hey, if Clinton had 300 delegates and Obama had 2000, yeah, she should drop out but that's not the case! As above the only thing either of these candidates is entitled to is making their case for the nomination to the Super Delegates nothing more nothing less. So stop with the stupid charts and math Mr. Todd cause there ain't nothing there except spin!

Obama and his supporters would love for Hillary to quit but then I would love for my landlord here in NYC to tell me I don't have to pay rent anymore!

One more thing if the Democratic Party doesn't want the primaries to go till June then have all the states vote by the end of March 'Duh!'

PS Feel free to make suggestions for any section but keep it simple! Try not to be an Obama or Clinton idiot! (I know this last part will be really hard.)

Tags: super delegates, obama, clinton, democratic party (all tags)

Permalink :: 58 Comments :: Post a Comment

Simple fix for 2012+ (2.00 / 1)

1) Eliminate superdelegates. Eliminate delegates!

Straight primaries all around. State can't afford a primary? Mail-in ballots (subsidized by state party). Winner of vote wins the nomination.
States get assigned random order of primary. IA & NH, you've had your turn for ages.

Simple!

"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."

by VAAlex on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:01:58 PM EST

great idea, will never happen (none / 0)

man, this makes perfect sense:

"Eliminate superdelegates. Eliminate delegates!

Straight primaries all around. State can't afford a primary? Mail-in ballots (subsidized by state party). Winner of vote wins the nomination.

States get assigned random order of primary. IA & NH, you've had your turn for ages."

but you know what: not in a million years.

you know why: because this PRECLUDES the party establishment from stealing the nomination, which is the whole point of SD's.

the time to rise has been engaged.

by catchaz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:16:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Nomination Process Made Simple (none / 0)

One other thing, never mentioned - Florida and Michigan's superdelegates...I find it hard to believe that they will not be seated, since their vote has nothing to do with the primaries' dates, etc.

Never let the bullies win.

by SluggoJD on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:05:19 PM EST

Re: Democratic Nomination Process Made Simple (2.00 / 1)

Thanks, I needed a laugh. You really think that the people who created and failed to resolve the Florida and Michigan situation should be rewarded with a seat at the convention? There is even less reason to seat the superdelegates from those states then the delegates as elected in the rogue contests.

Proudly joining the legions of people and states that don't matter on May 20th.

by Obama Independent on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:26:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Math isn't stupid (2.00 / 1)

Show us a clear path to the nomination for Hillary and we will stop asking her to end her campaign.

Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius

by Blue Neponset on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:08:58 PM EST

Re: Math isn't stupid (none / 0)

She gets all remaining superdelegates, WV, Puerto Rico, Kentucky, and Indiana.

You didn't say it had to be likely, you just said it had to be clear...

by mikes101 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:26:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry (none / 0)

Let me rephrase:

Show us a ~~clear~~ likely path to the nomination for Hillary and we will stop asking her to end her campaign.

Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius

by Blue Neponset on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:31:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry (none / 0)

Why does it have to be likely? I will grant you that her chances right now are somewhere in the 20% range, but here is my math:

Clinton -
Chance of nomination - 25%
Chance of GE victory if nominated - 60%

Obama -
Chance of nomination - 75%
Chance of GE victory - slightly > 50%

Why at this point should I oppose the person that I believe gives us the greatest shot at GE victory, just because our own self-imposed math gives her an unlikely path to seek that victory? I would much rather take the stronger GE candidate - Democratic math be damned.

by mikes101 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:38:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

because DEMOCRATIC voters picked him? (none / 0)

"Why at this point should I oppose the person that I believe gives us the greatest shot at GE victory, just because our own self-imposed math gives her an unlikely path to seek that victory? I would much rather take the stronger GE candidate"

because it's not fair to put your OPINION of who's the better GE candidate over the VOTES of voters in Democratic primaries and caucuses.

why are Clinton supporters so dismissive of DEMOCRATIC voters? this is an election, not a coronation: the person with the most votes/delegates WINS!

but on the ohter part, electability, are you CRAZY? Clinton has the highest unfavorable ratings of any major candidate in history. ther is NO WAY she's more electable.

the time to rise has been engaged.

by catchaz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:45:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: because DEMOCRATIC voters picked him? (none / 0)

>>because it's not fair to put your OPINION of who's the better GE candidate over the VOTES of voters in Democratic primaries and caucuses.

Sure it is. And the polls also bear this out - look at the upper right hand corner and the upper left hand corner of myDD - Clinton beats McCain and Obama doesn't. Don't like that? Tough. My opinion is a highly educated one - not just something random that I've come up with.

>>but on the ohter part, electability, are you CRAZY? Clinton has the highest unfavorable ratings of any major candidate in history. ther is NO WAY she's more electable.

Likeable != electable. I think the voters may have learned that having a beer with George W. Bush should not have been a reason for voting for him. People may not like Hillary Clinton - I myself do not necessarily like her. But I view this as a question of competence - and on that measure, HRC is a bad-a*&! How else do you explain HRC pummeling Obama in Texas, Ohio, and PA with those high negatives, even though 70% thought she "attacked unfairly" in PA? The answer is at the end of the day, she is still the best candidate. Not most likeable. Best.

by mikes101 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:50:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

thanks fr admitting you don't care about Democracy (none / 0)

"because it's not fair to put your OPINION of who's the better GE candidate over the VOTES of voters in Democratic primaries and caucuses."

"Sure it is."

at least you are honest.

you think it's fair to put your OPINIONS above the will of DEMOCRATIC VOTERS?!?
that's honest, but it's still totally f**ked up.

the time to rise has been engaged.

by catchaz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:53:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: thanks fr admitting you don't care about Democ (none / 0)

>>you think it's fair to put your OPINIONS above the will of DEMOCRATIC VOTERS?!?
that's honest, but it's still totally f**ked up.

Well, if it makes things any better, I do think that the will of the voters and the popular vote will be in Clinton's column by the time June rolls around.

Also count me as one who says that caucuses do not reflect the will of the people. They reflect a 15% pro-Obama bias as clearly demonstrated in Texas which used both systems and the same set of voters in each.

So, it is not necessarily my opinion is better than the voters... it is that I am attempting to interpret the true will of the voters at this point. No worries though - by June this should be even more clear as it is mainly HRC territory from here on out...

by mikes101 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:56:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: thanks fr admitting you don't care about Democ (none / 0)

"Well, if it makes things any better, I do think that the will of the voters and the popular vote will be in Clinton's column by the time June rolls around...
So, it is not necessarily my opinion is better than the voters... it is that I am attempting to interpret the true will of the voters at this point. No worries though - by June this should be even more clear as it is mainly HRC territory from here on out..."

of course that makes it much better, IF you are saying you won't support Clinton unless she actually wins.

i'll state for the record i won't support EITHER candidate if they steal the nomination. democracy is more important than one candidate, or one election.

the time to rise has been engaged.

by catchaz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:03:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

clear path (1.00 / 3)

"Show us a clear path to the nomination for Hillary and we will stop asking her to end her campaign."

here's one:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/25/1253 56/328#commenttop

the time to rise has been engaged.

by catchaz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:39:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Math isn't stupid (none / 0)

As in section one above neither candidate has a clear path! A clear path is 2024 delgates. Everthing else is just spin!

by orionwest on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:48:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Math isn't stupid (none / 0)

Obama needs to win North Carolina, do well in Indiana and he will be over the pledged delegate majority threshold. After that the superdelegates will come together to give him the remaining delegates needed to get to 2024.

It looks clear enough to me.

Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius

by Blue Neponset on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:38:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Math isn't stupid (none / 0)

Clear meaning certain but as has been shown in this primary nothing is clear or certain. The clear reality is neither candidate has the delegate total to be entitled to or win the nomination at this point in time. All else is just spin.

by orionwest on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:52:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Math isn't stupid (none / 0)

Nothing is life is certain grasshopper.

Al Gore could win the nomination. Should we consider that possibility before deciding what is best for the Party?

Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius

by Blue Neponset on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:14:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And now for reality... (2.00 / 2)

There's not any Obama supporter that argues that the superdelegates do not have the power to act like this was the old Soviet Union and overrule the people and appoint anyone they want as the nominee. Hell, they could appoint Dick Cheney as the Democratic Nominee if they wanted to.

But they won't. Here's why.

The superdelegates will not overturn the pledged delegate count, even if Obama is ahead by one.

These folks are mostly politicians. Do you really think they are going to steal the election from the first viable black candidate ever? I don't mean that in a racist sense. They also wouldn't steal it from the first viable woman candidate if she was ahead.

First off, there'd be riots. Second, we'd lose the general. Third, they'd be in trouble in their districts. Fourth, they'd lose the black vote for a generation.

It quite simply isn't going to happen. In fact, it's not even going to go to the convention. Whoever is ahead in pledged delegates will be the nominee, and that will quite certainly be Obama.

Why won't it go to the convention? The calendar. They put the convention 8 weeks before the general election assuming we'd have a nominee after Super Tuesday and that the convention would just be a big PR event. Terry McCauliffe was the prime proponent of that date. There is no way the party bigwhigs, who more than anything else want to win in November, are going to allow 3 months to pass in silence between the last primary and the convention, and then only have 8 weeks to combat McCain before the general.

This whole superdelegate thing is a red herring.

Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.

by Travis Stark on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:17:15 PM EST

i hope you're right... (none / 0)

...but i fear you're wrong. i'm not sure about the SD's, but I know Clinton would do that, if that's what it took.

the time to rise has been engaged.

by catchaz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:40:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And now for reality... (none / 0)

Another misconception, without 2024 delegates it goes to the Super Delegates. The simple reason for the 2024 threshold is one would have to be a pretty strong candidate to reach it. Without 2024 delegates there is nothing to steal as no one has the nomination.

by orionwest on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:52:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

it is stealing (none / 0)

if the voters pick one candidate, and the establishment ignores them and picks a different candidate, that is the definition of 'stealing an election."

and EVERYBODY knows it.

the time to rise has been engaged.

by catchaz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:55:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: it is stealing (none / 0)

the threshold for winning this election is 2024 not any number lower than that

by orionwest on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:59:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I can almost picture you putting fingers in ears (2.00 / 1)

What people are trying to tell you is you're right, and you're wrong. The rules say the supers can do any damn thing they please. Hell, the rules say the pledged say they can do anything they please. For that matter the electoral college rules say those delegates don't have to vote for the winner in their states, but... it isn't EVER going to happen.

Picture the speech. Congratulations Sen. Obama and your supporters for being the first African American candidate to win the most states, most pledged delegates, and most official popular votes (at least). You've done really well, but we, the Democratic Party insiders, have decided that we don't think you're suitable to be our candidate. Nothing personal. We're nominating Sen. Clinton.

At that point the Obama delegates walk out en masse. You can hear the sounds of sirens in the distance as riots break out across the country, and the Democratic Party ceases to be a significant factor in American politics forever.

Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.

by Travis Stark on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:06:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Riots! (none / 0)

I'm not frightened by riots but I am concerned about mobs creating whatever rules they want. Riots tend to be pretty messy lots of people hurt or getting killed. Children lying bloody all over the streets. Not to mention giving Bush the opportunity to use his 'Emergency Powers Act' to slaughter thousands of civilians that are Democrats!

by orionwest on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:32:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

not frightened (none / 0)

and you're obviously not frightened by a candidate who has OPENLY stated she does not care about the will of DEMOCRATIC caucus and primary voters.

but we should all be frightened, because there is NO WAY either candidate can steal this nomination and win the general election.
if Obama steals the nomination Clinton voters wouldn't and SHOULDN'T vote for him.
if Clinton steals the nomination Obama voters wouldn't and shouldn't vote for her.

Democracy is more important than our individual candidates.

the time to rise has been engaged.

by catchaz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:17:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And now for reality... (2.00 / 1)

um - no.

"The superdelegates will not overturn the pledged delegate count, even if Obama is ahead by one." It is for situations like this precisely why supers were created.

"These folks are mostly politicians. Do you really think they are going to steal the election from the first viable black candidate ever? I don't mean that in a racist sense. They also wouldn't steal it from the first viable woman candidate if she was ahead." This argument is more valid - yes, they might be conflicted - and I believe are for this precise reason. But they also want to win which is why there are so many uncommitted.

"First off, there'd be riots. Second, we'd lose the general. Third, they'd be in trouble in their districts. Fourth, they'd lose the black vote for a generation." Who would riot? This is a nonsensical argument since, HRC's supporters could say the same thing if the supers 'hand' this to BO. Lose the general? Just go to the home page of mydd and take a look at those tiny, scary maps up top. Who is leading, and well - who won the sates with the electoral votes needed in the GE? Not the states that have never gone blue EVER. Districts? What about Kennedy, Devall, Kerry and Richardson? Lose the vote of AA for a generation? Not likely.

"It quite simply isn't going to happen. In fact, it's not even going to go to the convention. Whoever is ahead in pledged delegates will be the nominee, and that will quite certainly be Obama." No actually - its whomever gets 2025 - i dont think either of them does. the supers may in fact go for BO, but their job is not to ratify the pledged lead, its to vote based on whatever criteria they think is important.

"Why won't it go to the convention? The calendar. They put the convention 8 weeks before the general election assuming we'd have a nominee after Super Tuesday and that the convention would just be a big PR event. Terry McCauliffe was the prime proponent of that date. There is no way the party bigwhigs, who more than anything else want to win in November, are going to allow 3 months to pass in silence between the last primary and the convention, and then only have 8 weeks to combat McCain before the general." This maybe true - but the candidates - should not be penalized for the poor planning of the party.

"This whole superdelegate thing is a red herring." Agreed

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:54:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

OK. I've given you reality. Feel free to ignore. (2.00 / 1)

The supers are there for a clear case of non-electability, like an Elliot Spitzer incident. Barring that, they may have the technical right to do anything they please, but they know well enough that to do so will mean not only losing the election, but destroying the party. Think the party will win ever without the AA vote? Think they won't need all those alienated young voters who'll be disillusioned maybe forever? How about the old cynics like me who'll never vote Democrat again if they were to do this? No. They could do it, but if they did, repeat after me, President McCain. No, worse yet, get used to perpetual Republican rule.

Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.

by Travis Stark on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:10:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OK. I've given you reality. Feel free to ignor (none / 0)

thank you - but i would daresay that this is your and BO's "REALITY" - not mine.

Barring that, they may have the technical right to do anything they please, but they know well enough that to do so will mean not only losing the election, but destroying the party. Think the party will win ever without the lunch bucket democrat vote? Think they won't need all those women voters who'll be disillusioned maybe forever? How about the old cynics like me who'll never vote Democrat again if they were to do this? No. They could do it, but if they did, repeat after me, President McCain. No, worse yet, get used to perpetual Republican rule.

see - works both ways ;)

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:16:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

works both ways (none / 0)

except for you and Clinton & her supporters are the only ones actively ADVOCATING stealing the nomination.
Obama supporters are saying they'll walk if the nomination is stolen. Clinton supporters are saying they'll walk if their candidate isn't chosen by DEMOCRATIC primary and caucus voters. that's a big difference.

the time to rise has been engaged.

by catchaz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:07:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: works both ways (none / 0)

2024 delegates are required for nomination! Neither candidate has the nomination or is entitled to it so there is nothing to steal. I wish people would stop with the 'steal' spin.

by orionwest on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:13:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

why is orinwest afraid to let VOTERS decide? (none / 0)

that's all we're asking?

why you gotta keep hatin' on democracy like that?

in a democracy voters decide. in your undemocratic universe, elitist establishment types decide. that's f**cked up...

the time to rise has been engaged.

by catchaz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:20:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: why is orinwest afraid to let VOTERS decide? (none / 0)

It's like this you run the football to the one yard line and the other team just keeps getting it to the three yard line. Neither team can claim a touchdown because neither one crossed the goal line. That's how it is with delegates you need 2024 to be entitled to or win the nomination anything less is not a touchdown!

by orionwest on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:32:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: why is orinwest afraid to let VOTERS decide? (none / 0)

still didn't answer:

why don't you want the VOTERS to decide our nominee?

(of course we know the answer: because the voters aren't picking your candidate.)

take this anti-democratic bs to some dictatorship where it's accepted. this is a democracy. (or it used to be, pre-Bush and pre-Hillary Clinton.)

the time to rise has been engaged.

by catchaz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:08:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

orionwest (none / 0)

no disrespect meant by misspelling, sorry.

the time to rise has been engaged.

by catchaz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:09:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: orionwest (none / 0)

did HRC make the rules of supers? no. thus - the rules - as dumb as they are - dictate that supers get a vote.

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:28:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Nomination Process Made Simple (none / 0)

Think of it more like -- the Super Delegates are the last primary/caucus to vote.

Should the voters in the late states not vote for their desired candidate because the early states resulted in one candidate barely leading the other?

This 'math' stuff and the 'stealing the nomination' talk is all hogwash.

The remaining states and territories have yet to vote, Florida and Michigan MUST be addressed and then... at the end... at the convention... the super delegates get to voice their choice.

How about if the party leaders came up to you, in line to vote in your own state's primary, and DEMANDED you vote for their chosen nominee? I am pretty sure you would be incensed.

Like it or not, the Super Delegates are Democratic Party members, not 'Democrats-for-a-day' or crossover Republicans or Independents who never cared enough to even join the party till their little rock star du-jour showed up.

I am glad that the Democratic Party has a mechanism to favor the best Democratic candidate with the better hope of capturing the presidency in the general.

by wblynch on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:54:53 PM EST

you don't believe in Democracy (none / 0)

"I am glad that the Democratic Party has a mechanism to favor the best Democratic candidate with the better hope of capturing the presidency in the general."

yeah, why should trust the VOTERS! thank god we have people like the SD's to nominate who we should have voted for instead of who we DID vote for.

one day, you be incredibly embarrassed to have taken such a undemocratic elitist position. or you'll become a ReThug.

the time to rise has been engaged.

by catchaz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:58:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you don't believe in Democracy (none / 0)

The 'voters' include the Super Delegates. The 'voters' include Michigan and Florida and their delegates.

You all act as if 3,000 fanatics that flood a caucus hall to the effect that the doors must be shut before all participants can be accommodated are 'voters'. They gamed the system. 'Crashed the Gates'.

Or that a contingent in a small 'red' state that will NEVER go to a Democrat in November is more important than those of California, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio... and on and on.

It is not an election, it is a candidate selection process. It is not a voters' choice who becomes the candidate, it is a participants' voice on who they favor.

Just like if you write a letter to your representative on an issue (or even 500,000 people write a letter). The representative is not bound to follow your 'votes'. They take it under advisement and make their best decision based on a lot of input. --of course we can all argue about the decision.

BUT... you Obama crybabies (many, many of whom never participated in the democratic process before this year) have to get over yourselves.

Just because you woke up and decided to follow Oprah over the cliff does not give you the right to hijack the entire party.

You 'voted' for a portion of your state's delegates. Those delegates represent your voice. Those delegates only make up a segment of the overall delegation.

The Super Delegates have their place and should not be steamrolled. They have a serious job to do.

by wblynch on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:11:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you still don't believe in Democracy (none / 0)

thanks for stating again your objections to democracy.

but you already told us that...

the time to rise has been engaged.

by catchaz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:00:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Nomination Process Made Simple (2.00 / 1)

There is absolutely no way that the SDs look at the first African American nominee, the guy who took on the Dem establishment (the Clintons) and got more delegates, the guy who most likely will have more popular votes (no, Michigan won't count), and say, "Nice effort young man, sorry 'bout that."

Ain't gonna happen. More importantly, the Hillary cheering section is operating under a false premise: that is, that the SDs operate as a block. What it boils down to is at the end of the delegate count, Obama will need 1/3 of the uncommitted supers, Hillary 2/3 - and that's assuming she outperforms expectations in coming states. The idea that 2/3 of those folks will overturn the person whom everybody outside of Hillaryland thinks has won this thing is surely insane.

by jbill on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:08:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Nomination Process Made Simple (2.00 / 1)

Except that's not what they are. They are a check and balance, not literally equal to (what is it) 16,000 of our votes each, and if they want to act that way, then they deserve to oversee the end of the Democratic Party, because it's not the party I thought it was.

Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.

by Travis Stark on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:12:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Nomination Process Made Simple (1.00 / 1)

I don't know what you thought it was but I suspect you haven't been a registered Democrat for long (if indeed you are one).

Obama leads at this point, purely on the shoulders of non Democrats.

I'm sure these Democrats-for-a-day all voted for Nader in 2000.

Thank you very much for that.

by wblynch on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:20:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There should be a countdown clock to (2.00 / 1)

how fast you folks will resort to insults and name calling, which is, of course, where people go who haven't got a case.

You have no freaking idea who I am or what I've done, so take your opinion of my Democratic Party credentials and file them where the sun don't shine.

Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.

by Travis Stark on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:35:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There should be a countdown clock to (none / 0)

All I can say is you haven't denied my allegations. I am sure I have been voting Democratic longer than you have been a alive.

You say I don't know you yet you reveal yourself many times daily.

by wblynch on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:38:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Nomination Process Made Simple (none / 0)

Think of it more like -- the Super Delegates are the last primary/caucus to vote.

Should the voters in the late states not vote for their desired candidate because the early states resulted in one candidate barely leading the other?

This 'math' stuff and the 'stealing the nomination' talk is all hogwash.

The remaining states and territories have yet to vote, Florida and Michigan MUST be addressed and then... at the end... at the convention... the super delegates get to voice their choice.

How about if the party leaders came up to you, in line to vote in your own state's primary, and DEMANDED you vote for their chosen nominee? I am pretty sure you would be incensed.

I am glad that the Democratic Party has a mechanism to favor the best Democratic candidate with the better hope of capturing the presidency in the general.

by wblynch on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:55:15 PM EST

Re: Democratic Nomination Process Made Simple (none / 0)

Apologies for the double post. I see no way to edit it out or delete it.

by wblynch on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:18:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Logically.... (2.00 / 2)

You say that, since Obama has about 1,726 delegates to Clinton's 1,592, "neither candidate has crossed the goal line! Therefore neither of them is entiltled to the nomination! So it would be stupid for either of them to drop out."

By your logic, Edwards, Dodd, Kucinich, Richardson, and Biden shouldn't have left the Democratic race. At the time they left, no one had "crossed the goal line!"

Those candidates didn't leave because Obama, Clinton, or anyone else had already hit 2,025 and "crossed the goal line!"

They left because they didn't have any realistic chance of winning themselves.

Now, (with one condition) I don't have a problem with Hillary Clinton staying in. She's still got something like a 0.1% chance of winning 70% or 80% of the remaining delegates and getting the nomination. And who gives up on even a 0.1% chance of becoming President?

My one condition is this: Hillary should not be trying to win the nomination by making it less likely that Obama can win the election, by saying things like (paraphrased) "John McCain is qualified to be commander in chief, but Barack Obama isn't." That puts her small chance of being president ahead of having a Democrat win in November, which is the about the most selfish, self-serving, country-destroying thing a true Democrat can imagine.

by Bluebeard on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:03:50 PM EST

Re: Logically.... (none / 0)

I also say if you read further down that if Hillary had 300 delegates and Barrack had 2000 she should drop out.

by orionwest on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:18:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

don't quit running, quit running as ReThug (none / 0)

i agree with this 100%:

"Now, (with one condition) I don't have a problem with Hillary Clinton staying in. She's still got something like a 0.1% chance of winning 70% or 80% of the remaining delegates and getting the nomination. And who gives up on even a 0.1% chance of becoming President?
My one condition is this: Hillary should not be trying to win the nomination by making it less likely that Obama can win the election, by saying things like (paraphrased) "John McCain is qualified to be commander in chief, but Barack Obama isn't." That puts her small chance of being president ahead of having a Democrat win in November, which is the about the most selfish, self-serving, country-destroying thing a true Democrat can imagine."

So she should keep running, she should just quit running as a ReThug.

the time to rise has been engaged.

by catchaz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:12:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: don't quit running, quit running as ReThug (none / 0)

I only am dealing with the rules of the nomination process. Neither Clinton or Obama are likely to win with pledged delegates so both will have to depend on super delegates and even then maybe not reach 2024 to insure winning the nomination.

As to tactics on winning elections everything is fair in love, war and politics. Welcome to American Politics the dirtiest game ever developed by modern man. This primary is one of the tamest to ever happen in our history. Clinton and Obama have both been fairly moderate in their campaigning. It's just their whinning supporters.

by orionwest on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:23:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Easy (2.00 / 1)

Adopt the Republican Model and give HRC her Crown.
Throw out all Caucus states and give HRC her Crown.
Throw out any "small" state and give HRC her Crwon.
Throw out the southern states and give HRC her Crown.
Get rid of those pesky black voters and give HRC her Crown.
Count all the votes in MI, where Obama was not on the ballot, and give HRC her Crown
Count Florida which, by agreement, was not suppose to count, and give HRC her Crown.
Ignore the popular vote, the delegate count, and.....
Keep repeating "Hillary Won Texas" and give HRC her Crown.

by SovSov on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:18:09 PM EST

Re: Easy (none / 0)

Or how about, "War Admiral is leading Seabiscuit going into the last turn so the race is over folks, War Admiral wins !!"

Or how many title prize fights were won by 'decision' after 12 rounds?

by wblynch on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:26:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Except in both cases (2.00 / 1)

the second place person had a chance to win. Hillary has absolutely no chance of winning the most pledged delegates. It's over. No need to respond. I know you don't believe that, but it's true. See you in 6 weeks and we can start working together to get President Obama elected.

Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.

by Travis Stark on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:38:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Except in both cases (none / 0)

I just have to reply: It's not the most pledged delegates it's 2024 delegates. Thinking anything else is not based on the rules. It's nice to have a lead in pledged delegates to make the case but it doesn't entitle a candidate to the nomination.

by orionwest on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:46:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's just not reality (2.00 / 1)

To reinforce the case I've been making for months, here's an article on Politico today:

Dems' suspense may be unnecessary

Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.

by Travis Stark on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:11:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's just not reality (2.00 / 1)

Oops. Sorry I linked to the second page. Here ya go.

Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.

by Travis Stark on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:16:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Nomination Process Made Simple (none / 0)

A large number of Super Delegates may well decide to back Obama but his delegate total still has to be 2024 to be entitled to or get the nomination. The Politico article you link to doesn't dispute that fact.

by orionwest on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:19:04 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.