Superdelegates deciding the nominee.

[J. J.]

I actually like the idea of delegates having some judgment.

Of course you do. Everything you have said regarding the Democratic primary, whether it be your desire to have the MI/FL delegates seated, your encouragement of Clinton among your Democratic family members, or your downright excitement at the thought of the super delegates crowning Hillary against the will of the people can only lead one to believe that you really, really, really want her to win this nomination. Not that you like her, but you know she's the candidate most likely to lose against your preferred candidate, McCain. A lot of Republicans feel this way, but then again they pretty openly admit it. You try to hide your true intentions behind "Democracy!1" and "judgement!11" claims, but it is fairly easy to see right through you.

Ah, I hate to tell you this, but I just told the poster formerly known as Jfern that I agree with him that the delegates should not be seating, if a legitimate rule was violated.  You are seriously misreading my posts.

I do think it is very hard, and quite hypocritical, to say, on one side, that the FL and MI delegates shouldn't be seated, because they violated the rules, and then say, "Oh, the super delegates, who can vote under the rules, should not get to decide who the nominee is."  I think it's an obstacle for Obama and to have a "clean claim" to the nomination, he needs either to win with all delegates, including the super delegates with FL or MI being seated, or win the elected delegates, excluding the super delegates, but including FL (and possibly MI).  Now, that is far from saying seat the delegations and count the super delegates.

If you truly read the email, the very first thing I said about the candidates was this:

"First, I feel that in 2008 the Democratic candidate with the best chance of winning in November is Barack Obama.  That is a pure political calculation."

If my aunt and uncle, or any reader, wishes to know who I think has the best chance of giving the Democratic Party the presidency, I've said it and I said it first up.  My aunt is a died- in-the-wool Democrat, who has for every Democratic nominee for president since 1960; who has the better chance of winning in the fall may drive her vote.  That isn't exactly hiding anything.

I have no idea what you mean by "Democracy!1" and "judgement!11".

I will say again, that IMO, Clinton will make a better president, this cycle, than Obama.  I have said that I would vote for Clinton over Romney, at a time when Romney was a candidate, and the potential nominee.  That isn't exactly the most partisan Republican statement I could make.


 

[J. J.]

And just drive home the ppoint, here is what I said about 4 1/2 hours ago:

Florida and Michigan were offered to revote, like Delaware had to in 1996. If they don't want to revote, that's their own problem. They broke the rules, not the DNC or Obama.

Of course all of this is irrelevant if either Clinton is ahead among actual pledged delegates, or if Obama leads by more than the difference of Michigan and Florida. Michigan is especially a problem, are those "uncommitted" non-existant delegates going to vote for Obama?

Presuming that the DNC actually had the authority to make the rule, I actually agree with you on the procedure.  This, however, is politics and it becomes a good argument for saying that the super delegates can vote, for Clinton, even if she doesn't have the popular vote.  That is the trap I'm talking about.  Basically to clearly win Obama has not not only come in first with the elected delegates, but he has to come in first either with the super delegates being counted or with FL and MI being counted.  His victory standard is a bit higher.

(Don't blame me; I didn't write the rules.)

And you can't even blame the Republicans for this; this is straight out of the DNC.

[Thereisnospoon]

I can't imagine they'll let it go to the convention only to have the candidate picked by the super delegates. It would upset too many people (including myself) and make the Democratic Party look out of touch while causing serious political damage through to the election.

That being said, I'll have to go with one of the CNN analysts who said that the Democratic leadership will probably meet with the two candidates several months before the convention and tell one of them, based on the results of the primaries, to drop out. Even Howard Dean essentially acknowledged this. There's just no way they could afford to have it happen knowing the backlash that would come from it.

[agcatter]

Getting one of them to drop out if there is a statistical tie........ good luck with that.

[J. J.]

I can't imagine they'll let it go to the convention only to have the candidate picked by the super delegates. It would upset too many people (including myself) and make the Democratic Party look out of touch while causing serious political damage through to the election.

That being said, I'll have to go with one of the CNN analysts who said that the Democratic leadership will probably meet with the two candidates several months before the convention and tell one of them, based on the results of the primaries, to drop out. Even Howard Dean essentially acknowledged this. There's just no way they could afford to have it happen knowing the backlash that would come from it.

I think the candidate with a majority, inclusive of the super delegates, will win. 

[หมูเด้ง]

If Obama won more delegates but those superdelegates end up reversing it for Clinton, I'll be one of those people with a torch and a pitchfork on the street

Seriously though, could the democratic party end like THIS?

[Thereisnospoon]

I can't imagine they'll let it go to the convention only to have the candidate picked by the super delegates. It would upset too many people (including myself) and make the Democratic Party look out of touch while causing serious political damage through to the election.

That being said, I'll have to go with one of the CNN analysts who said that the Democratic leadership will probably meet with the two candidates several months before the convention and tell one of them, based on the results of the primaries, to drop out. Even Howard Dean essentially acknowledged this. There's just no way they could afford to have it happen knowing the backlash that would come from it.

I think the candidate with a majority, inclusive of the super delegates, will win. 

Most likely. That's what I meant to say.

[Flying Dog]

There are about 200-300 supers who are just waiting for someone to come out with a definitive lead in the pledged delegates and they'll endorse that candidate. When we get that lead is any body's guess.

[หมูเด้ง]

There are about 200-300 supers who are just waiting for someone to come out with a definitive lead in the pledged delegates and they'll endorse that candidate. When we get that lead is any body's guess.

If they aren't go to do their thing, and the convention is tied, what happens?

[bgwah]

Well I don't necessarily think the super delegates crowning Clinton even if Obama won the pledged delegates would be against the rules, but it would be very frustrating, it would be devastating to the party and I would be furious if they actually went through with it.

As for the rest, it was certainly easy to misunderstand you if that what's you really meant--but it's not terribly important anyway.

[perdedor]

If Obama won more delegates but those superdelegates end up reversing it for Clinton, I'll be one of those people with a torch and a pitchfork on the street

Seriously though, could the democratic party end like THIS?

You're actually doubting the ability of the Democratic Party to implode when the presidency is in their lap? I figured the course of history would have purged the world of non-believers. We're always finding ways to choke.

[หมูเด้ง]

If Obama won more delegates but those superdelegates end up reversing it for Clinton, I'll be one of those people with a torch and a pitchfork on the street

Seriously though, could the democratic party end like THIS?

You're actually doubting the ability of the Democratic Party to implode when the presidency is in their lap? I figured the course of history would have purged the world of non-believers. We're always finding ways to choke.

I hope the democratic party ends if it is unsuccesful this election. I hope we can cleanse ourselves and start anew.

[J. J.]

Well I don't necessarily think the super delegates crowning Clinton even if Obama won the pledged delegates would be against the rules, but it would be very frustrating, it would be devastating to the party and I would be furious if they actually went through with it.

As for the rest, it was certainly easy to misunderstand you if that what's you really meant--but it's not terribly important anyway.

It clearly isn't against the rules.  The problem is making a political argument against it, while you're trying to make an argument that FL and MI delegates shouldn't be seated.  Obama would have to say, basically, "Only let those elected delegates decide, but don't those elected delegates from FL and MI vote."  I can't even blame this on Hillary.

[perdedor]

If Obama won more delegates but those superdelegates end up reversing it for Clinton, I'll be one of those people with a torch and a pitchfork on the street

Seriously though, could the democratic party end like THIS?

You're actually doubting the ability of the Democratic Party to implode when the presidency is in their lap? I figured the course of history would have purged the world of non-believers. We're always finding ways to choke.

I hope the democratic party ends if it is unsuccesful this election. I hope we can cleanse ourselves and start anew.

I wouldn't go that far. That would lead to a one party fascist state. Though, with a party so lacking in spine as the Democratic Party, we're already half way there.

[Mr. Morden]

Looks like some of those Clinton superdelegates are wavering:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/us/politics/12clinton.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course, that's just stating the obvious.  The superdelegates are mostly politicians and they aren't stupid.  They understand that there would be a firestorm if they were seen to be taking victory away from the "winner of the primaries".  The only way a problem will emerge is if there's no consensus on who was the "winner of the primaries".