Give me a break! For one thing, he hasn't "lost" them yet. For another, lobbying superdelegates with that rationale is a pretty obvious strategy for him. It will probably end up being persuasive.
Where is this whining? Superdelegates are supposed to be wooed - what he's suggesting is a reason they should vote for him. Clinton is suggesting reasons they should vote for her. I've never seen anyone in his camp complain about a superdelegate not going along (ie, whining)?
I agree that caucuses would not be good for a general election. They only make sense when used to select candidates, not office holders. And Cat, geez, why so secretive? If you've ever voted in a primary, your secret is out. If you were a registered Republican, you probably voted for Bush in the 2004 general election. If you were a registered Democrat, you probably voted for Kerry in the 2004 general election. As for myself, I voted and caucused on behalf of either Kerry, Dean or Kucinich, I can't remember. But as a Democrat, I voted for Kerry in the 2004 general election. That person who you would never want to know how you voted in a million years, he can figure out how you are registered. It is not very difficult information to get. If you are a registered Republican who voted for Kerry or a registered Democrat who voted for Bush, you might want to consider changing parties, or you're what is called an Independent. Independents are not supposed to vote in primaries or caucuses. They get to keep their cards close to their chests and do whatever they please with their time. They are most people. There is nothing wrong with them and they include most of my friends. Secret ballots in primaries are how David Duke ended up as the Republican candidate for governor in Louisiana. They also open things up to people fixing the machines. When I left my caucus on March 4th, I knew exactly how many of my fellow Democrats had voted for Clinton and how many of them had voted for Obama. Everything was transparent and out in the open. In 2000, I signed Ralph Nader's petition to get the Green Party on the ballot. In order to do that, I had to sit out the Democratic Primary and Caucus that year. I had no say in who the Democratic Party nominated for any offices in the 2000 election. I still voted for a whole lot of Democrats that November, I just didn't get a say in which Democrats were on my ballot. It sucked, but it was important for me to sign that petition. Just as it may be important for you to keep your political views a secret. Not everyone needs to vote in a primary or belong to a party. Selecting candidates is not the same thing as selecting officeholders. They represent different constituencies. If we were having this discussion decades ago when Texas was a one party state and the primary essentially was the general election, then I would probably agree with you.
It is a system designed to stop all the smacktard republicans that voted for Hillary just to screw Obama.... If they would not allow Republicans to vote in a democratic primary, there would not need to be this type of situation. But it allows people to go to the Caucuses and get a more true indicator of the democratic parties thoughts... Because smacktards don't want to go to the evening and sit around with a bunch of democrats for 4 hours while they elect delegates and officers.... DD
Another persuasive strategy to lobby superdelegates, at least to me, would be that a majority of losses came through a flawed (caucus) system. Funny how it's "strategy" when it's Obama, but it's "sore loser" when it's Clinton.
Many, many more Republicans have voted for Obama than Hillary in this election. By the way, you could just as easily require a closed primary and have the same results you seek.
Cat, I searched for the data about this, and I could not find anywhere that says Republican voters voted for Obama in the democratic primary.... And if the data is taken from exit polls than it is worthless, because if the Republicans are voting in the DEMOCRATIC primary, they are already proven to be untrustworthy as voters..... DD
I'll concede that quite a few lifelong Republicans have left the party recently. Jim Webb is one. There were several former Republicans voting for Obama at the Caucus I was at. We talked. They plan on voting Democrat in the down ballot races as well and I am happy to have them. I also know of Hillary Republicans. The ones I've heard about do not plan on voting Democrat in November, regardless of whether Hillary is on the ballot. They did it to screw with the Democratic Party. I didn't meet any of them at the caucus or convention.
Yes, Obama's "strategy" is winning as many contests as he can so he can be the nominee. That includes caucuses whether you or Hillary likes it or not because, well, it always has. Hillary knew about caucuses, by the way, back when she was still "inevitable." She never complained about them before she lost them. And she never would have, because if she did she'd have lost them a lot worse than she did. Likewise, she had no problem at all with MI and FL not counting back when she was trying to win Iowa and New Hampshire. If she had held anywhere near her current position on MI and FL back then, she would have placed third or worse in NH and she would have been out of the race the next day. The reason Clinton's a sore loser and Obama isn't is because Hillary's proposing changing the rules -- and even taking it to a credentials committee fight at the convention to do it -- and Obama isn't. The other reason, of course, is that Clinton is losing. It doesn't make a lot of sense to call someone a sore loser when they're winning.
Major, can you help me with this? I'm really not even sure how to respond, especially if you throw out a caveat like denying all exit polls. This is just silly. You do realize the Republican for Hillary campaigns by Rush only started for the March 4 primaries, correct? Before then, Obama dominated among Republicans voting in the Dem primary, many times by 70 percent plus margins.
What?!? It's been known all along that a credentials committee at the convention would be appealed to -- that's what the credentials committee is there for! That's why it's put into place! That's not trying to change the rules -- that's the exact opposite.
I can agree to a certain extent with this. However, we have a constant theme of Republicans and conservatives trying to limit the votes of just these groups at the regular polls-- having elections on Tuesdays a work day, with the polls being opened only an hour or two before and after the typical 8-5 work day. (Many people work other shifts). Trying to suppress attempts to make voter registration easier at government agencies, including disgracefully the VA hospitlas, etc. Meanwhile other democracies do things like have voting for a 48 hr period during a whole weekend, have national election day be a public holiday, automatically register everyone etc. Careful, TJ ,you may be departing from the long time GOP orthodoxy of trying to limit the total number of voters particularly among the poor and working class. As you virtually never depart from prevailing conservative orthodoxy, you might want to reconsider.
glynch - what are your thoughts on limiting the votes of the people of the entire states of Michigan and Florida?
My boss (an obama delegate) confirmed this was the case at his convention. Every challenge came from the Clinton camp.
Well first, what is your position on limiting non-partisan voter registration at Veteran's Hospitals? Although you view your office job as being more important than serving in the military , you do at times claim to support our veterans. I think Michigan and Florida should count. As someone above said there is a difference between selecting the candidates and actually the office holders. Still, given the reality of the two party system I think their votes should count. A new primary should have been held in both states. I say that as an Obama supporter who would like to see Hillary drop out asap. Just don't like keeping the voters from those states from choosing. I also do not like the strangle hold of two small atypical states New Hampshire and Iowa on the primaries. I think this itself is undemocratic and disenfranchising, so I have sympathy for the Dem leaders in Michigan and Florida who tried to buck the system.
This is entirely true. Up until March 4th, Obama was dominating with independents and crossover Republicans, and in many cases, that's how he was winning states (especially early on, he was mostly losing amongst Democrats). In the more recent primaries (TX/OH/MS), Hillary and Obama more or less split Republican voters. Many people have attributed it to the Rush effect, and there's anecdotal evidence of that, but it's unclear how much of it was things like the 3AM ad or how effective Hillary was at questioning Obama's readiness (which might work better on Republicans in general) vs. people screwing with the election.
But the credentials committee is there to change rules. She and her allies also filed lawsuits in Nevada and Texas (I'm not sure if this was a lawsuit or an appeal to the TDC) to limit voting when it suited her. The Obama campaign has never really done anything of the sort. I know you think of it as a technicality, but I do think it's a significant difference. He's gone with whatever the DNC set up. She goes along with what the DNC sets up until it benefits her to try to change it (in the case of MI, after the fact too). At that point, she rails on how unfair it is.
