I really don't get why you keep equating these two things. Both candidates are making arguments to the supers. Hillary says they should support the person who won the biggest states. She also says they should ignore the caucuses and support the one who (almost but didn't) win the prmiaries. She also says they should back the one that got the most registered Democrats. He, alternately, says that they should back the one that won the most delegates, popular votes and states. None of this in any way equates to a suggested rule change. And, anyway, it's a pointless argument. Since Feb. 5, Obama's won more than 60 super-delegates and Clinton's won less than 10. If there is this secret groundswell of super-delegate support for Clinton that is going to push her over the top, what the hell are they waiting for? I say, bring it on. I wish every super would declare today. As an Obama supporter, I'm very confident in how that would turn out. I don't want a single change to the rules whatsoever. Neither does Obama or any of his supporters. Hillary does. The FL/MI hoopla is the picture of self-interested dishonesty. Comparing it to Obama making an argument to the supers is a smokescreen.
The two are not equal. Hillary's finagling, re-positioning and flip-flopping is the height of self-serving, two-faced opportunism- and everybody knows it. There are numerous Obama partisans who want the supers to go with the popular vote, because that favors their guy. There are also plenty of unbaised democrats who want the supers to go with the popular vote because to go against it would cause incredible damage to the party. There are tons of politicians and analyists who agree that the supers overturning the will of the voters would be utterly destructive. This is not a pro-Obama position. It is common sense.
And before I have to re-hash arguments I've already read from you several times before: Yes, I know it is well within the rules for Hillary to go all the way to the convention. Yes, I know it is within the rules for the supers to go against the will of the voters. That is aside from the point that doing so would be utter catastrophe. And my choice of words "popular vote" was not coincidence. I know that you cling to popular vote because it's the last chance for your girl to even get a quasi-legit victory. If she wins popular vote but not pledged delegates, then yes, I think it would be legit to fight it out in the convention. She won't win the popular vote though, even if they re-vote in FL and MI, and she won't win the supers, because they prefer Obama. She can't possibly win pledged delegates, that is well-covered.
Bingo. And I wouldn't care or mind if every single vote was a closed primary. Or if there were re-votes in FL and MI. Obama would still win it.
I know you addressed this, but if Clinton doesn't win the popular vote, I will support Obama and hope that she drops out of the race immediately. As you said, that's common sense.
Nolen: i think this whole 'overturn the will of the voters' tact is what cat is pointing out. The caucuses are Ok even if the don't reflect the popular vote because that's the way it's set up...but the super's better not overturn the voters -- even though the system is set up to let them have individual votes. Technically they're not trying to change the system -- but practically they're absolutely trying to limit the voting power of the supers by suggesting the result would be somehow illegitamite if they don't vote in accordance with the pledged majority. I tend to agree it's moot...and this will be settled soon, but there certainly is an inconsistency in standards being applied.
Why? As you keep saying, the rules allow for the supers to do whatever they want. What's so special about the popular vote? And would you require including the results from MI (where only Hillary was on the ballot) and FL (where only Hillary campaigned after pledging not to) in your accounting of the winner of the popular vote?
Thanks -- you said it more succinctly than I did. This thread is a good example of the standards I question. For example, I've heard numerous Obama supporters admit that the system was unfair to Clinton in Texas because a majority of that state's voters chose her as the nominee. Yet, even though they know Obama's delegate win goes against what's morally right and takes advantage of a flaw in the system, they're happy to exploit that flaw when it benefits their candidate. On the flip side, when it comes to superdelegates, many Obama supporters take an incredibly haughty, self-righteous tone about the moral superiority of their position to effectively claim that their position is more important than the independence of these superdelegates (a flaw in the system). If you want to argue based on what's ethical and what is most fair for both sides, I'm fine with that. But don't only do it when it's convenient for Obama, then turn around and argue based on "delegate wins" in states where the system is clearly flawed and not a fair representation of the actual vote.
I'm not among the people that insists that the supers feel compelled to follow the will of the voters. In fact, I'm unaware of anyone that insists on that. The people who argue in favor of it do so for reasons that have been extensively catalogued here and elsewhere. I think the supers should do whatever they want. The only reason the argument exists is because Clinton's camp is grasping at every possible straw to justify her continued campaign. What's interesting to me is what her reasoning could possibly be. To my mind, there is only one possible reason for her to stay in when it's clear that Obama is on track to end the primary season with a lead in pledged delegates, states won, popular vote AND super delegates. The only possible reason then would be that somehow, between now and August, Obama comes to viewed as wholly unacceptable. And, in order for that to happen, someone has to change the nation's mind about him. Clinton's been doing everything she can to do that. THAT is my problem with this situation, not what the super delegates choose to do. If Obama isn't utterly destroyed (from within his own party, no less) the supers will support him over her easily.
The fundamental problem with this argument is that it's not an Obama position. Obama's supporters have said it. Uncommiteds have said it. And Clinton supporters have said it. It's a pretty widely held view - some say that it should be that way, others simply say that it will be that way. But it's nothing specific to the Obama campaign. And no one - except for a single person - has criticized superdelegates who have NOT gone along with anyone else's views on what superdelegates should do. The only criticism, from either campaign, that I have seen of a superdelegate thus far is the Carville attack on Richardson, in which case the argument was that Richardson somehow owed the Clintons personally, and should have voted against what he thought was best because of that.
You're wrong. Even if it's only to a matter of degree, you're wrong. If you think every politician would stick it out to the end despite a near mathematical impossibility of winning through the will of the voters, and do everything possible to smear and destroy the opponent no matter how it harms the opponent or the party.... you are wrong. If you think every politician who, placed in her position now, would make her choices- you're absolutely wrong. There are politicians out there who would place the well being of their party, and the chances of a viable candidate with stances similar to yours, above personal ambition. There are politicians who would not want to sink to a 3-month constant negative campaign gutter fight, challenge every possible rule, challenge the will of the voters, and try to destroy a fellow democrat opponent to claw out a near-impossible victory. We can't know if Obama would sink to Hill's level because he's the one winning. His campaign hasn't done anything near the dishonest, destructive, kitchen sink crap that Hill's has, so he deserves the benefit of the doubt. You want to go lecture some fainting-in-the-crowd Obama supporters who don't know anything about politics? Fine. Go find them and lecture them how he isn't perfect. We here in D&D are perfectly aware of this. We've been following this for a while. We are well read on the issues. If me making a list of his negatives would make you cease with these less-than-meaningful arguments just so you can make a point, I will. He isn't perfect. But his actions past and present define somebody nowhere near as political, selfish, two-faced and self-serving as Hillary has shown herself to be. I was fine with her as a candidate a month ago, happy to have two great candidates. After the **** she's pulled since falling behind... I'm mad. The fact that the only response you have to Hillary's negatives is "Obama isn't perfect either!" is dissapointing. That's not an overwhelming argument for your candidate. The fact that you accept and embrace self serving, deceptive politics is disappointing.
Bull. The rules are the rules. In Texas and with regard to super delegates and the DNC's ruling on MI and FL moving up their races without regard to the rules. I am an Obama supporter and I want to follow ALL of the rules. I want the candidate with the most delegates at the end of the day (pledged and super) to be the nominee. Not the one with the most success in primaries but not caucuses, not the one with the most success in closed primaries but not open ones, not the one with the most registered Dems but not the most votes, not the one with the most blue states or big states but not the most states, but the one with the most delegates according to the rules. Is that okay with you? Supporters of both candidates take haughty, self-righteous tones in making arguments for their candidates. You do so as much as anyone, by characterizing the suggestion of supers reflecting pledged delegates (as opposed to, say, who won more swing states or who's been in Washington longer or who's been more thoroughly vetted or who won more primaries vs. caucuses) as the "shadiest" thing you can imagine. I think the supers should do whatever they want. We don't select our nominees by popular vote and neither do the Republicans. We have a set of rules that all candidates follow and all candidates were aware of those rules before the primary season began. They all agreed to them and no one (including Hillary) registered even a whisper of a complaint about them until Hillary started losing and decided the rules were unfair. Both Dem candidates will make arguments to the super-delegates, just as they will both make arguments to all the other voters. There's nothing shady whatsoever about that, your objections to one candidate doing so (and not the other) notwithstanding. Only one candidate is suggesting changing the rules in the middle of the game. You support that candidate. If you want to get on your high horse about something else, fine. But don't support Hillary Clinton and say you're for following the rules.
If she doesn't win the popular vote, it's completely unrealistic for the delegate margin to shrink to the point where superdelegates could reasonably make up the difference. Furthermore, she would have no legitimate moral claim to the nomination, and would only be hurting the party by continuing to campaign against the nominee.
Cool. We agree then. Is there any chance I could convince you to get behind the idea that neither Democratic party candidate should suggest the other is completely unacceptable or is less qualified to be president than the Republican nominee? If Hillary would stop pulling that crap, I'd have zero objection whatsoever to this race lasting all the way to August.
Here you go again! Until the super's declare their support the race is still on. She has too much support at this point to withdraw. Her 'scorched earth' has been nothing compared to what Obama faces in the general. (McCain praising excepted -- that was incredibly stupid). If anything...the Wright nonsense will have played itself out by then....much better it hit the fan in March then in September! If she stays in after she loses the Super's or if she doesn't unequivically support Obama once he's nominated (no...'I'll think about it" moments) -- then I'll agree with your assessment of her. But until then....you have to expect her to say she's in it for the win. What kind of campaign would say it was going to hang on for a couple of weeks and then concede? Of course she's saying she's in it for the win. Until she withdraws it's what she has to say.
