Skip to main content

If Hillary wins the popular vote in all 50 states, I say she has a real claim to the Superdelegates, and the nomination!

For a long time I have been a loner here hearing about how great Barack was, and also hearing how the Superdelegates shouldn't override the will of the people & give Hillary the nomination.  After last night I think Hillary may have a new argument to the Superdelegates, and a real reason that she should be the nominee.  The will of the people & the popular vote nationwide if she wins the popular vote in all 50 states.  This would prove a real problem for Obama too, since he is supposed to be bringing people together, and any argument from him to not go by the will of the voters wouldn't be good.

At this moment, while some votes are still being counted, the popular vote nationwide on shows Obama 13,121,162, Hillary 12,813,812 when including Florida.  This is a difference of 307,350.  The difference in OH alone so far is around 225,000 votes.  As a result, at this point it is quite possible that Hillary Clinton will be very close to even in the popular vote after Pennsylvania, not even counting what could happen in MI or any of the rest of the states left to vote.

I realize that Howard Dean hoped that someone would emerge the victor without having to deal with the FL & MI issue.  However, after the margin in RI & OH last night, it appears that counting the raw vote in MI & FL might actually swing the popular vote & maybe even the delegates to Hillary.  He will now have to address this issue.  

I know the argument will be that the "pledged" delegate count should rule the day, but we need to be realistic, the process for allocating the pledged delegates is less transparent than the Superdelegate issue.  If Hillary wins the popular vote but loses because certain votes count more than others in determining delegates, how can you then argue that the Superdelegates are unfair?

My personal opinion is that there should be a revote in both Florida & Michigan, after Puerto Rico in June.  This would solve the other potential problem that Puerto Rico could decide the nominee.  My opinion at this point is we need to live up to the 50 state strategy and let the will of the voters in all 50 states decide the nomination.  If Obama wins the popular vote after this I would support him too.  I would challenge Obama supporters to tell me why their candidate should be made the nominee by Superdelegates IF, and I do say IF, he doesn't win the popular vote?

Originally posted to letsbepragmatic on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:42 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Then what? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wee Mama, Demena

    I mean really.  I understand that people love to speculate. So let's speculate.  Does the party really unify behind her?  Maybe.  Can she win over Independents?  Unlikely as there isn't time.  So, the polls keep showing Obama beating McCain and HRC losing to McCain.  What am I not understanding?  How is she more electable?

    •  I think both candidates (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      will be possibly unelectable by June.  Lets think outside the box, here.

      Suppose Clinton win PA by 5-7% after a nasty campaign, but again makes no major headway in the delegate count.
      Then what?  

      It is time for a Draft Gore/Edwards/Richardson/etc.  as a compromise candidate.

      "The era of Scooter Libby justice, Brownie incompetence and Karl Rove politics will finally be over this year" Reject Marc Rich justice and Mark Penn politics.

      by IhateBush on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:54:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why are you so eager to change the rules? (8+ / 0-)

    The rules are based on delegates, not popular vote.  It seems as if you understand clearly that Hillary cannot catch Obama in the pledged delegate count, so you'd like to focus on the potential for catching him in aggregate popular vote.

    The rules excluded MI and FL for very valid reasons.  Now that Charlie Crist, FL's republican governor, is attempting to interfere in the democratic nominating process, you're ready to jump on board with Crist and change the rules in the middle of the game.

    •  You're changing the rule. Superdelegates ARE the (0+ / 0-)

      rules.  They represent all the Democrats who do not vote in primaries and caucuses. Their job is to use their vote to help choose a candidate the millions of November voting Democrats will vote for.

      They get elected to resent the General election voting Dems when those very Dems voted for them in the general election prior to the primaries. Nobody has suggested that the 10s of millions of non primary voters should ever be taken out of the nominating process by muzzling or coercing the supers to abandon their obligation and amplify the activists primary voter.  If 34,000 caucus goers select 26 pledged delegates to the convention, each delegate represents 1304 primary voters when they cast their vote at convention to nominate.  If 1,900,000 rank and file Democrats and primary voters vote in Nov., 1,886,000 of those voters are represented by the state's 6 superdelegates.  That's is 314,333  voting party members for each superdelegate vote in the nomination.

      That is why they are called "Superdelegates".  They represent huge numbers in the nomination process.  They are one of seven types of delegates selected by the state convention to represent the state at Denver.  Their job is to vote in a nominee who can win in Nov. The ballot is secret.  Every deldgate has one vote. The state delegation is then tallied and reported on the convention floor.  Nobody knows who voted for whom.  It is just all the vote of the state delegation. So you see, Thomas C, these have been the rules for 30 years. Obama supporters are trying to change them to advantage his campaign.

      As they become more familiar with the nomination process, party structure and nominating conventions, naybe they will learn that their system busting demands are most inapproproate.

      Any changes needed have to wait till after the election.  Then they can govern the next cycle.

      The basic rules that govern this cycle were set 30 years ago and there are legal implications for trying to change them before the process is over.

      •  No one is proposing to exclude Super Delegates (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        a wolf raised by boys

        But Hillary IS proposing to count FL and MI, and that's changing the rules.  The diarist is proposing to base Hillary's claim to legitimacy on some popular vote theory rather than delegate count, and that too is an attempt to avoid, if not change, the rules.

        •  The rules allow for two solutions for Fla and Mi. (0+ / 0-)

          One is to have a re-vote with new primaries and the Republican govenor of Florida says they will pay for one to happen in order to let Florida count.  Michigan folks or considering a new caucus or perhaps a primary in June.

          The second option that has been in the rules at least since ithe 1950s, is an appeal to the Convention Credentials Committee.

          Back in the day two entire delegations from Mississippi came to convention.  The state convention had selected their group as usual.  A group of Black and white Democrats appealed the seating on the basis that it was not representative of the party to seat the whites only delegates.

          No delegation actually gets seated without being vetted and approved by the Credentials Committee.  They may consider legal challenges regarding rules violations, too.

          The party makes the Credentials committee the ultimate decider on all seating issues.  That is why Dean can't just make people do stuff.  It is against the process defined by the rules.

          When Clinton advocates for some solution to the problem to prevent disenfranchising those state's voters, she does not have to advocate breaking the rules.

          She can just be encouraging the parties to proceed to take care of the problem - within the rules.  If they won't, she and the states have legal options to try to force the party to obey the rules that govern this election cycle.

          Most of the talking heads and too many of the superdelegates on tv don't seem to know the process much better than a lot of Obama people do.  Maybe people will get caught up soon.  I wish Dean would come out more often to help educate on the process.

      •  NO. (0+ / 0-)

        If the Superdelegates prop Clinton up as the nominee, without her winning the pledged delegates, popular vote, she will not win in November.  Democrats will walk away.

        The superdelegates know what is going on here.  The elected officials are not going to walk away from their constituents.

        Obama will reject running with Clinton.  It will be disastrous.

        No one is trying to change the rules.  Clinton want MI and FL seated, though they have been stripped of delegates by not FOLLOWING THE RULES.

        Unless Clinton can win the pledged delegate part of this, which is number one right now that supers are looking at, the nomination will not go to her.

    •  You forget one thing (0+ / 0-)

      Obama can not reach the magic number of delegates either.  One way or the other, this is going to be a brokered convention and "Super Delegates" will decide.  There is no way to know how they will vote as currently Obama and Clinton have about the same amount.  So if it remains split after the 3rd vote in the convention, a "Draft Gore" situation may be the only way out of this shit storm.

  •  At this point (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RichM, Peace4All

    no matter who wins, the victor will limp out of the Democratic primaries.  I think there is considerable resistance out there to a woman OR an African-American President among Democratic voters (and these voters are not one and the same).  Clinton's negatives are very high, Obama's are growing.  Last night was the first time it seemed very likely that the Democratic nominee, whoever it is, will lose the GE.  A joint Obama/Clinton/Obama ticket may only compound the problem.

  •  So Hillary will change the rules again? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pithy Cherub

    The primaries are not decided on popular vote. They are decided on delegates, and she has no mathematical chance of winning on that basis.

    "From the many, we are one." - Barack Obama

    by Travis Stark on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:50:46 AM PST

    •  So let me get this straight - - (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      it's democratic if crazy rules allow the one who gets more votes in the state to win less delegats in the state,
      but it's undemocratic if the one who gets more delegates doesn't get the superdelegates,
      and it's democratic if superdelegates can ignore the will of the majority of the voters in their state (Hello, Sen. Kennedy!  Hello, Sen. Kerry!)?
      The rules need reforming before 2008.  Call me wacky, but if the state votes 60/40, isn't that how the delegates should be split ?????

      Oprah? Nah, I'm voting however Jerry Springer tells me to.

      by Barry in MIA on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:08:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Superdelegates represent NON- primary Democrats (0+ / 0-)

        in the nominating process.  It  is an effort to select a nominee the many millions of non-primary voting members of the party can elect in the fall.  They are specifically designed to balance out the likelihood that the few activist and enthusiasts who participate in primaries and caucuses will select one of their own, instead of a nominee that the majority of the party can support.

        When superdelegates fail their duty and simply ratify the left leaning primary process, the rank and file can't identify and so many vote for a Reagan or Bush or Bush.  That is how the Republican minority kept winning the White House.  

        Most of the superdelegates ARE elected by the Democrats who vote in the General Election as their representative.  It happens in the General BEFORE the primary votes are taken. Each primary delegate usually represents a few thousand voters.  Superdelegates represent hundreds of thousands, even millions of voters with their one vote

        •  BS - - if Teddy and Kerry vote contra the winner (0+ / 0-)

          in Massachusetts, and you're ok with that, you've waived the right to complaint about undemocratic supa dupa delegate behavior elsewhere - you're saying superdelegates can ignore the voters of their states.

          Oprah? Nah, I'm voting however Jerry Springer tells me to.

          by Barry in MIA on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:41:53 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  BTW - again? how has she changed them to date? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Oprah? Nah, I'm voting however Jerry Springer tells me to.

      by Barry in MIA on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:16:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Never change the rules of the game in the game (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pithy Cherub, Demena, Peace4All

    It's cheating and nothing else. If Hillary wanted to count FL/MI she should have figured it out before the contest.

  •  I agree with revote of MI/FL (0+ / 0-)

    but there needs to be serious discussion of a compromise candidate, i.e. someone other than Obama or Clinton as the nominee at this point, i.e Al Gore or John Edwards, Bill Richardson, etc.

    It is very possible that both candidates end up at the convention with high negatives, unelectable, and unacceptable to the others supporters.  For example, I consider Clinton unacceptable to the point where I would vote for John McCain in the fall.

    "The era of Scooter Libby justice, Brownie incompetence and Karl Rove politics will finally be over this year" Reject Marc Rich justice and Mark Penn politics.

    by IhateBush on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:51:15 AM PST

    •  I won't vote for Hillary. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Her Rovian tactics are disgusting. I live in MA. I will vote for every other Dem on the ballot, though.

      Ready On Day One? Why do I always have to go first?

      by kitebro on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:53:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And many Clinton supporters (0+ / 0-)

        especially the older ones in areas like Appalachia, won't vote for Obama.  

        Time for some one else, maybe

        "The era of Scooter Libby justice, Brownie incompetence and Karl Rove politics will finally be over this year" Reject Marc Rich justice and Mark Penn politics.

        by IhateBush on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:56:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Letting bigots decide (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tobendaro, Peace4All

          seems like the wrong way to go.

          Ready On Day One? Why do I always have to go first?

          by kitebro on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:58:28 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  EXACTLY. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kitebro, Peace4All

            And what Obama brings the Democratic Party NEED to win in November.  AAs, Young Folk, New Voters, they will not support Clinton, not after all of this.

            •  That's right. (0+ / 0-)

              And if super-delegates go their own way, they will stay away in droves. And the down-ticket will get screwed. Say hello to a republican congress.

              Ready On Day One? Why do I always have to go first?

              by kitebro on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:04:01 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  You're getting too tightly wrapped, Ice -- - (0+ / 0-)

              are you suggesting YOU won't vote for the nominee????
              Yes or No - - if Clinton is the nominee, will you vote for her?

              Oprah? Nah, I'm voting however Jerry Springer tells me to.

              by Barry in MIA on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:18:08 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  BTW - I want a commitment from the voice of Obama (0+ / 0-)

                on kos - - will you vote for Hillary if she's the nominee?

                Oprah? Nah, I'm voting however Jerry Springer tells me to.

                by Barry in MIA on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:19:03 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Even if Obama were VP (0+ / 0-)

                  It would not substantially improve Clintons chances in November with Obama supporters.  Might even hurt it more.  

                  Hillary can win the bigot vote in Ohio (80% of those in exit polls who said "race of the candidate is very important to me") and I am supposed to be thrilled to associate myself with those people.

                  Just because some says they are a Democrat doesn't mean I find them or their politics acceptable.  This goes beyond labels.

                  BTW: How much support did Hillary give Kerry?  Nada.

                •  We're waiting, Iceberg - yes or no - its easy! (0+ / 0-)

                  Oprah? Nah, I'm voting however Jerry Springer tells me to.

                  by Barry in MIA on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:42:58 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  I will not vote for Clinton (0+ / 0-)

                under any circumstances.  There you have it.  I might even vote for John McCain.
                There are Clinton voters who will not vote for Obama.  I'm skeptical that either candidate will be able to unite the party or defeat McCain in the fall.  The Dems may be best off now that this go to the convention and that a "compromise" candidate is found.

                "The era of Scooter Libby justice, Brownie incompetence and Karl Rove politics will finally be over this year" Reject Marc Rich justice and Mark Penn politics.

                by IhateBush on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:32:06 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  Republican crossover. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    How does that factor in. Will the republicans put her in the whitehouse? Seriously? My guess would be no.

    Ready On Day One? Why do I always have to go first?

    by kitebro on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:52:10 AM PST

    •  The moderates will go with Obama, (0+ / 0-)

      Clinton and Republicans?  NO WAY.

      •  Beause there's SUCH a history of R support for AA (0+ / 0-)

        candidates - - I mean, history may be ignored, right?

        Oprah? Nah, I'm voting however Jerry Springer tells me to.

        by Barry in MIA on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:19:56 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  We can poach the educated Repubs in November (0+ / 0-)

          But not with the single most polarizing candidate in the history of the Democratic Party.

          Barry, you can't win with Hillary.  You have hundreds of motivated Dems on this site that will tell you NO WAY IN HELL SHE GETS MY VOTE.  Imagine what the reaction will be among Independents and Republicans in the fall.

          Even if she were to win (say McCain has a heart attack the night before the election), she is still poised to divide her own party in Congress just to maintain political advantage.  It is just how the Clintons see the world and how they operate.  So she's a "fighter", we know, we've already seen the Clinton's will fight their own party because of their all consuming obsession with the Republican Attack Machine.

          Four years of Hillary is Four years of Bush.

  •  Pragmatic.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lying eyes

    You make a good point.

    ....and an "eye of the beholder" to you too.

    by leftbird on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:52:48 AM PST

  •  Clinton / Obama - - (0+ / 0-)

    with her committing to one term only -
    Our only hope of unity - -

    Oprah? Nah, I'm voting however Jerry Springer tells me to.

    by Barry in MIA on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:55:37 AM PST

  •  At this juncture Clinton has not (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    won the popular vote, the delegate count stays the same with Obama over 150 pledged, and the supers will continue to drift his way.

    There is no path to the nomination, unless you get a bunch of rich, suited DNCers to pick the nominee and it won't be fair with Clinton.

    This is about playing fair, within the rules, Florida and Michigan did not.  If anything, yes a primary re-run in Florida with a caucus for Michigan (remember MI was a caucus state before wasting millions on a nothing primary).

    And the outcome, a split, again.

    Path to the nomination is the MATH.  Wyoming and Mississippi is Saturday and Tuesday.  Again, Obama can run the numbers again and Clinton is back where she started.

    And if she gets this nomination wrongly, the split and divide will be in the Democratic Party.  Do you think young folk, AAs, all the new people Obama brings in will vote for her?  They won't, because they will feel robbed and they were.

    No, the path to the nomination was squandered by Clinton by NOT PARTICIPATING in 11 contests and let Obama run the numbers up.  That alone is horrific judgment, which along with her IRAQ and Kyl/Lieberman vote disqualifies her in my book.

  •  sort of agree, except one thing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    There is no "popular vote because of caucuses.  They are far, far from reflecting the popular vote.  This could potentially benefit either Clinton or Obama, but there is no way to tell.

    So that means that while it is important, the popular vote certainly does not carry the same weight it would have other wise.  Just like the Florida popular vote does not carry the same weight that it would otherwise.  Note that I hope Florida and Michigan revote.

    Pledged delegates should be the #1 consideration.  That's the way the system is set up after all.  Popular vote outside Florida should be #2.  Popular vote including Florida should be #3.  Obviously the electability argument should be taken to consideration - and even though recent polls show Obama doing better against McCain, even in a EC matchup, I don't think anyone really knows who is more electable.

    With all this said, several things should be clear.  One is that because Obama is likely to have a pledged delegate lead between 100 and 150, probably even with a FL and MI revote, there really is little compelling argument that somehow he doesn't deserve it and should step aside, or that superdelegates shouldn't support him.  By the same token, Clinton's victories and closeness in the "popular vote" would suggest that she shouldn't back out and that superdelegates should be fine with supporting her as well.

    Aside from FL and MI and the charged nature of whether or not they are seated, this is playing out exactly as designed.  And aside from the calendar issues with four states getting protected status, I actually am coming to be pretty happy with it - th combination of caucuses, primaries and superdelegates.  We've got two heavyweight candidates, and the system is allowing them to show their strengths and weaknesses.  Short of seating both FL and MI to make the difference for Clinton - which will become a bigger and bigger topic for discussion because I don't think they will revote, I  think that things are looking pretty good for the dmeocratic process.

    "Use Jesus as a body shield while you rob the country blind" - Jud Caswell, The Men behind the Bushes

    by eparrot on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:59:48 AM PST

  •  It's not about "the math," unlesss it gets you (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    all the way to 2025.  You can hope otherwise, even pretend otherwise, but you can't DEMAND otherwise.

    Assume some sort of revote in Michigan and Florida.  Yes, you can wail and gnash your teeth about rules, but in an election this close we won't ignore two big states, including the biggest swing state of all.

    If Hillary wins the popular vote in California, New York, Texas, Ohio, Florida, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, and the only "big" on Obama's resume is his own, Illinois, the supers will have something to think about.  If Obama's margin in pledged delegates is entirely due to caucuses, his strength, they will also have to consider that there are no caucuses in November.

    They will need to figure out who is stronger, not nation-wide, but in the Electoral College.  The simple truth is that either can win with Kerry's states plus several medium-sized states, but only Hillary has a chance to win with Kerry's states plus Florida or Ohio.  Obama is not competitive in either.  They are equally competitive in Missouri, Hillary adds Arkansas, Obama adds Wisconsin.

    The real evaluation comes between now and Pennsylvania.  Come the Convention, they will ask "did Obama peak on February 29, or was Jimmy Olson Tuesday a blip?"  If the former, Hillary.  If the latter, Obama.  IMHO, Obama needs Pennsylvania.

    If you refuse to vote for OUR PARTY'S nominee in November, the blood of a thousand back-alley abortions will be on your hands.

    by dhonig on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:05:56 AM PST

    •  But the "Big State" theory is a fraud (0+ / 0-)

      Hillary's campaign is always citing New Jersey as a big state.   It is true that it's 11th in terms of population, but Georgia is 10th and Obama beat Hillary by 67 to 31.  Virginia is 12th, and Obama beat Hillary by a huge margin there as well.

      This "big states count, and little states don't" is the same kind of strategy that ceded large parts of the country to republicans.  It's the same strategy that was repudiated and discredited by Howard Dean's 50 state strategy in the 2006 election.

      •  Did I mention New Jersey? (0+ / 0-)

        nope, I didn't.  All I'm saying is that this election will be won in the Electoral College, and Hillary is stronger because of her strength in Ohio and Florida.  Also, I don't think 2006 repudiated anything.  Why not?  Two reasons.  First, 2006 was not fought in the Electoral College.  Second, 2006 was a response to Bush, and not necessarily a future trend.

        If you refuse to vote for OUR PARTY'S nominee in November, the blood of a thousand back-alley abortions will be on your hands.

        by dhonig on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:21:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  And another thing... (0+ / 0-)

        The Big State theory also suggests that because she edges him out in a primary that it means he has not chance of taking that state in the fall.  I don't see the correlation.  Poll after Poll has suggested Obama is the stronger candidate in states v. McCain, even in New York.

        A primary campaign doesn't equate to what you expect in the general.  Unless Hillary is suggesting that white women over 50 are going to sit on their hands come November because their candidate didn't win, and frankly I have yet to read a diary or rant to suggest that.

    •  No he does not need Pennsylvania. (0+ / 0-)

      California, NY, NJ, MA are solid BLUE STATES.  The Democratic Nominee will win those states.

      My major concern is why in holy hell did Clinton not compete post 2/5.  She put her own nomination in peril by letting Obama run the numbers up on her 11 in a row.

      There are not enough states to save her now.  In the end, the one with the most pledged delegates will be our nominee.  It won't be Clinton.

      •  Saying it does not make it so (0+ / 0-)

        the whole reason there are super delegates is to assure that the nomination is not automatically won by "the one with the most pledged delegates."  You might hate that, you might disagree, but it is a fact.  If Obama is seen to have peaked before last night, his nomination is in doubt, even if he is ahead in pledged delegates.

        If you refuse to vote for OUR PARTY'S nominee in November, the blood of a thousand back-alley abortions will be on your hands.

        by dhonig on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:22:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Right now Obama (0+ / 0-)

          has the pledged and popular vote.

          Sorry, many superdelegates are elected officials.  The one who shot themself in the foot is Clinton by not participating in 11 elections in a row.  She put her own nomination in peril, but now trying to change the rules.

          In the end, if she get the nomination, and it won't be fair, she won't win in November.  Democrats will walk away, especially the new voters, young voters, disenfranchised voters and AA voters.

          The Democratic Party has not won a general without the AA vote.

          If anything, she is salvating to be Obama's VP, not hte other way around.  He is in the driver's seat, not she.

  •  Agree (0+ / 0-)

    except for te inability to precisely measure support in caucuses. However, if there's a clear popular vote winner even with this ambiguity, I think you're right.

    jaiapprovedthis - what I lack in classiness I make up for in being right.

    by Jaiwithani on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:08:00 AM PST

  •  Sure, count Florida. (0+ / 0-)

    "If we bend all the rules, Clinton wins!"

    Nice logic.

    "I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords..."

    by pawlr on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:19:53 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site