Skip to main content

The DNC rules are, whoever gets to 2025 wins.
PERIOD.

By the time all the voting is done, if Obama doesn't have 2025 then he hasn't WON.

Hillary cannot steal it if Obama hasn't WON it.

If neither candidate has 2025, then the super delegates cast their vote, for whomever THEY want.

That is the rules.

No one is stealing anything from anyone.
They are simply following the DEMOCRATIC rules.

Why is this so hard for anyone to understand?

Over and over again, I read on here that most feel Hillary should quit the race.

I strongly disagree and I will tell you why.

At the end of the third quarter, one team is ahead in points.
So by golly, if it's your team who is ahead, I guess the other team should just quit then eh?

NO.

Neither candidate is going to win without the superdelegates.

And the democratic rules say that the supers can vote for whomever they want.

Michigan and Florida may re-vote.
And if they do, it is possible that Hillary would lead the popular vote and Obama would lead the delegate vote.

Right now the votes are as follows:

.......................................................Obama.............Clinton
Popular Vote ........................12,992,769........... 12,406,988
Popular Vote (w/FL)............. 13,568,983........... 13,277,974
Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)* .. 13,575,302........... 13,609,945

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/...

Obama is leading by 600,000 votes.
With Florida, that lead dwindles to less than 300,000 votes.
With Florida and Michigan, Hillary has the most popular votes.

At the very least, I believe there will be a re-vote in Florida and Michigan.

Or those delegates, or a portion of them, will be seated at the convention.
Not likely, but certainly a possibility.

Nonetheless, if you count the TOTAL VOTES CAST, Senator Clinton is the leader.
And last time I checked, most progressive Democrats believed that EVERY VOTE SHOULD COUNT.

It isn't the fault of the voters in Florida and Michigan that their party leaders jumped the gun.

So why should those voters be punished by not being counted?

That is the case she will make to the superdelegates and that is the reason she will remain in the race.

Originally posted to AJsMom on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:48 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
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

    •  Them's the rules, all right. (6+ / 0-)

      Look. Hillary Clinton is trying to sway superdelegates. Barack Obama is trying to sway superdelegates. So are activists on this site. They are all doing it by make arguments both factual and emotional.

      The emotional argument of "don't steal our nomination" is as valid as any. The factual argument that it may split the party is also valid.

      The rules are as you say.

      In 2000, a criminal became President. In 2004, we failed to remove him.
      American Democracy, 1787-2004, RIP

      by davewill on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:54:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  No no no no no! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AJsMom

      We want out nominee and we want him NOW!!!

    •  Swaying Super Delegates to go against (0+ / 0-)

      their aligned pledged delegates is what people are complaining about with regards to Clinton's campaign "stealing" the election, IMHO.

      It's not against the rules, because the rules don't really address this possibility.  The Super Delegate process is stupid and eventually someone was going to take advantage of its flaws some day by playing hardball.

      I feel that Clinton's campaign - among other issues - has exposed its Plan B for the General Election in this nomination race against Obama.  Their (sometimes too low) hardball tactics were only pulled out from the back room when the original gameplan fell to pieces.  So, trying to influence Super Delegates in ways not previously seen is just part and parcel of their current campaign mode.

      And, it gives the Republicans full view of what Clinton's campaign can do.  Which is struggle due to poor planning and play the innuendo/smear game worse than Republicans (who have made it an art form), unfortunately.

      "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

      by wader on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:32:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

        Swaying Super Delegates to go against (0 / 0)
        their aligned pledged delegates is what people are complaining about with regards to Clinton's campaign "stealing" the election, IMHO.

        But I don't hear anyone complaining about Senator's Kennedy and Kerry supporting her when she won Massachusetts?

        Aren't they ALSO going against their pledged delegates?

        •  Oops meant that Mass Sen. support Obama. n/t (0+ / 0-)
        •  Surrogates are nothing new to the game, though (0+ / 0-)

          and I don't think that directly addresses the issue of targeting Super Delegates to potentially vote differently than pledged delegates with which they are normally aligned.

          Maybe I missed your point.

          "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

          by wader on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:42:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I meant (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wader

            That Kennedy and Kerry are supers.
            They will vote for Obama, even though Hillary won Massachusetts.

            If the supers are supposed to vote according to how their delegates went, then why are they supporting Obama?

            •  Maybe because they're a weird breed, being (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              AJsMom

              surrogates as peers in Congress.

              Odd balancing act, really.  Other Congresscritters who came out for Sen. Clinton - and, who happen to also be Super Delegates - sound like they're making their choice based on the notion of that balance.  Because they are effectively operating at the federal level.

              But, what of Governors, state Congressfolk and others?  I just don't see them at the same level as Hillary's peers in DC - I see them necessarily state-bound.

              And, therein continues to lie my unease with this system.  Expectations to hold it together.

              "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

              by wader on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:18:22 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Supers are not bound by primaries (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                wader, AJsMom

                or caucuses.  That's precisely why they exist.  All candidates lobby them for support, to my knowledge.  We just haven't seen a campaign this close, and this closely watched, in a long time.

                I think the whole system is screwed up, but wooing superdelegates is as much a part of the process as is trying to stack the caucuses.

                There's not much relationship to democracy in these rules.

                •  Well, you're going by the rules - which is fine (0+ / 0-)

                  My point was summarizing the apparent pattern of typical SD behaviors with respect to those loose rules.

                  I've yet to see reporting of SDs being wooed away from voting with their local pledged delegates en mass, actually.  All for being educated, though.

                  Yeah, this process was a poor attempt to fix something . . . that was working better, I believe.  Apparently, the party wanted to take some choices away from our peers in the electorate after Carter.

                  "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

                  by wader on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:17:50 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

    •  If the rules are the rules (0+ / 0-)

      then the votes in MI and FL don't count, because the state parties there broke the rules.

      By your own numbers, therefore, Obama is ahead by every measure.

    •  Why should those voters who didn't vote because (0+ / 0-)

      they were told that their vote would not count be punished?

      I support a new vote in both states, and I think there should be consequences for the politicians who created this mess. I don't know what those consequences should be. Perhaps a percentage of their future paychecks should be garnished to help pay for all of this.

      "Leap, and the net will appear." -- John Burroughs

      by somtam on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:32:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hey, just because some people here ... (10+ / 0-)

    are paranoid doesn't mean the DLC isn't out to get them. ;)

    I am an Edwards Democrat.

    by ThirstyGator on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:52:29 PM PST

  •  Now it goes to 2208 with Florida and Mich. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wader, AJsMom

    The 2025 is without. Smile.

  •  Counting Michigan? When she was the only one (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    metal prophet

    on the ballot? Soviet style elections - no, thanks.

  •  I love this "popular vote" rubbish.... (0+ / 0-)

    just shut up about the "popular vote" until you'll allow Obama's caucus votes to be counted.

  •  So she stays (0+ / 0-)

    Then she should campaign like a Democrat.  And remember that the enemy in this election is McCain, not Obama.  Lately she sounds like she wants to be McCain's VP.

    Oh, and I'd really be happy if she'd lighten up on the old worn-out political cliches.  We'd all do better if she showed some originality.

  •  Apart from Pennsylvania... (0+ / 0-)

    ....where the margin might narrow anyway, Clinton is unlikely to close the gap in both delegates and in popular votes. She's merely delaying the inevitable and her only way of taking the nomination would be to essentially bribe or intimidate superdelegates. That is not democratic.

  •  Thanks for the diary. So many Obama supporters (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maryru, AJsMom

    and newbys are not familiar with how we nominate our candidate  so we need to do eveything we can to start helping them understand the process and the role of caucuses and superdelegates before they get so bent out of shape at the percieved injustice of it all.

    People who support him need to study the nominating process (as opposed to the campaign) they are in so they know how to perform well and move comfortably within it until election and then advocate for needed changes after this cycle ends.  It looks very destructive and selfish of Obama to let these feelings get all whipped up this way when he should know the way things are supposed to work. He can really hurt the party if he lets this roil, just because he thinks he can benefit by the outrage.  With so many not behaving, things are looking grim for the fall.

    Why promary goers can't pick the nominee by themselves (or how not to lose in November again)

    We have only won twice in 30 years and both of those were Clinton.  One of the reasons we kept losing was that the primary season picked somebody the enthusiasts liked but the millions of party members not in the primaries felt they couldn't vote for him.
    Because I know how badly the country needs a competent Dem in the White House and a philabuster proof Congress, I am really alarmed at how Obama is encouraging his people to press for tossing the rules and intimidating the delegates.

    I am deeply concerned about the state of the nomination process and the move among Obama's people and some in the media to push to disarm the superdelegates' ability to help us pick electable Democrats.  Looking at the list of failed nominees  over the last three decades I am thinking about how they got selected.

    When the primary/caucus activists are enamoured of candidates who are best on their favorite issues or are the most liberal, or quirky or identified by the majority of the party as off on the edge, then we have to balance those votes with votes that represent the rest of the party that will show up in November and be a vastly larger group.

    Even this year with all of the added participation and all the new people, the number of Democrats who will want to vote in November for a Democrat will be far greater.  Pledged delegates represent the small number of party voters (in some states primaries are far less than 20%) and the Superdelegates are supposed to represent the will of the larger group who will vote in the fall - sometimes 75-90 % of the party voting. The elected supers are the direct result of general elections and chosen by the larger body of the party as representatives (in the House, Senate,State House, etc.)The other superdelegates tend to be people who have devoted a lot of service to the Democratic party thru the years, organizing and running it.  The expectation is that they are very invested in the success of the party in the fall and will vote for the nominee they think gives the party the best chance to win in the must win states. Their devotion to party success adds another constituency to the nomination.

    There are 3 nominating constituancies. Each have delegates in the state delegation at the Democratic Convention

    1.  Democrats who bother to go out and vote in primaries and caucuses. They are a big deal and get the majority of the delgates to the nominating convention. Their votes tend to go to issue candidates(anti-war, poverty, environment, health, unions)many of whom will be thought of as unlikely by the rank and file majority.  Demographics tend to be farther left than the rest of the party.
    1. Automatic SuperDelegates who automatically  become delegates because they have been voted into office as representatives by the rank and file majority of the party in the prior General Election. They are governors, Senators and Representatives, etc. They are relied upon by the party to vote for nominees who have the best chance of being voted for by the majority voters in the fall.
    1. Non-politician Superdelegates elected because of their service to the party. They tend to be people how have devoted themselves to the success of the party.  Their votes are thought to be aimed at choosing a nominee who will help the Democratic Party succeed in November.

    (Caveat: there are actually 7 categories of delegates but nevermind.)

    While a pledged delegate may represent the will of a few thousand voters, Superdelegates often represent will of hundreds of thousands or even millions of voters.  Yet the super gets the same one vote at convention that the pledged gets. That is deference enought to the people who participate inn the primary when other stay away. It represent a huge degree of influence on the nomination.  

    Everybody else in the party must have a mechanism participating or they will just give the nomination to the Republican. And it doesn't matter much how many independents vote.  If Obama loses badly among democratic rank and file voters and in traditionaly Democratic states,can't bring in the electoral votes, can't win in the must have states, how is it that he deserves to represent the party.It is supposed to work as a fix  for the problem of nomminees the rack and file can't stomach in the fall.

    With all of the Reagan Democrats and Bush and Bush Democrats all not able to vote for the primary choice, we need the supers to step up and represent them with their vote.  When the supers failed at that in the past, the party and the country suffered. If they only ratify the primary enthusiasm we are in a mess.

    Hillary has already won states with 263 electoral out of the 270 needed in the general to win the vote of the electoral college. (you folks know about the electoral college?  States each have a number of electoral votes.  After the elections the votes are gathered and the person who gets to 270 first is named the president.

    These terms: "needed to win" and "states dems have to win" " Important states are must wins for the fall" have been used by Obama people to signify discrimination and prejudice and elitism The people speaking of these concepts  or about demographics have been punished and ridiculed on this site.

    But in fact, they were just trying to talk with the new, or less familiar folks about what needs to be done to get the White House and how the system works.

    When party regulars and long time activist spoke in shortened familiar terms, some folks took offense and twisted the intent.  There has been a great reluctance among some to learn about what they are joining and working within.

    Electoral Votes: Hillary states-263 Obama states-193

    There are supposed to be rules, history, activities and expectations that have bearing on the party functions.  One alien concept is that to get the White House a party must win 270 electoral votes by some combination of a group of states whose numbers ad up to that.  The states Hillary has won have 263 of the needed Electoral College Votes.  If she wins Pennsylvania  she goes up 21 more and totals 284.  If it were the General Election she would be President.  Barrack, with all of his stated and delegates and new voters and independents and Republican support is way off on Electoral College votes held by the states he has won  His total is 193 because all but one of his states are "unimportant", meaning not on the list of states Democrats have to win..

    This is one reason we got upset when Obama folks started to claim most number of states. Hillary won 103 counties in Missouri and Obama won 3. He won the state because his 3 were urban had more voters.  Same goes for the country. It is never how many votes the state has in the electoral college.

    You didn't get the goal; it is not how many, it is which ones.  Dems have to win most of the ones Hillary has won. And that's why she moves ahead in the popular vote too. You can win 34 other states and DC  and still not get near 270.  You would never be president.

    So when parties start the election process they examine demographic, (another dirty word to newbys), and past elections and know which are their must win states and most likely.

    Republicans need to win the vast majority of states because Dems hold the largest states. But only if the Democratic rank and file, meaning the tens of millions of non-primary voting members don't vote in the millions for a Republican as they have when they voted in Reagan Bush and Bush because the primaries picked a candidate that the vast majority of Democrats didn't want.

    All of the states Obama won only add up to 193.  Even if he won all the rest of the states, he only gets to 254 and she ends with 284.  He has only won one of the states Democrats have to win to get the White House. So I think the really destructive force in this race is his pressure to accept the meme that he should be considered the nominee on some severely diminished notion of who's votes should count.  The fact that the majority of his delegates came from caucuses makes his pushing even more unseemly and dangerous.

    Look at Texas.
    Texas shows us caucuses don't capture the will of the people!
    The outcome of some thousands of caucus goers was clearly not reflective of even the activists who voted in the primary in the millions. See the difference in results when people get real primaries.

    Having both gives us a chance to see clearly the the caucus prooduces a scewed vote that cannot replicate the will of the peope displayed in a real voting situation.

    There is simply no way that caucuses are a fair test of the will of the party. (Not even primaries are representative of the will of the people, without superdelegates to balance them out.)

    Superdeldgates, to fulfill their guardian role effectively and make the party successful  in the fall, need to take far more into consideration than some resulting truncated count of only some of the delegates without any regard to the requirements or process of fulfilling the need to win in November.

    Obama people and some press seem committed to preventing that.  That is where I see the largest danger for the party having to add yet another general where rank and file Democrats can't vote for the nominee chosen.

    I don't worry at all if the primary is vigerous and draws a lot of attention and new members to the party and to party ideals and values.

    It could be a sea change year that reverses a lot of the difficult past nominee choices.  So I say let Obama and Clinton have at it.Let's vet them well and challenge them thoroughly. I trust that proces to let the winner come out all the stronger and best prepared to win and lead and let the voter really be informed this time

    . And let see the Democratic National Committe, long time members and Obama work to help educate new people and even superdelegates to the rules and processes of the party.  And then strongly encourage everybody to play by the rules so we can win the White House for the 3rd time in 30 years

  •  Great diary AJsMom, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AJsMom

    tell it like it is.

    It doesn't take many words to tell the truth.

    by Gabriele Droz on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:01:02 PM PST

    •  Thanks Gabriele (0+ / 0-)

      It gets harder on here every day.
      Alot of the newbies are rude as hell.

      I never thought I would see the day that a Dem candidate could be called a bitch and get twenty uprates.

      •  I know, I know. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AJsMom

        I actually think it's a good thing to see so many reputable posters writing GBCW diaries.  Their loss, is apparently starting to be felt.  For example

        Not that it will bring all the good will that used to exist on this site back, but I think some of the folks are beginning to realize that you just can't keep abusing people you disagree with and expect unity and hope in return.

        One of our greatest Hillary supporters and long-time DKos members left today, and there has been a slew of others, many of them leaving without a GBCW diary.

        Finally, the losses are being noticed by those with their eyes fixed on one thing only.

        A few of us are still left, but we're shrinking in numbers.  I'm sticking around to stick up for Hillary and those brave souls that still fight for her in this insane environment.

        I won't be here much longer myself, because there are far greener pastures out there to actually help Hillary rather than fight off ill-informed fanatics.

        I do appreciate what you're doing here.  I heart you, and I'll do whatever I can to help.

        Unfortunately, my TU status disappeared, for no reason I can think of.  I don't TR much, and I don't get Tr'd much either.  Must be because I'm a Hillary supporter.  I'd uprate you if I could.

        Cheers.

        YOU are the only one that knows THE truth. The rest of us are ignorant a**holes. We therefore bow before YOU in humility to accept YOUR truth - NOT.

        by Gabriele Droz on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:04:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  AJsMom, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AJsMom

        could you please email me at my profile's email address.  There are some good things going on somewhere else, where it's less hostile, more productive, and an atmosphere of tolerance.

        Gabriele.droz at the domain of gmail.com

        YOU are the only one that knows THE truth. The rest of us are ignorant a**holes. We therefore bow before YOU in humility to accept YOUR truth - NOT.

        by Gabriele Droz on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:20:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site