Daily Kos

Don't Even Think About It

by davefromqueens

Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:41:09 PM PDT

The Democratic nominee who is ahead on pledged delegates after the primaries and caucuses are over should be the Democratic nominee for President.  Pledged delegates come directly from people's votes.  If Obama's ahead, we should support Obama.  If Clinton's ahead, we should support Clinton.  The superdelegates should simply fall in line proportionately to what the voters have chosen.

Yet there is a  possibility that one campaign apparatus is considering means in which to steal the nomination in case it is in 2nd place by counting Michigan and Florida delegates AND putting undue pressure on superdelegates to flip the will of voters.  This can NOT HAPPEN under any circumstances.  

So let's make it very clear.  Both Obama and Clinton should come out now and agree that the person ahead on pledged delegates before the convention in Denver will be the Democratic nominee.  Because, if the 2nd place candidate overturns the will of the Democratic voters and tries to steal this nomination, there will be the proverbial hell to pay.  

This would cause tens of millions of people to stay home and instead of defeating John McCain in a landslide, we'll end up with a Bush 3rd term and two more radicals on the Supreme Court.

Both candidates and their campaigns need to vow NOT to let this happen.  They need to come out NOW (or in their next debate) and pledge that if they are behind in pledged delegates after May, they will concede the race to the other person.

I'm hopeful both campaigns will do the right thing.  I'm confident at least one will.  We shall soon find out.

Tags: delegates, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, superdelegates (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 141 comments

  •  preempting the possibility (19+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    pb, theran, groggy, badlands, Yomberto, jj32, nailbender, marina, Pam from Calif, tbetz, justalittlebitcrazy, dconrad, scardanelli, Clipper, brooklynbadboy, Quicksilver2723, Prof Frink, a wolf raised by boys, tampa traveler

    We need to make sure this doesn't happen before it becomes a possibility, not after.

    I shall not rest until right wing conservatives are 4th party gadflies limited to offering minor corrections on legislation once or twice a year.

    by davefromqueens on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:42:19 PM PDT

  •  I Wish. One Campaign Will Never Agree to Leave (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades, groggy, badlands, tampa traveler

    a potential asset untapped.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:43:33 PM PDT

  •  No matter what the rules... (6+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Trix, groggy, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, emsprater, theark, dconrad

    ...changing them now without starting over from the beginning will be unfair to someone.

    Teacher's Lounge: Out of Habit is open

    by rserven on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:44:10 PM PDT

  •  sorry... (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    theran, jeepdad, Noisy Democrat

    I thought about it.

    But after thinking about it I came to the same conclusion you did.

    I prefer peace Wouldn't have to have one worldly possession But essentially I'm an animal So just what do I do with all the aggression?

    by jbou on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:44:37 PM PDT

  •  Seriously, if Obama is ahead in pledged delegates (6+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    xynz, jeepdad, Noisy Democrat, Clipper, El Yoss, a wolf raised by boys

    and superdelegates give it to Clinton, I'm voting for McCain and I'm encouraging everyone I know to vote for McCain.

    I will do everything to make the 2008 election as disastrous as possible for the DNC, with the goal being decapitation of a Clinton-led DNC.

    Hopefully, they won't choose to go the route of Boss Tweed and Fidel Castro.

    Note bene:  There is virtually no possibility of Obama being behind in pledged delegates and winning it through superdelegates.

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:46:13 PM PDT

    •  You're making sense again. (0+ / 0-)

      nm

      Don't Legitimize Fox News.
      "Democrats have the heart to care."

      by jeepdad on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:47:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So, you'll just take your dollies and go home? (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      djtyg, emsprater

      As close as this race is, why are you so certain that Obama will end up on top?  And, if rules are rules, and everyone new them coming in then why shouldn't the super delegates go by the rules.  You can't have it both ways.  No one just gets to pick and choose the scenario that benefits their candidate.

      by PamelaD on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:51:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Whoever wins the most pledged delegates should (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Avila, badlands, davefromqueens

        be the nominee, period.

        If Clinton wins the most--and that's still a possibility--she should be the nominee.

        "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

        by Geekesque on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:53:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What about the rules?? (0+ / 0-)

          by PamelaD on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:02:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The Communist Party of Cuba has rules too. (0+ / 0-)

            Either the superdelegates collectively respect democracy, or they don't.

            The choice is theirs.

            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

            by Geekesque on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:09:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Then what about those disenfranchised voters in (0+ / 0-)

              Florida and Michigan?

              by PamelaD on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:14:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Those weren't primary elections. (5+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                Avila, nailbender, mjd in florida, blueness, Quicksilver2723

                They were beauty pageants where no candidate was seeking their vote, and it was fully understood that the results wouldn't be recognized.

                They could have scheduled their primary for February 19, and the entire election would have revolved around them.

                "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                by Geekesque on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:21:21 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  ironically enough (4+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  exNYinTX, djtyg, mjd in florida, BobzCat

                  if they had stayed with the february 19 day, they probably would have decided this.

                  I shall not rest until right wing conservatives are 4th party gadflies limited to offering minor corrections on legislation once or twice a year.

                  by davefromqueens on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:26:57 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Right, the rules trump everything, unless.... (0+ / 0-)

                  Hypocrisy rules!

                  By the way, it was the republican legislature that moved up the primary in Florida, so no, they couldn't

                  Let us be clear about something else, however. While Senator Clinton will honor her commitment not to campaign in Florida in violation of the pledge, she also intends to honor her pledge to hear the voices of all Americans. The people of Michigan and Florida have just as much of a right to have their voices heard as anyone else. It is disappointing to hear a major Democratic presidential candidate tell the voters of ANY state that their voices aren't important.

                  ' the Obama campaign had no problems when its supporters and allies in Michigan ran radio ads and other campaign activities urging people to vote for "uncommitted" as a way to register their support for Senator Obama — and to give him a chance to compete for those delegates at the national convention. Now, with polls in recent days showing that effort and their candidate running far behind in both states, the Obama campaign has shifted tactics to say that those who cast a vote in either state don't matter.

                  by PamelaD on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:39:16 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Wow a C&P of a Clinton campaign press release. (0+ / 0-)

                    So impressed.

                    State party did not have to go along with the 1/26 date.

                    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                    by Geekesque on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:41:58 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Obama didn't have to take his name off the ballot (0+ / 0-)

                      What I find really amusing is whenever I ask about Obama, I'm directed to his book, or his website.  So, I don't know why you'd be so 'impressed' with my source of info?!  Is it factually accurate?  Oh that's right, facts don't really matter...!  and nice dodge on your Rules are rules stance.  Rather high minded ~ not!

                      by PamelaD on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:47:30 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  sure they did (0+ / 0-)

                      you are wrong; the lege SET THE DATE OF THE FLA PRIMARY

                      by JackDawkins on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:38:07 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  the GOP sets rules for the FL Democratic Party? (1+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    Quicksilver2723

                    That in itself is reason to dismiss that primary as moot, let alone that it was ruled as such by the governing committee of the Party.

                    Has any other state party so capitulated to the opposition?

                    "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed." -Nancy Pelosi, 6/29/07.

                    by nailbender on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:28:39 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  THE STATE LEGE (0+ / 0-)

                      set the date of the fla primary(the lege is controlled by the repukes)

                      by JackDawkins on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:39:16 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  and the Dems were bound by this? (0+ / 0-)

                        "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed." -Nancy Pelosi, 6/29/07.

                        by nailbender on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:42:23 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  yes (0+ / 0-)

                          by JackDawkins on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:44:40 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  no (0+ / 0-)

                            from a FL Dem Party press release last June:

                            TALLAHASSEE - Florida Democratic Party Chair Karen Thurman and U.S. Senator Bill Nelson (D-Orlando) today announced that the Florida Democratic leadership voted unanimously to accept January 29 as the date for the binding 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary in Florida.

                            [...]

                            The Florida Democratic Party reviewed many different options for conducting the state's presidential primary process in response to the Republican-held state government's decision to move the state-run 2008 Presidential Primary to January 29. This date did not comply with Democratic National Committee rules, which threaten serious penalties to our delegation for the National Convention.

                            "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed." -Nancy Pelosi, 6/29/07.

                            by nailbender on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:51:25 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                            •  you are an idiot (0+ / 0-)

                              AND YOU ARE WRONG; YOU KNOW NOTHING OF MY STATE OR ITS INTERNAL POLITCS; PLEASE GO BACK TO SOMETHING YOU HAVE A CLUE ABOUT, BECAUSE ON THIS YOU ARE CLUELESS

                              by JackDawkins on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:47:56 AM PDT

                              [ Parent ]

                            •  Yes, and the options were all bad. (0+ / 0-)

                              I don't believe that it is that far-fetched to assume that the FLA Dem leaders, being between a rock and a hard place, assumed that their party elders would understand, and would certainly be reasonable when it came to the realities of what non-participation in the FLA primary would mean for the party as a whole, and would do the right thing for the party as well as for the democratic voters of Florida.  

                              by PamelaD on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:36:07 PM PDT

                              [ Parent ]

                              •  in other words, they didn't believe (0+ / 0-)

                                what the DNC said, even though they clearly reiterated it in that press release:

                                This date did not comply with Democratic National Committee rules, which threaten serious penalties to our delegation for the National Convention.

                                That makes as much sense as any of the other lame excuses I've heard about FL and MI's primary screwup.

                                "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed." -Nancy Pelosi, 6/29/07.

                                by nailbender on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:53:41 PM PDT

                                [ Parent ]

                                •  Again, they were between a rock and a hard (0+ / 0-)

                                  place.  I would really like to know how you would be approaching this whole conundrum if Obama had won Florida...My gut tells me that you'd be advocating the importance of Florida in the general and the terrible disenfranchisement of the voters ~who came out in droves by the way.  

                                  by PamelaD on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:49:30 PM PDT

                                  [ Parent ]

    •  Well, at least you ... (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      BoringDem, dconrad, PamelaD

      finally unleashed your inner "say and do anything to win" beast.

      "Hillary Hate" is a disease that will not be cured until after the primaries.

      by emsprater on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:51:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So you're willing to add four or eight ..... (10+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      YatPundit, Terre, tabbycat in tenn, buddabelly, BobzCat, blueness, cjallen, gatorbot, dconrad, JackDawkins

      ...more years to the 20 that the GOP has controlled the presidency for the past 28? You're willing to say: I don't care if McCain appoints another Alito, Roberts or Scalia to the Supreme Court, as he has vowed to do?

      I am not a supporter of Hillary Clinton, but you've jumped the shark, Geekesque, and this mutiny you're proposing is myopia writ large.

      I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. -- Mark Twain

      by Meteor Blades on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:54:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  the point is (0+ / 0-)

        if this was done, and the operative word is if, tens of millions of people would stay home in 2008.

        I don't want that to happen.  We need to stop Bush McCain and a disastrous 3rd term.

        I shall not rest until right wing conservatives are 4th party gadflies limited to offering minor corrections on legislation once or twice a year.

        by davefromqueens on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:57:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Note that if Clinton wins the most pledged (0+ / 0-)

        delegates, she is the nominee and I will vote for her.

        If it's a matter of the nominee being picked by completely anti-democratic means, then I am left with the choice of abandoning the party or looking to the best way to remove the junta at the top.

        "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

        by Geekesque on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:57:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Geek, what if one wins the popular vote and (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          dconrad

          the other wins the delegates? In Nevada, HC won the votes, BO got the delegates. Tuesday, BO won Alabama handily, but as of now, Clinton gets at least one more delegate. I'm not so sure our allocation process and caucuses are all the democratic anyway.

          by tabbycat in tenn on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:14:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Delegates are chosen through elections. (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            tabbycat in tenn

            Superdelegates aren't.

            The delegate allocation stuff tends to balance out in the end.  Obama will win more delegates in Alabama when all is said and done.  And, realistically the Nevada result is a change of 1 delegate from what the result ordinarily would be, from 13-12 to 12-13.

            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

            by Geekesque on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:28:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, I hope it balances in the end. I'm not sure (0+ / 0-)

              Alabama will go that way. CNN updated their count tonight and her lead went up by one. I think a system that doesn't give the popular vote winner in a state the most delegates is unfair. No matter who it benefits. Whatever happens, it looks like we need some more reform and I hope we get it.

              by tabbycat in tenn on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:36:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's virtually impossible to win a state by that (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                tabbycat in tenn

                margin and not have a delegate lead.  Some CD's are just pokey in getting their results counted.

                The Obama campaign isn't worried, and have already accounted for the total delegate allocation.

                "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                by Geekesque on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:38:14 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Look. Caucuses are undemocratic, too ... (9+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Dump Terry McAuliffe, tabbycat in tenn, nailbender, Red Bean, BobzCat, blueness, gatorbot, dconrad, JackDawkins

          ... and one could argue that allowing people who are not members of the party for whom they're voting to choose a nominee (as they can do in some states) is undemocratic, not to mention stupid.

          I'm all for reforming the way we choose a nominee, just as I was all for it in 1968. The McGovern Commission in 1969 made the primary system paramount. Primaries got started in the early 1900s, but they didn't gain prominence until the '56 campaign, and dominance until '72, because of the McGovern (later Fraser) Commission. Before that, it was party bosses making all the decisions. Now the party boss members whom we call super delegates only make up some 20% of the delegates. Before '72, they made up 65%-80%. Many of us were furious that Hubert Humphrey, who hadn't entered a single primary in 1968, got the nomination. That's what sparked the revolt that led to the McGovern-Fraser Commission. It was the right move.

          But you don't change rules in the middle of an election, which you are suggesting. And you sure as hell don't work to elect another Republican, which you are threatening to do if you don't get your way.

          I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. -- Mark Twain

          by Meteor Blades on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:17:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nobody is suggesting that we 'change the rules' (0+ / 0-)

            What the diarist, and I, am suggesting is that the manner in which the superdelegates, as a group, exercise their discretion matters.  They have a choice.  Choices have consequences.  

            If Clinton wins the nomination, fair and square, that's the breaks and I do my duty and vote for her.

            But, if Clinton loses the primary process but gets handed the nomination in manner more egregious than the 2000 general election fiasco, then the Democratic party as it exists will need to be destroyed.

            Because we need a left or center-left or center-center-left party that at its core respects democracy.

            The ruling class of the Democratic party does not own anyone's vote or loyalty, and it is best that they be reminded of that fact.  If they do not realize that by August, they will have to be served a reminder in November.

            Again, the point will likely be moot, as I don't think the national party is stupid enough to commit suicide out of a desire to put Clinton in office, should she lose the primary process.

            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

            by Geekesque on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:37:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Geek aside, the diary isn't about rule changing (3+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            marina, dconrad, davefromqueens

            it's about compromise to avoid catastrophe.

            And the catastrophe that dave envisions isn't farfetched at all.  Three words: Bull Moose Party

            Roosevelt split off from the GOP because his superior performance in the primaries was dismissed by the party bosses and Taft took the nomination thereby.

            The result was a loss for the party in question.

            The comparison isn't airtight by any means - I don't think Obama would split, for instance - but if there is a clear winner of delegates whose victory is undermined by supers, a third party probably won't happen, but mass desertions well may.

            I agree completely that such a disenfranchisement of the primary electorate (and yes, of the caucus-goers) would most likely result in victory for the right.

            "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed." -Nancy Pelosi, 6/29/07.

            by nailbender on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:22:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Compromise can be worked out (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              nailbender

              It's up to the Clinton and Obama camps to come together sometime between the Potomac Primaries and the March 4th parties and reach a deal with the DNC.

              I believe it can be done.

              I shall not rest until right wing conservatives are 4th party gadflies limited to offering minor corrections on legislation once or twice a year.

              by davefromqueens on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:50:32 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  MB, I respectfully disagree. (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        YatPundit

        Geek. jumped the shark months ago---IMO with the trashy diary on Bhutto.

        by BoringDem on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:59:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  He's not the only one MB. (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        marina, davefromqueens

        My SO...who is the complete opposite of my partisan angry ass - said basically the same thing.
        He's was a John E. Supporter.
        Now a Obama supporter.
        He'll vote for HRC if she WINS the nomination.
        He just said tonight- after watching something on MSnbc, that if they do something behind closed doors, that if the party elders push Obama out and say it's her time, not his -
        that if Obama gets shoved out the door -
        he's not voting for her, period.
        Your arguments would work on him 99 percent of the time.
        Not if this is stolen from Barack.
        He simply will sit it out or vote Bloomberg? and said the same thing Geek did.
        And that was a shock.
        And he got me to agree with his reasoning.

        This has got to be legit or a huge group of new voters will walk and never come back.
        The Democratic party will lose in so many ways.
        And definitely lose the election if they pull that crap.

        "Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

        by Christin on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:13:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  exactly right (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Christin

          There are millions of Democrats who would still simply vote for the nominee but if a backroom stunt makes number 2 number 1, we will have mass defections from the party and it will be very difficult to win in 2008 in an election where we should trounce John "Chelsea Clinton is ugly her father is Janet Reno" McCain.

          I shall not rest until right wing conservatives are 4th party gadflies limited to offering minor corrections on legislation once or twice a year.

          by davefromqueens on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:53:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  And the Superdelegates ought to be made aware of (0+ / 0-)

          what terrible costs come with stealing an election.

          "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

          by Geekesque on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:36:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Geekesque has been a poster ... (0+ / 0-)

        that has consistently and arrogantly tried to cause trouble here through bullying. And now it comes out that if his man doesn't win, he's going to vote Republican.

        I haven't seen anyone more worthy of banning from this site in months. Do so now.

        - What happens on DailyKos, stays on Google.

        by Jon Meltzer on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:00:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Come on, geek.. we know you're joshing. (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      YatPundit, emsprater

      cause you'll vote for McCain regardless, if Hillary is the nominee.

      by BoringDem on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:58:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes... (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Dump Terry McAuliffe, dconrad

      Let's keep ourselves from getting universal healthcare, keep up this disaster in Iraq, crony capitalism, and all the other b.s. courtesy of McCain over the issue of delegates.  That'll teach 'em!

      I'm running for office! Click here to support me!

      by djtyg on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:22:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Imagine an election where one candidate wins (0+ / 0-)

        his party's nomination by winning elections and his opponent wins by being installed against the express wishes of voters.

        I'm supposed to trust the one that was installed to do the right thing?  Sorry, democracy comes first.

        "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

        by Geekesque on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:45:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  You'd better not show your face on this site (0+ / 0-)

      again if you do that. Or in public, for that matter.

      We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.

      by dconrad on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:48:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If backroom deals and payoffs to (0+ / 0-)

        superdelegates choose the nominee, yeah I'll stop posting on partisan Democratic blogs until there's a purge at the top.

        "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

        by Geekesque on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:34:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Who has the popular vote? (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    buddabelly, emsprater, PamelaD

    Wasn't it Nevade where Senator Clinton got the most votes but Senator Obama got one more delegate?

    We are who we've been waiting for ... to have a drink with then a romantic interlude in the parking lot.

    by usedmeat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:46:38 PM PDT

  •  Don't worry, Obama will be the (0+ / 0-)

    frontrunner soon enough. :)

    Hillary, I want my campaign donation back.

    by SleepingWillow on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:49:39 PM PDT

    •  I believe so (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      jj32, cjallen

      I think he wins washington, LA, Maine, and Nebraska this weekend.

      Then sweeps the Potomac Primary the following Tuesday.

      But if Clinton ends up ahead in the end on pledged delegates, my same rules apply.

      I shall not rest until right wing conservatives are 4th party gadflies limited to offering minor corrections on legislation once or twice a year.

      by davefromqueens on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:53:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Great idea! What are the chances it will (0+ / 0-)

    take hold?

    Both candidates agreeing to disregard FL and MI, But the only one on the MI ballot wants to change the rules?  I may be too cynical.

    Everything is funny as long as it is happening to somebody else. --Will Rogers

    by groggy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:50:50 PM PDT

  •  I'm in Michigan (11+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    ORDem, Dump Terry McAuliffe, badlands, jj32, marina, Red Bean, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, cjallen, dconrad, davefromqueens, Clipper

    and if anyone uses our pathetic joke of a "primary" to clinch the nomination, there will definitely be hell to pay.

    I am in favor of MI and FL getting do-over primaries later in the season. But if that can't happen, then their delegates shouldn't be seated until after the nominee has already been decided on the basis of the other states.

    by Noisy Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:53:37 PM PDT

  •  I think it will happen (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    jj32, KeepingItBlueKrstna

    I would be very suprised if the party allowed the nominee to be chosen by supers. I think there will be a consensus that the delegate winner should be the nominee. The dems would simply be courting disaster to allow superdelegates to override the will of the voters. I think in time, Obama and Clinton will agree to a plan like you propose.

    by Clipper on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:55:52 PM PDT

  •  i'm burned out on outrage (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    marina, Red Bean

    can we take the weekend off? maybe just get outraged by things that are really outrageous instead of who said something stupid, or printed a stupid article or, in this case, by something that may happen?

    Anyone who advocates, supports, defends, rationalizes, or excuses torture has pus for brains and a case of scurvy for a conscience. - James Wolcott

    by rasbobbo on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:57:07 PM PDT

  •  So.. no respect for rules now? (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Trix, marina, Snarcalita

    You know.. the current system might have a rationale behind it.
    Here's a comment from someone involved in making those rules, from openleft, in response to Chris Bowers' infantile rant:

    re you Suggesting...  (4.00 / 3)
    Are you somehow suggesting that those of us who participated in the McGovern-Fraser Commission Process to reform the Delegate Selection Process in 1970-71 -- in the wake of a Chicago Convention that featured a Police Riot and blood in the Streets -- caused in part because the old rules didn't even permit a minority Platform Plank against the War in Vietnam to come to the floor for debate, were not concerned with Democracy?  

    You know, my knowledge of party rules goes back to some old timers I knew in my youth who fought the old 2/3rds rule in the wake of 1932, and succeeded.  That took away from the Solid South a Veto on a Presidential and VP nomination based on States Rights and those lovely principles of Segregation.  

    Then there was 1948 -- when ADA and Labor backed a floor fight on the Civil Rights Plank, causing the Dixiecrats and ole Strom Thurmond to walk out of the Convention.  Humphrey's Sunshine Speech, which won the day combined rejection of Racism, American Style, with a response to the Holocaust.  Good fight, and we won it under the old rules.

    In 1964, as a Civil Rights Worker and a Party Activist, I was part of the fight before the Credentials Committee regarding the Freedom Democratic Party of Mississippi getting their delegation seated, as opposed to the party boss slate of all white segregationists.  Won a compromise, and promise of a rules change that would allow black participation in Delegate Selection in the Deep South, a year before we got a Voting Rights Bill.  

    The McGovern-Fraser Commission was about clearing out the remains of bad practice, and carefully crafting the best possible system of proportional representation.  And yes, every four years the ongoing Rules Commission of the DNC examines everything, and fine tunes the rules along the lines of those principles.  The DNC did that in 2005 for this cycle, and the rules have been there for all to read since then.  

    by BoringDem on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:57:17 PM PDT

  •  Absolutely correct (0+ / 0-)

    As far as MI and FL, what about having a "do-over", and holding caucuses for those states next month or April. That might settle the controversy over their delegates. But I agree 100%, whoever has less delegates in June, after the primary process is over, should concede the race. Superdelegates determining the race would be AWFUL. The media, McCain, the GOP, the late night show hosts would have a field day with it, and the Dem nominee would be hurt going into the general.

    Vote for Michelle Obama!

    by jj32 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:00:16 PM PDT

    •  Oh, and I have to wonder why Obama or Clinton (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      theran, Clipper

      would want to have superdelegates decide the nominee. As I said, the media and others would basically be treating them like Bush after the 2000 election, wondering whether they were the real nominee because they won in a sort of backroom deal sort of way.

      Vote for Michelle Obama!

      by jj32 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:10:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Obama reiterated (5+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    theran, jj32, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, davefromqueens, Clipper

    today that the candidate with the most delegates that resulted from the votes in primaries and caucus' should be the nominee.

    He is willing to agree to this. Now, will HRC?
    I agree with it, would not hesitate to vote for the winner.

    by Hawkjt on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:01:20 PM PDT

    •  Answer: No (0+ / 0-)

      Not in a million years.  It would be another fucking civics lesson for the American people if Hillary is trailing a little going into the convention.  Ugly.

      Pretty sure Obama will end up far enough ahead to avoid it though.

      by anonymit on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:33:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  On second thought, please keep repeating this (0+ / 0-)

    threat, openly and loudly.
    That's just what Obama needs.

    by BoringDem on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:01:28 PM PDT

  •  Maybe I'm cynical... (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    theran, SecondComing

    ...but if the Clintons win either Ohio or Texas, they will see that as justification to fight to the very end. Even if they lost both states, I'm not sure they would bow out. They are in it to win it at all costs.

    The only clear-cut factor that would halt her campaign would be running out of money.

    "The perfect is the enemy of the good." -Voltaire

    by PsiFighter37 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:03:58 PM PDT

    •  She'd drop out if she lost both Texas and Ohio. (0+ / 0-)

      That would be curtains.  Granted, I don't think she will lose either.

      But losing both would be the death knell of her campaign.  It would make it mathematically impossible for her to win pledged delegates.

      "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

      by Geekesque on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:38:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Whatever the rules are... (0+ / 0-)

    they are...we need to live with them...

    Obama/Whoever He Chooses '08 Winning Change for America and the Democratic Party

    by dvogel001 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:07:20 PM PDT

  •  Howard Dean should be (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    theran, tabbycat in tenn, dconrad, davefromqueens

    On this. If this is allowed to fester it will become the dominant national story within a few weeks. If the dems want to avoid a circus we need to handle this before it gets to that point.

    by Clipper on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:12:17 PM PDT

  •  Whichever Way The Wind Blows..... (5+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Trix, theran, tabbycat in tenn, Red Bean, pico

    If one candidate has a clear lead, and is seen as having more support from voters, (maybe not all but) most of the superdelegates will fall in line to back that candidate. They don't want to piss off the people they need to vote for them 3 months later.

    However, where it would get interesting & create a mess is if it's still a quasi-tie in June. The Obama campaign let leak a possible projection  of 1,806 to 1,789, with Senator Obama leading by 17 delegates after everything is said & done. Under that kind of spread, it's entirely possible that Hillary might have received more votes. Meaning both would have plausible arguments for being the nominee and to keep going to the convention.

    by Rimjob on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:15:55 PM PDT

  •  I'm from Michigan. (0+ / 0-)

    I want my delegates counted, thank you very much!

    I'm running for office! Click here to support me!

    by djtyg on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:19:18 PM PDT

  •  Here's strong statement about this issue (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Clipper

    by Chris Bowers on OpenLeft.  He says if the Superdelegates don't vote for the candidate that wins the popular vote, he's quitting the Democratic Party completely.

    http://openleft.com/...

    If the institution that exists to resolve disputes within the American center-left does not operate according to democratic principles, then I see no reason to continue participating within that institution. If that institution fails to respect democratic principles in its most important internal contest of all--nominating an individual for President of the United States--then I will quit the Democratic Party. And yes, I am perfectly serious about this. If someone is nominated for POTUS from the Democratic Party despite another candidate receiving more poplar support from Democratic primary voters and caucus goers, I will resign as local precinct captain, resign my seat on the Pennsylvania Democratic State Committee, immediately cease all fundraising for all Democrats, refuse to endorse the Democratic "nominee" for any office, and otherwise disengage from the Democratic Party through all available means of doing so.

    by sqz23 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:22:59 PM PDT

    •  Popular vote, or regular delegates? (0+ / 0-)

      This race is so tight that one candidate might win each.  

      Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

      by pico on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:48:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, there might be one on either side (0+ / 0-)

        Just thought that CB's statement was appropriate to this diary.  Can't speak for CB, so I don't know his thinking on this.

        As for what I think, I think the Superdelegate concept should be thrown out COMPLETELY.  Get rid of them.  The concept reaks of old "back room" tactics.

        by sqz23 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:14:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's exactly the point. :) (0+ / 0-)

          The Party, like any institution, has one goal above all others: sustain itself.  Don't want the rabble to have too much say in the process and push for a candidate who might shake the party platform!

          On the other hand, there is a practical reason for Superdelegates: they tend to be elected Democrats with some stake in the Presidency.  All the Democratic members of Congress are Superdelegates, and considering the President will have to work with them to craft legislation, it's not a bad idea to have someone they're willing to work with.

          At the expense of the popular vote/delegate count?  Probably not, no.   But I'm just suggesting that there might be at least one good reason for them, among the bad reasons.

          Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

          by pico on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:46:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  so you think (0+ / 0-)

          JIMMY CARTER, WALTER MONDALE, BILL CLINTON AND AL GORE have no right to a seat at the convention?

          by JackDawkins on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:57:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  solution (0+ / 0-)

        If there is a split, then superdelegates decide.  Both parties have to agree to this though ahead of time.

        I shall not rest until right wing conservatives are 4th party gadflies limited to offering minor corrections on legislation once or twice a year.

        by davefromqueens on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:55:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Clinton won't agree to that (0+ / 0-)

    I'm sure Obama will concede if he is behind, or perhaps even tied with pledged delegates, but Clinton will fight on unless her deficit is huge.

    "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." - George W Bush

    by jfern on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10