- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 25, 2008 at 8:02 pm #619608
JanSParticipantbut…walfredo…you really didn’t answer my question fully…how, if that happened, wold you vote? If you couldn’t support a candidate that you felt “cheated” their way in, then…what WOULD you do. You only said what you couldn’t do. Does that mean you’d vote the other side? write in? not vote? enquiring minds want to know…
March 25, 2008 at 8:08 pm #619609
walfredoMemberThat is an easy question. I would not vote for a candidate that was selected instead of elected. I’ve said that many times. I don’t think the ends can justify the means. It is a horrible precedent. I would either support Nader or McCain, but I would do everything in my power to #1- make sure Hillary and her supporters would fail, and #2- make sure that every single one of the “supers” that drove there party into a cliff was removed from office.
Again, this is all very hypothetical, there is no chance that the superdelegates would do anything #1- that stupid, and #2- that courageous, after all lets not forget that they in the end are politicians…
March 25, 2008 at 8:10 pm #619610
AnonymousInactiveQuestion for the uneducated (me). What is the deal with superdelegates? People talk about how the delegates need to follow the will of the people. Are the standards different for superdelegates? ie: Hillary won MA in the popular vote but all the supers are endorsing Obama. I’m sure it works out the opposite in other states, this is just the one brought to my attention and I don’t understand how that’s okay.
March 25, 2008 at 8:16 pm #619611
beachdrivegirlParticipantMost superdelegates are either seated or past seated government officials. They are free to nominate/pledge any candiate at the convention. Although, they are allowed to pledge for whomever they wish it is more than likely they wont.
Just a tad bit more on SuperDelegates…. “In theory, they have the power to pick the nominee. But most will be reluctant to snub the party’s rank-and-file. Chris Van Hollen, a congressman from Maryland who has remained neutral because he is the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, argues that superdelegates should not overturn the will of elected delegates unless “some totally unpredictable eventâ€, like a scandal, renders the leading candidate unelectable. “
March 25, 2008 at 8:44 pm #619612
JanSParticipantwalfredo…I realize this is all hypothetical…but…you could, in good conscience, vote for John McCain…even though you’re a Dem? (I guess I’m assuming that, which I shouldn’t). I also realize that there are quite a few who will vote for him, as Repugs (I love that term – lol). I don’t want to offend them, but…he’s not exactly the most wonderful candidate here…and Nader, well, that’s a vote for nothing…just my opinion, of course.
March 25, 2008 at 8:59 pm #619613
beachdrivegirlParticipantI think that the biggest challenge that the Clinton campaign would have with continuing the Democratic momentum would be holding onto voters first and second time voters if she does manage to win by persuading 70% of the Superdelegates to vote for her despite her current position of being second place in pledged delegates, contests won, and popular vote.
During the past two presidential elections that I have voted in, many of my friends, were discouaged to vote b/c our votes “dont count: b/c the election is deteremined by the electoral vote. If the superdelegates ignored the fact that Obama had won more delegates, more contests won,and more contests it would be a disgrace to the Democratic party and cause the fall of the party as well. I for one would have to spend along time reflecting on whom I would support come November. Now all that said, I do have to also say that if Hillary comes the convention with more delegates and she is the nominee in November I will campaign and support her.
Furthermore, it frightens many that people would find it okay for her to win the nomination that way.
March 25, 2008 at 9:33 pm #619614
AnonymousInactiveBDG, thanks for responding. I understand the legal definitions and rules. I’m just looking at the list of pledged superdelegates and 10 from MA are pledged to Obama when Hillary won the state. Isn’t that going against the will of the people in a way that would change the count? I sincerely am just trying to understand because others are talking about how upset they would be if other superdelegates were courted by Hillary and went against the popular vote. Am I missing something?
March 25, 2008 at 9:56 pm #619615
walfredoMemberJT- here is the reality. The superdelegates were created by the party elite, to protect the party elite. They are not democratic, and if put to a vote, overwhelmingly voters would not approve there existence. They have been able to fly under the radar, because they are not meant to choose the candidate and haven’t. You don’t see them all coming out early and trying to influence Iowa on who is going to be the best candidate…
Polls show approximately 70% of Americans don’t think superdelegates should overturn the selected candidate. I would wager approximately 30% of those polled are Hillary supporters, who find thre temporary view politically expedient. I would absolutely not support Obama, or any candidate, if there only path to the nomination was to have the superdelegates overturn the voters.
So, throw everything specific to this primary out, all the emotions, the historic ramifications of both candidates, the deep emotional attachment to the candidates etc… I think it is very safe to say, this isn’t a typical primary by any standards. But put all that aside, no one in favor of democracy supports the idea of a ruling elite and there would be a revolt if the elected candidate by the people was overturned by the party elite.
Now, lets look at this instance in particular. Whether it is Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton who win the nomination- they will be the first major pary presidential candidate ever to either be an african american or a woman. There are deep seeded, long held beliefs from each constituency that they aren’t given a fair shake etc… For the party to take either of these historic candidates, after being selected by the American people for the first time in history, and reverse there decision, is not what any sane human being would say the superdelegates were designed for. And would certainly be political suicide for everyone involved…
March 25, 2008 at 9:58 pm #619616
beachdrivegirlParticipantHere is a list (I am not sure if it is current) of superdelegates. I have not found a list that says who are they pledging but you can google each one.
Yes in the case of MA that would going against the will of the people. However, right here in Washington state despite the fact that Obama had more delegates after the Caucus Clinton had more support from Washington state Superdelegates and to be frank that pissed me off. Furthermore, those elected officials from our state that did chose to support Clinton over Obama despite the Caucus results wrote me off as a future campainer/donar for them. The fact of the matter is at this moment, Obama leads delegates by 171. However, Clinton leads pledged Superdelegates by 34. Something is wrong with that picture.
The reason why I am passionate about this and I assume others too is that if Obama has won the popular vote, the delegate count, and contests won by 2 to 1 then I find it abosutley obsurd that 796 individuals have the ability to overturn the will of the people. I know others say if it is a close race he hasnt won, but I disagree. Numbers dont lie and if he is in the lead in all three areas no individual(s) should have the power to overturn the Democratic voters nomination.
March 25, 2008 at 10:03 pm #619617
walfredoMemberBeachDrGirl- The infuriating part is the idea that Obama and Clinton “both need the superdelagates”. All Obama needs, is for approxiamately 40% of the remaining superdelegates to support him, just over 41% of the total group. That is hardly some coup, it just requires reason.
Clinton will require over 70% of the remaining superdelegates support, which would put her count to close to 65% of the total superdelegates…
So the superdelegates are either a non-issue in one case, or THE ISSUE in the other. It’s a big difference!
March 25, 2008 at 10:17 pm #619618
AnonymousInactiveBDG, here’s a page that lists supers and who they endorsed, scroll down the page. Also, links on the top left to delegates.
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html
March 25, 2008 at 10:19 pm #619619
beachdrivegirlParticipantAwesome! Thanks JT-that is a site I will bookmark! And sorry to get so passionate about everything I just feel strongly about it.
March 25, 2008 at 11:29 pm #619620
walfredoMemberFrom a webpage discussing superdelagates. One thing that is interesting, is that it is almost a 50/50 split between elected superdelagates, and it is a more then 5/1 advantage to Clinton of “anonymous” superdelagates. What a great system.
Who do they favor?
Clinton leads Obama by about 50 superdelegates, though some estimates give Clinton a smaller lead. Clinton owes almost her entire lead to anonymous party insiders, many of whom rose to power thanks to the Clinton political machine. About 280 superdelegates have yet to announce their preference, although all superdelegates can change their mind at any time.
Could they overturn the judgment of voters?
Yes. The Clinton campaign has said she will not concede even if she loses the primaries and caucuses. The campaign will then turn to an undemocratic superdelegate strategy.
March 25, 2008 at 11:34 pm #619621
beachdrivegirlParticipanthttp://www.newsweek.com/id/123495
This contains my most favorable Clinton quote ever. Where she says even elected and caucus delegates are required to honor their pledge. Not only is she willing to try to steal the election away by taking the elite Superdelegates, but persuading pledged delegates to change their vote. Who knows what she will offer them for their pledge???
March 26, 2008 at 1:51 am #619622
JoBParticipantWalfredo…
in the end there is really only one question for you.
do you believe that a democratic president… any democratic president… would be better for this country than a republican?
If not… get the h.. out of my primary. because if you can’t agree to that… you are no democrat.
in fact.. you might just be a republican troll.
Because that’s what they are trying to do, you know. Make this a contest of personalities and distract us all from the real issues..
so, which are you?
March 26, 2008 at 1:54 am #619623
JoBParticipantbeachdrivegirl…
Hillary was only telling you what is actually true…
If you think Obama hasn’t been trying to steal delegates (to use your terminology).. consider those who have recently changed their pledges to him.
So.. is Obama stealing votes or are they both doing their best to persuade delegates to vote for them?
March 26, 2008 at 3:08 am #619624
beachdrivegirlParticipantJoB: I understand that Hillary was telling me the truth and was not breaking any rules/laws, but it is beyond frustrating to me to think that even if he is ahead in primary votes, elections, and delegates that she can still be the nominee and I would feel the same with if the roles were reversed.
March 26, 2008 at 3:34 am #619625
walfredoMemberJoB- great question. NO!!! I don’t believe that the ends always justify the means. That is what I have seen the last 7 years, and I think we need a change. That is why I strongly, adamantly, passionately believe Barack Obama is the best candidate to lead the country. The thought that Hillary Clinton stealing this election using the politics of yesterday would bring any type of change is insulting.
As far as you wanting me to get the he__ out your party, I would say the same thing to democrats who are “okay” with an ill-gotten candidate representing the party- get a NEW PARTY!
My candidate will win this nomination, that isn’t in doubt. The question is at what point will the supporters of the candidate with less votes, less states, and less delegates except reality…
What if Clinton shot Obama… Would I still be required as a true democrat to support her? I believe, that stealing this election would cause generations of damage to the party setting it back decades… I believe that anyone cheering for this is, quite frankly, either a Rush Limbaugh republican, or nuts… And no, I don’t support them…
March 26, 2008 at 5:16 am #619626
c@lbobMemberMarch 26, 2008 at 7:35 am #619627
c@lbobMemberSo Hillary goes to an interview with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, with owner and leader of the vast right-wing conspiracy, Richard Mellon Scaife sitting on her right. This is the guy who had her painted as the murderer of Vince Foster. Can you guess what she was asked about?
Why, Reverend Wright, of course. Who’d a thunk it!
I’m sure the Hillary campaign did when accepting the gig.
March 26, 2008 at 2:40 pm #619628
beachdrivegirlParticipantThe fact is the only way Hillary will be on the ticket in November is to make Obama unelectable and Rev Wright is just one way the Clinton campaign feels they can do that. I wouldnt have been surprised if the Hillary Campaign had wrote the questions and iniated the interview….
March 26, 2008 at 9:29 pm #619629
JoBParticipantwe have sunk to a new low…
now Hillary is responsible for the questions that an interviewer asks?
are you honestly saying that you think a candidate for the democratic nomination should refuse interviews because reporters might actually ask her questions about the news stories of her opponent?
I didn’t much like the way her quoted answer(i didn’t go look for the story this time.. so i don’t know or care what the question was or what the context was) but you can’t blame her for the questions.
That is akin to blaming Hillary because Fox news is finally going after the other democratic candidate as well as continuing to go after her.
What happened to common sense… let alone common courtesy?
And nobody is going to steal anything.
If Obama doesn’t steal super delegate votes when they switch allegiance to him…
then you can’t say that Hillary is stealing an election by going after those same votes.
They are both playing the same game…
And walfredo.. you have carefully chosen your words in response to my challenge. I notice you didn’t actually answer it.
Are you a democrat?
will you support the democratic candidate for election?
Attacking Hillary repeatedly doesn’t change your lack of statement supporting anything other than your candidate.
Those reading this blog deserve that kind of disclosure before they blindly praise your remarks.
now toodles… i don’t choose to participate in this kind of non-productive conversation.
March 26, 2008 at 9:53 pm #619630
beachdrivegirlParticipantJoB I admit maybe the last part of the previous commit was a bit out of line. However, I find it just too interesting that the day she was outed for her dodging bullets story she finally chose to talk about Wright. I think she is trying to manipulate unedcated voters. Furthermore, a more educated answer if addressed about the issue might have been to refer them to Obama or compliment him on his amazing speech, but no that wouldnt help her.
Obama isnt stealing Super-Delegates. They are doing their job and supporting the people. If Clinton were ahead in the delegate count and Obama had no chance of comging back I would expect the Superdelegates to do the same thing.
March 26, 2008 at 10:22 pm #619631
JoBParticipantso.. anything but supporting obama is stealing?
if you can’t see that your choice of terms is inflammatory… then you can’t see that this is an election and the job of the candidates is to earn votes.. all votes.
Hillary didn’t create superdelegates for her own purposes.. she just was smart enough to start campaigning for them as well as for all other delegates early in the process.
When and if Obama has enough delegates to secure the nomination.. he will be the candidate.
Until then nobody is stealing anything from anyone.
You can keep using the term but it doesn’t make it so.
March 27, 2008 at 12:00 am #619632
beachdrivegirlParticipantDelegates were not created to have people maniputlate the system and have them change their pledge. Delegates are there in case a canidate becomes unelectable and that will never be so in this election.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.