For those advocating that the Superdelegates reflect the voters choice...

[BooScout]

So then Kerry and Kennedy should switch their votes to Senator Clinton then?

[rinsd]

1. No, they realized that argument screws them over.

So the tactic has been changed to overall delegate lead.

[Tarc]

3. Ahh, so the Obamaniacs now expect a 796-0 rubber-stamp

if Obama were to go in with a delegate lead?

:eyes:

[rinsd]

31. That seems to be the gist of the most recent moveon petition.

[BooScout]

7. Ohhhhhhhh....I get it........

They want to change the rules, threaten superdelegates with all sorts of repercussions if they don't vote like they want them too and in changing the rules........they want to change them they way they say to change them then?


Sounds sort of like Republicanomics to me:shrug:

[karynnj]

19. It was the Clinton people who have floated a balloon that the superdelegates

could go with the loser if it was "close".

[JackORoses]

11. do you really want Hillary to win using the Superdelegates?

What effect do you imagine that would have on the Democratic Party?

[rinsd]

27. It would depend upon the gap of pledged delegates.

If we're staring at a 10 delegate lead, I would not be as upset should the nominee win by a margin of Super delegates.

If we're looking at a 100 delegate lead, I would have issues with a nominee being chosen in that fashion though I would support the nominee.

[karynnj]

17. Kerry at least never changed - his firts answer was the same as all the others

That it would be disastrous for the party if the superdelegates didn't go with the winner of the pladeged votes.

[thevoiceofreason]

38. You are wrong

Even with New Mexico, assuming every super in a state would have to follow the popular vote (a hypothetical winner take all), Obama leads 294 to 242. If we go proportional, that number grows (he won his by a bigger %)

[gmudem]

2. It depends.

All Superdelegates should vote for the candidate who has the most pledged delegates. So if Clinton wins, then yes should. If Obama wins they should not.

They should not have any affect at all on who the nominee is IMO.

[incapsulated]

4. That was never the way they were intended to work

They were created to influence the primaries, not reflect them.

There would be no point to them, otherwise. Just count the delegates or the popular vote for a winner.

They were created so that politicians would have a say in who the nominee would be in a close race.

I don't like it but those are the rules BOTH candidates KNEW and AGREED TO win they ran.

Obama needs superdelegates just as much as Hillary, neither will be able to win without them, period.

[Bicoastal]

5. Kerry and Teddy can and WILL change their convention vote....

....if Obama is lagging far behind in states, popular vote, and appointed delegates. But so far, that ain't happening.

[stahbrett]

6. Sure, but if all superdelegates do the same, I bet Obama comes out better - he's won more states

I could be wrong though...

[displacedtexan]

22. Obama has won more states but fewer electoral votes.

Clinton- 205 Electoral votes
Obama- 140 Electoral votes

Coming up:

TX- 34
Ohio- 20

But "Obama's won more states." And... What are the next ten words?

[stahbrett]

23. Electoral votes? Are you from the future?

No one is getting electoral votes yet. They're trying to get delegates to the party convention. Are you assigning electoral votes to each candidate based on the general election winner-take-all approach? Because Obama at least hasn't been campaigning for winner-take-all elections, which makes sense because these elections are not winner-take-all. You would have seen a much different campaign if they WERE winner-take-all.

[displacedtexan]

26. You think the national party doesn't weight states?

Have you ever worked on a campaign?

Even counties are weighted as to GE importance in state races.

[stahbrett]

29. But Obama hasn't been running a GE campaign

That was one of Hillary's blunders - she thought she would get the nomination by default, after swatting away the pesky upstarts running against her. Remember how she couldn't even imagine not winning? So she focused on Iowa and New Hampshire, then a few big Super Tuesday states. She ignored the states that she didn't think were significant, didn't expect to lose Iowa, and Obama's strategy has proven to be superior - go for delegates, delegates, delegates, get on the ground early in as many states as possible, and keep those big states as close as possible to minimize the delegate loss.

[displacedtexan]

32. Winning in "big states" really does mean something.

If Obama wins TX, OH, WI and the rest of the big states, the dynamic will change, of course.

But the national party decides on which candidates to "target" (with cash and support) in the
big electoral vote states first, then in the smaller, then in the red states. It's just the way
the party works. I learned this firsthand, working with the pins and the maps and the party.

[rinsd]

30. CA alone has 10% of the Superdelegates + MA, NY & NJ.

[stahbrett]

34. And? The goal is to win more than anyone else

Clinton's campaign focused on those 4 big Super Tuesday states to the exclusion of almost all others, and didn't have a Plan B in place for "Day One" (the day after Super Tuesday). She had little to no ground organization in many states, and has been losing elections by huge margins ever since. Unless she blows out Obama in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylania, it's over for her campaign.

[LakeSamish706]

8. I think that all SuperDelegates should vote exactly the way there heart...

tells them to vote.... Keeping in mind for many of them that they will be facing reelection some time soon themselves. If they thwart the people, and vote against there will, they do it at there own peril.

[Spider Jerusalem]

9. Stupid argument.

See list of superdelegate endorsements for Clinton, http://superdelegates.org/ByCandidate">here (five from MA, vs 3, Patrick, Kerry, and Kennedy, for Obama). The Democratic party nominating process isn't winner-take-all; Clinton got 56% in Massachusetts vs 40% for Obama. A five-to-three split in currently commited delegates is 62.5 to 37.5 percent in Clinton's favour.

Try learning math.

[George_Bonanza]

10. Absolutely

Your argument is not as smart as you think it is. A democracy is not a democracy where a candidate with FEWER votes, FEWER states won, and FEWER pledged delegates get to have the party's nomination because her husband happened to be a two-term president.

[Vinca]

12. Kerry addressed this yesterday.

He said you have to consider the vote of the nation as a whole. If the majority of all the people want one candidate, that's who the superdelegates should support. What if Hillary's race ends up depending on the superdelegates? It could happen. Do you want Kennedy and Kerry to hold out if Hillary needs their votes?

[Exultant Democracy]

13. Don't be simple, what we are advocating is that Super-delegates not overturn the will of voters

Kerry and Kennedy are not overturning anything unless of course Clinton wins the most pledge delegates in which case I would want them to switch.

[pampango]

14. Both sides gotta follow the rules. You can lobby the SDs (and I'm sure there's plenty

of that going on), but they have the power to vote however they want to. Same principle applies to Michigan and Florida delegates. The rules may stink (whether they are SD rules or primary sanction rules), but dem's da' rules you agreed to when this whole thing started.

Change them for the next election cycle, but not in the middle of this one.

[karynnj]

15. Senator Kerry says that he will respect the National choice

He also said that he expects that most leaders will respect the choice of the pledged voters - either way. This is what has always happened in the past. It is a National process.

He will not have to "switch" his vote, as no superdelegate vote has been cast.

This whole issue is the Clinton campaign floating the idea that if it is "close" the superdelegates may make the choice. Kerry has fought against that on principle.

Here is a link to Kerry on Wolf Blitzer -
http://kerryvision.net/

Listen for yourself.

[bunnies]

16. What exactly is the argument PRO overturning the will of the voters?

Ive yet to hear one a reason against letting the voters decide.

[stahbrett]

24. Here's the reason - it'll mean that Clinton wins despite the voters (eom)

[bunnies]

25. waiting! nt

[rinsd]

28. If the pledged delegate lead is very small, I think its an more defendable position.

Especially if the say the popular vote lead is also very small but the opposite for the delegate leader.

So if Candidate A ends up with a small popular vote lead and Candidate B has a small pledged delegate lead, the Superdelegates voting for either becomes a murkier issue in terms of "overriding the will of the voters".

[Tarc]

35. If you have yet to hear it, then haven't been listening

As I and others have explained this ad nauseam. Try to pay attention this time?

This has been a two-stage process for the last 30 years; the primaries comprise 80% of the delegate count, and the superdelegates are the rest. That, except for a small blip in `88, we've never really had the supers be in a position to be so pivotal until now.

That the primaries are so divided is not a valid reason to demand that the supers bend to the will of the pledged delegates. That isn't how it works, nor is it ever how the system was intended to work.

The demands of you and the others around here are, quite simply, unreasonable and unwarranted.

[samrock]

18. Suppose

the delegate difference is +- 25 at the end of the primary season.. Then as a party is it just a free for all?? Are we just hosed. That who ever is able to get the nomination .. the other side will scream bloody murder.. leave in a huff and we end up with John McCain as president???

[Tarc]

36. As I've said before, in that scenario the "other side"

are a bunch of morons who would get what they deserve; a McCain administration. Whichever side comes up short in this process, it is their own responsibility to take the higher road and not descend into Naderite pettiness.

[stillcool]

20. Massachusetts has 26 Super Delegates...

if they were truly to reflect the voters choice than several would pledge to Obama...
MASSACHUSETTS

Raymond Jordan MASSACHUSETTS DNC MEMBER
Elaine C. Kamarck MEMBERS-AT-LARGE
Debra Kozikowski MASSACHUSETTS DNC MEMBER
David M. O'Brien MASSACHUSETTS DNC MEMBER
James Roosevelt Jr. MEMBERS-AT-LARGE
Diane Saxe MASSACHUSETTS DNC MEMBER
Alan Solomont MEMBERS-AT-LARGE
John Walsh MASSACHUSETTS DNC MEMBER
Margaret D. Xifaras MASSACHUSETTS DNC MEMBER
Deval Patrick
Democratic Governor
Edward M. Kennedy
U.S. Senate
John Kerry
Michael Capuano
U.S. House of Representatives
William Delahunt
Barney Frank
Stephen Lynch
Edward Markey
James McGovern
Richard Neal
Tsongas Niki
John Olver
John Tierney
Debra DeLee FORMER DNC CHAIRMAN
Distinguished Party Leader Leadership Position
Steve Grossman FORMER DNC CHAIRMAN
Paul G. Kirk Jr. FORMER DNC CHAIRMAN
State's Total Unpledged PLEO Delegate Votes: 26

[Mass]

21. And Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell for Obama, as well as Milkuski and the MD governor, ...

It just goes both way.

I am not advocating that, but it seems that those who want to ignore it goes both ways.

[CreekDog]

33. You mean like the electoral college?

or would you prefer it be done by popular vote?

[jackson_dem]

37. No they know Hillary won the big states so they won't advocate that