Should MA superdelegates support Hillary?

[busymom]

I keep hearing all of this hooha about superdelegates deciding the vote and that if they don't vote for Obama that the world will end....

So...should the MA superdelegates have to support Hillary? Aren't Edwards and Kerry superdelegates for the state that ... she WON!

[SoFlaJet]

1. no

Kerry and KENNEDY are-let me ask you then, what about Washington state? Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell both support Clinton and Obama won that state

[tandem5]

30. well actually - across the board, what if the super delegates were awarded based...

on the way their state went? You would find that because Hillary has won most of the large population states she would probably end up with more super delegates. Which "will of the people" shall they're decision reflect? Delegates overall, individual state wins, or the overall popular vote - each could yield different results.

[griffi94]

2. no that's different

hillary isn't for hope and change like obama....any superdelegate that goes for obama is just doing the right thing.....any superdelegate that goes for hillary hates america and want bush to remain president
.....hope i cleared that up for ya....:rofl:

[BlackVelvet04]

8. LOL....

at it again, I see. :rofl:

[Deep13]

3. Yup, like you said, she won that state pretty handily. nt

[MadBadger]

6. Whts your definition of handily?

[rinsd]

11. 15 point wins would fit the definition wouldn't they?

Obama certainly has his share of handily won contests.

[MadBadger]

14. My definition would lean towards a 60-40 split, but no matter the threshold, it helps Obama greatly

[Deep13]

18. I will defer to whatever the accepted definition is.

:eyes:

[Bill McBlueState]

4. superdelegates shouldn't *have* to support anyone

There's no point to having superdelegates if they can't alter the outcome of a vote. If people don't like the possibility that superdelegates may decide the nomination, we should get rid of superdelegates.

[juajen]

9. I have tried to say that, but I never said it as well as you.

Thanks for saying what I never seemed to get across.

[Bill McBlueState]

13. thanks!

I've tried over the past week to express that thought, but it took me a few times to find the right words.

[Benhurst]

17. I agree. I've never liked the concept of super delegates; but they are

part of the system the DNC put in place, and none of our candidates objected. As a mere voter and Democrat, my opinions on such matter hold little sway; but both Obama and Clinton were well-situated to object if they and been dissatisfied with the system before the campaign started. To scramble the rules and play the perceptions game at this late date is grotesque, and, to continue to do so will only make it all the more difficult to reunite the party once our candidate is selected.

[Armstead]

5. I'll go with that -- IF IT'S CONSISTENT

If Hillary and Obama agree to play by the same rules for every state, then I'd sacrifice Kerry, Kennedy and Patrick for superdelegates from states Obama won.

[Pirate Smile]

7. Politicians will do what they think is in their political interest. Here is what is happening in

some areas - I posted this on another thread:

If their constituents were unhappy, they could mount a primary challenge to Kerry and Kennedy.

I believe that is what has the potential switchers worried.

I read an article yesterday (I googled but couldn't find it and I can't remember which of the dozens of sites I check daily had a link to it in the first place) stating that one of the reasons some of the black lawmakers (it was focused on the Atlanta area) were worried was because their constituents strongly disagreed with them and had voted 3-1 the other way. They mentioned that there is a Mayoral Primary and only one of the many strong candidates running were going to win that primary. The "losers" of the Mayoral Primary (politicians, of course) were going to be looking for another seat to run for and those House seats held by Congressmen who were out-of-step with the views of their constituencies were primed for a Primary challenge.

If people want to Primary challenge Kerry or Kennedy for not representing the views of their constituencies, they would certainly be able to do that. Obviously some of those Georgia Congressman actually think they could lose their job over it.

It happened to Lieberman in Connecticut by Lamont and we all cheered.

The earlier article I read made no mention of Jesse Jackson Jr. but it sounds like he certainly is aware of this dynamic going on.

I, frankly, wish Jackson would have just stayed out of it but that doesn't change what is going on on the ground in some of these primarily African-American districts.

[Occam Bandage]

10. If all other supers support the choice of their constituents, yes.

[democrattotheend]

12. All superdelegates should follow the pledged delegates nationwide

especially if it is a clear margin for one candidate or the other. Ideally, one of them will go into the convention with enough of a lead in pledged delegates that seating Michigan and Florida won't alter the outcome, taking that off the table. If Obama can get to that point, it would be insane for the superdelegates to throw it the other way.

[tandem5]

31. and what if she takes the popular vote, but loses the total pledged count? nt

[ronnykmarshall]

15. NO! MA's delegates are MA's delegates!

and they should vote for MA!

[JimGinPA]

16. Hillary & Barack Should Both Endorse Proportionality Of SD's

It shouldn't be winner take all.

[Mass]

19. Why MA? Why not WA, or GA, or MD, for example... It is amusing how people focus on

a state that Hillary won, and not a state that she lost.

[busymom]

20. well, my point is

that perhaps the superdelegates should go with their state...regardless of whether or not their personal favorite candidate won.

In states that Hillary won, the SD's should go to her. In states that Barack won, they should go to him.

There has been an awful lot of MSM whining about SDs going to Clinton...and no mention of the ones going to Obama.

[Mass]

22. Stop being so sensitive. The point most are making is that it is going to be difficult for the SD

to change the results of pledged delegates without protests. That is all. And I can assure you the media have been asking this question to Kerry a lot, so it is not as if the question was not asked. So, yes, if we do what you propose, I am sure Obama will be the winner.

[ericgtr]

21. Yes and I fully support Obama

but I think they should represent their states vote. Frankly, I think the entire process is very undemocratic and confusing to say the least. Really, what is so bad about letting people just vote and the candidate who gets the most, wins. Jesus, this whole system makes me ashamed to be a democrat.

[RiverStone]

28. Obama supporter here and I fully agree!

Let the people decide - not party bosses!

[bunnies]

23. Its not about regional support.

Its about overturning the voters nationwide. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

[RiverStone]

29. I thought I elected my Senators because they represent my views...

Both in my region and nationally.

I contacted both my WA state senators and asked will they vote for Obama and mirror their electorate (68% Obama here in WA). Both Cantwell and Murray endorsed Hillary.

The staffers said they (the Sens.) would be answering that question, and that it was a very valid question. They have already received lots of calls on the matter.

If you don't agree with that --- then how do you feel about giving the delegates to whom ever is leading the popular vote nationwide?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

24. of course they should

[miceelf]

25. Sure

If the superdelegates from EVERY state do so. They certainly shouldn't unilaterally feel obligated to go with their voters if no one else goes with theirs.

Ultimately the superdelegates will do what's best for the party. more than 90% of the superdelegate endorsements in the past two weeks have gone to Obama. Some of Clinton's are switching.

Those who are elected officials will have to weigh how much value to give their voters.

[frazzled]

26. We don't know whether the MA superdelegates reside in districts that Clinton or Obama won

Hillary didn't take every district in the state ... so this kind of "state by state" idea of how Super Delegates should vote holds no water--especially given the way that Democrats put an empahasis on proportional, not winner-take-all, delegate appropriation.

Maybe most of the super delegates hail from the Boston area, which I believe Obama may have taken there. I would have to look at district by district maps of the voting.

Ultimately, each super delegate will have to vote according to:

(1) who they support
(2) what is best for the party, given the overall picture at the end of the primary/caucus voting cycle.

They can vote any damned way they choose ... but there will be political consequences for the long-term health of the party, something they are certain to consider.

If the race is a dead heat at the end of the voting, let them vote for whomever they want. If it isn't, then they should consider the party interests of unity, etc. After all, they are there above all to represent the interests of the party, not individual candidates.

[johnnydrama]

27. what about

the two WA senator's who are for Hillary. Didn't Obama win Washington by like 45 points?

[demokatgurrl]

32. Well, according to Obama supporters, YES

they should follow the lead of their constituents. Right?