Can we agree on this?

[kentuck]

After all the states have voted and we go to the Convention in Denver, if both candidates stay in the race until the Convention, should not the candidate that has won the most votes and the most selected delegates (not super delegates) be the nominee? Who would be against that? If Hillary has the most votes and the most selected delegates, then she should be the nominee. And likewise, for Obama. If it goes that far, can we agree on that? Or would you prefer they fight it out for the "Super Delegates"?

[bigtree]

1. I agree. I think the supers will, as well.

[tekisui]

I am all for it.

I am fully in support of that. I think that we will have a clear popular vote leader who will also be the Pledged delegate leader. And, I think the SuperD's will fall in line behind the people.

The SD's were created to block party outsiders. Neither of these candidates are "party outsiders", so the Democratic Leaders will easily be able to get behind the Delegate/pop. leader.

And, no matter how you tally or slice it, Obama is the leader now, and will be in August.

[dsc]

2. what if one has the most votes and the other the most delegates?

then what.

[tekisui]

3. I don't see it happening like that.

[dsc]

5. I admit I don't think it will happen that way either

but it could, and I would like to know what his position on that hypothetical.

[kentuck]

7. Usually the person with the popular vote wins the delegates...

But it is possible that one could end up with a slim lead of delegates. In that case, I think they should defer to the popular vote.

[dsc]

8. It has already happened once (Nevada) and might well happen again in Texas

which could lead to a delegate lead for Obama and a popular vote lead for Clinton provided she also wins PA.

[kentuck]

16. In that case, Hillary should be the nominee...

If she ends up with the most popular votes.

[Raven]

4. I'm probably going to get killed for asking this but

wouldn't fighting for the superdelegates mean offering them political favors in exchange for their votes? (I know, I know, neigher candidate would stoop to that!)Aren't the selected delegates locked in based on the popular vote? They have to go with the peoples' choice?

[mattclearing]

9. They are not obligated to vote according to their pledge.

But they are strongly encouraged to, for the good of the party and at the risk of enraging voters.

[Recursion]

14. In polite society we call those "political concessions", not political favors

Arm-twisting and deal-making is wholly appropriate (as appropriate as those can ever be, at least) when trying to win superdelegates.

Pledged ("normal") delegates are not bound by law or even by party rules to vote the way their state/district did, but faithless delegates are fairly rare.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

6. Any Way They Are Chosen, As Long As It Is Within The Rules Of The Party, Is Fine By Me.

I figure if we have all this bullshit caucus crap and everything else, then we have to accept that there are some unfair or imperfect things that occur when choosing a nominee, but since it's within the rules we abide by it. So too with the SD's or otherwise, as long as what goes down is within the rules, I'm perfectly fine with it since I already have to accept all the other stuff about the nominee process that I think undermines voters, but that is within the rules and part of the process.

As long as it is within the rules set up for the nomination process, I don't think anyone here has a leg to stand on in complaining about anything that goes down within those rules.

[LWolf]

10. I can agree on that.

I think the voters should get the nominee they deserve.

Whether or not that nominee can earn my vote, or enough votes, in the GE is a different story.

Ideally, for this voter, the delegates would be dead even, we'd have a brokered convention, and we'd end up with a candidate I could vote for in November.

[NightWatcher]

11. the truly terrible thing about taking it to the convention is that the winner

will have only 8 weeks to run a national campaign against McWarPig.

We need to have a candidate by June 1.

[Recursion]

13. Not sure: Kerry was hurt worst before the convention...

...but after it was clear he would be the nominee.

[kentuck]

15. I think that point is over-stated.

Also, I think it would be preferable to have a consensus nominee later than to nominate one prematurely.

[Recursion]

12. I'm an Obama supporter and I disagree

If we want to do away with the superdelegate system (and maybe we should), let's do away with it. But what's the point of even having them if they can only ratify the popular vote in the primaries and caucuses?

[applegrove]

17. I agree but I am Canadian so my agreed doesn't count.