How badly would it divide the party...

[WVRevy]

...if the super delegates were to overturn the choice of the voters? It should be perfectly clear to anybody capable of doing basic statistics and looking at a delegate map that Hillary can not come back and have the lead in pledged delegates by the end of the primary season. Even if she stays in to Puerto Rico, she'd still have to pull unrealistic numbers (70% of the vote to get roughly 65% of all delegates) in order to pull ahead, and that just isn't likely to happen. At this point, the only shot she has at the nomination is through some legal gymnastics (Texas lawsuit / Florida & Michigan inclusion suits / etc.) or - and this is what most concerns me as a DEMOCRAT first and an Obama supporter second - for the super delegates to overturn the popular vote of the primary season and basically GIVE her the nomination.

In my opinion, that would be the END of the Democratic Party as a viable political entity in this country. All of the young people who have worked so hard in this election for the Obama campaign would instantly turn into "Independents" with no party loyalty at all. I'm not kidding, and I'm not being overly dramatic...this would END the party as a whole.

Yet...isn't that exactly what Hillary's supporters are urging? That the super delegates disregard what their constituencies have told them and give her their vote?

I would like some of her supporters to explain just how that scenario WON'T take place, particularly if she was to lose at least one of the big states on Tuesday. How would the MILLION+ donors to the Obama campaign take having their candidate discarded by the "old men in the room"? How can you POSSIBLY spin the overturning of the voters' choice for the nomination to be a GOOD thing for the party?

[Orangepeel]

1. I think this is an unnecessary worry

Any superdelegates who have not yet endorsed are waiting to go with the winner.

[RiverStone]

29. I agree...

To do otherwise would be to flush the work of thousands of volunteers and millions of voters down the toilet.

I can't fathom party leaders being either that stupid or arrogant - it won't happen. He/she with the popular vote will win. The last things the Dems want is a repeat of 2000, but this time it would be within our own party! Won't happen.

[grantcart]

2. The superdelegates are busy overturning themselves

[WVRevy]

4. I agree....

...however, that is the ONLY scenario at this point - short of a complete meltdown of the Obama campaign - which would see her as the party's candidate. That's true NOW...Tuesday likely won't change it. But the way her campaign is talking - to say nothing of the rabid supporters around here, which is who I'm hoping will answer my questions - she's already planning her "meet me in Pennsylvania" speech for Tuesday evening. I can't understand how that's supposed to be a GOOD thing for anybody involved, and most especially for the Party.

[Omega3]

64. that's mostly because the black SD's are being pressured to "go with color", dirty tactics for sure

[grantcart]

72. that is completely untrue - most of the super delegates who have

endorsed Obama have been white.

For your information more Super Delegates that are US Senators have endorsed Obama than Clinton as well as Govenors and they are all white. Funny thing about the Senators - they know both of them very well but choose Obamas hmmmmmmmm

[rug]

3. So, you're saying if Clinton wins the nomination, many Obama supporters will not vote Democratic?

[Mojambo]

5. IF Clinton "wins" via any of the shady scenarios written about in he OP.

Yeah, I could see significant numbers peeling off.

[rug]

7. Then what was the point of the Obama campaign?

[WVRevy]

8. Well, part of the point was to get people engaged

Getting them involved and then telling them, "Well, we're happy you're here...but we're not listening to anything you have to say" is a good way to get them to leave as quickly as they arrived.

[WVRevy]

6. No, I'm not.

I'm saying that if the voters in the Democratic primaries and caucuses around the country choose one candidate, and the party elders hand the nomination to another, there's going to be a major problem. I'll be out to vote for the nominee regardless, because I GET how important this election is. But I can tell you one thing...if that scenario plays out, the DNC will have seen the last DIME they will ever see from me.

If she wins the race in pledged delegates, then she should be the nominee. If not, not. It's as simple as that.

[OhioBlue]

9. I can't speak for the previous poster

But I as a Dem and an Obama supporter would most certainly vote Dem. I would be pissed if the Super Delegates overruled the Pledged Delegates, but I would vote for Hillary b/c I know that she would be better than McCain for our County.

However, the poster does have a very valid point. Many of Obama's supporters are not die hard Dems. they are Obama supporters. They were brought into the Political process b/c they are inspired by him. There are Republicans that have been converted by him. (and probably a little help from W)

So, IMHO the Democrats will at some point come together. It won't end our party. But, we will miss the opportunity to bring so many more into our party.

[tyne]

10. I'd totally

be gone from the party. I'd want nothing to do with such a "party".

[Window]

34. Same here.

They would have to tear the party apart and start anew.

[Zhade]

38. If she cheats? No.

I'd be hard-pressed to blame them for not rewarding a candidate who pulled a b*s* as he did in 2000.

[TheDeathadder]

11. God I hope Clinton wins

[WVRevy]

14. Why?

Granted, you may be a Clinton supporter. But why would you post that given the scenario I laid out in the OP?

[TheDeathadder]

19. You know what

all this Obama vagueness is starting to turn alot of people off too, it's not uniting the party at all. You guys don't want a united Democratic Party you want it to be the united Obama party run by the powers that be that are far more to blame for what has happened to the Democratic Party than the Clintons.

I reject Obama for many reasons as you reject Clinton for many reasons...and for the love of God we have heard the reasons so much that it has pounded this forum into pure non-sense.

So you laid out "your scenario" and I say...God I hope Clinton wins.

Sorry I'm sure you're an awesome person.

[WVRevy]

25. What "vagueness" are you blathering about?

If you choose to support Clinton over Obama, I have no problem with that. Unlike Hillary supporters such as yourself, I assume you made a reasoned decision that led you to her, just as I did leading me to him.

And yeah, I DO want a united party. We've ALWAYS been a party with a wide variety of beliefs under the tent, from the far left of Dennis Kucinich to loons like Lieberman. But we've always carried ourselves as the party FOR and OF the people. Disregarding the people's choice in favor of the old boys club kinda puts the lie to everything the party claims to stand for, don't you think?

As for the dumbass sarcasm at the end of your post, spare me. I could honestly give a damn what you think of me as a person. I'm willing to give Hillary's supporters the benefit of the doubt and I asked an honest question, and the best you can do is a 5 word answer that doesn't even address the original post. That kind of idiocy says a helluva lot more about you than it does about me.

[TheDeathadder]

31. Please

I worked for Dennis Kucinich in 2004 and Kerry's people used to bust into town hall events and tell people stop the primary and start supporting Kerry, to stop harping on the war and to get in line. Now he supports Obama and is saying the same thing. All I ever hear from Obama people now is stop the primary, to stop supporting Clinton, and stop debate against Obama...in the name of Party unity. All I hear from Obama people is if he doesn't win they out, that they'll take their ball and go home.

I'm sure you are an awesome person and I understand you think idiot. I'm sure you just want to ask a simple question of "who agrees Clinton is destroying party unity" though a primary is still going on and states still to vote. I'm sure you honest question hasn't been asked on this forum a billion times already.

So again here's the best I can do with five words

God I hope Clinton wins!!

Have an awesome night and a bright tomorrow

[Zhade]

You supported DK as I did, but support CLINTON now?

How... odd. Talk about a sea change!

[TheDeathadder]

53. not only did I support him

I worked for him and had some wonderful personal moments with him.

[babylonsister]

65. There's no vagueness; you are willfully ignorant and don't know a

thing about Obama because you don't want to know a thing. There's tons of info on him out there and here.

[Zhade]

39. Get ready to be disappointed, because she won't.

NT!

[TheDeathadder]

54. Yes she will

[Dark]

12. I'd vote republican straight down the ticket.

Yes, that's how much it would piss me off. Regardless of the Dem who won that way, any party that would ignore the will of its voters so blatantly doesn't deserve power.

So, I'd hold my nose, vote republican and never consider the dems again -- or at least until a generation had passed.

I'm not the only one, either.

[Saturday]

15. Good bye.n/t

[Dark]

18. Honey, I've been around here longer than you, and said way more controversial stuff.

And I've always voted dem. But blind support for one's party is what screwed over the Republicans, and it will do the same to the Dems if they let it.

I can't in good conscience vote for a party that ignores the will of its base. The Reps have done a lot of bad things, but they still sided with their base most of the time.

If you want to see four more years of republican rule, fine. Let Hillary steal the nomination. But the Dems will be the minority party for the next ten years.

[TheDeathadder]

20. God I hope Clinton wins

[Cha]

71. That's too bad your

machine is broken.

[WVRevy]

21. I would urge you to reconsider...

...only because I can imagine the damage a McCain presidency would do to the country. If you're gonna hold you nose and vote, just hold it and vote for Hillary along with any Dems on the ticket that did the RIGHT thing and supported the candidate with the most pledged delegates, then work like hell to get rid of Dean and anybody else that supported such a travesty.

That's what I'm planning on doing, anyway. Agree with the party or not, I'm a liberal, and I have no place with the other party, and voting 3rd party is a waste of time, money, and effort. So I will still vote Dem, but my days of volunteering and donating my time and money will be done.

[Dark]

30. I've no problem with supporting Hillary or Obama IF they get a sizeable majority of pledged delegate

And I'd be ok with a brokered convention.

But if the Dems' superdelegates do override the voters once and get away with it, they'll keep doing it, and be no better than the Republicans.

I understand this is an important election, and had the repubs nominated someone else, I might have considered your plan. But McCain at least got the majority of his voters, and he has a good enough record on issues I care about (environment, torture, etc.) to consider him over a thief who steals the election from the voters.

If the Dems are stupid enough to fuck over people like me who have worked for them and voted for them constantly, then I want no part of their party. And as you said, third party is a wasted vote.

Seriously, this election is the Dems' to lose. But it seems as though they're trying their damndest.

[Zhade]

42. I understand the anger (Clinton's attempts to cheat her way out of defeat anger me too)...

...but why not just abstain from voting? Less damaging, I think.

[Dark]

44. Because I can't in good conscience say I'm not going to participate. I'd rather vote third party, bu

t that'd be a waste. So instead, if it comes to that, I'll vote for what, in my opinion, would be the lesser of two evils. Even if it isn't much less.

[Zhade]

47. Your stance is consistent, and while I loathe McCain, I respect your allegiance to your principles.

NT!

[Dark]

49. Thanks. And while I don't agree with your ideas, I can understand them.

However, I think that the OP's scenario is a longshot one. We'll know a lot more about the situation after Ohio and Texas.

[Maddy McCall]

13. 2025...that's the magic number.

Whichever candidate gets there first, within party rules, will win.

Don't know why this is such a perturbing issue with so many Barack supporters.

[WVRevy]

17. Because Hillary CAN'T GET THERE.

Nor can she realistically even win a majority of the pledged delegates. I'm sorry, but if you can't see how awarding the nomination to someone that can't get the majority of votes from the party members would be a problem, you are either hopelessly blinded by your support of Hillary or ridiculously naive.

[TheDeathadder]

32. why are you afraid

to let a primary be a primary. To let states that still have not voted vote. I thought the Obama people were about unity?

[WVRevy]

37. In a best of seven series...

...they don't play games 5,6, and 7 if one team wins the first four games.

As for the primary schedule...it's idiotic (I think that's something we can ALL agree on). My own state doesn't even vote until May, and it is likely to go heavily to Hillary (but if you think that's an endorsement of her rather than a statement on the racist tendencies of southern rednecks with a next-to-nothing minority population thrown in to boot...then you don't know this state). But it simply doesn't MATTER because she can not get back to the lead in delegates without winning every state from here on out by near the margin she won in Arkansas. It just isn't going to happen.

[TheDeathadder]

55. we'll see

until then no point in not letting the primary be a primary. This isn't sports.

[WVRevy]

68. No, it isn't

But that doesn't change the analogy or make it inaccurate.

But you're right...we'll see. I'm just curious about what your response will be if she loses or just barely ekes out a win in Texas and Ohio. Is just winning enough, even if she doesn't make up any real ground in the delegate count?

The point of this whole thing is that she can NOT get the nomination without the supers. It may not be impossible, but it's mathematically VERY unlikely. She simply has too much ground to make up.

[Omega3]

63. not that long ago everybody was bitching about how IA, NH and SC had so much influence but now it's

time to close shop?

We already have a system whereby before 45 of 52 states voted we went from 8 to 2 on the Dem side and from 9 to 3 on the repuke side. Nice democracy!!!

[SoCalDem]

16. President McCain..n/t

[Lisa0825]

22. If Obama got the votes, but it was overturned by some means,

I would never ever ever bother to work in a primary or election again, nor would I ever give another dime to a candidate. To me, that would say that I did not matter because they would just for me anyway. It would mean that the whole primary process is nothing but a scam anyway, and votes mean nothing.

[RamboLiberal]

23. As I've said before if this happened I'm not voting

for Hillary. I would feel like the Democratic party needed punished for this election for allowing it to happen.

I think it would be bad for the party. It would allow the DLC to be in control which wouldn't be good for the party. It would be snubbing its nose at Obama voters and the many new voters who joined the process for the first time. And I really think it could be lasting damage with African-American and young voters for more than 1 election.

Under this scenario I see no way for Hillary to win the general election. I think the excitement for the election would be gone and McCain would cruise to victory.

[DemBones DemBones]

24. Thinking Obama can beat McCain is

going to cause you a lot of disappointment.

[WVRevy]

27. Well reasoned!

How can anybody argue with logic like that?

Here's a thought: Why not enlighten us on WHY he can't win? You've got a "post" button at the top of the board. By all means...post your reasoning for why Barack can't possible beat Grampa Munster in November.

[RamboLiberal]

43. Thinking Hillary can beat McCain when she already has

a built in factor of 47% or so of voters saying no way in hell they would vote for her spells victory for McCain IMHO. And if she steals the nomination that 47% will be over 50% in a big hurry!

[Zhade]

48. Clinton losing the nom will cause you even more.

So get ready.

[mudesi]

26. They are hoping for a SCANDAL, nothing more, nothing less

There is no way the super delegates would do as you describe. Clinton supporters are hoping that Obama is hit with a scandal of some kind. I don't know if that is more disgusting than your scenario, though.

[Ravy]

28. What if the pledged delegates overturn the popular vote?

It could well be that more people vote for Hillary in the popular vote. It is certainly in reach for her. Or perhaps superdelegates will vote as their state or congressional district votes. With Clinton being strong in big blue states, this could swing things in her favor as well, as more superdelegates come from blue states.

[WVRevy]

40. There IS no "popular vote" in primary season

Not so long as caucuses are included. If every state had the same rules - primaries - and the vote was handled as it is in the general but at a staggered pace, then I'd have to seriously think about it. But the delegate system is designed to give smaller states a say, just as the electoral college does. Without that in place, no state would ever get attention save California, New York, Florida, and a couple other major population centers. How is that somehow better than what we have now? It'd be worth thinking about, but I'd be hesitant to say that the delegate system - or the electoral college - should be done away with.

It's a valid question, though.

[Ravy]

57. Yes, they are keeping track of the popular vote.

They are also track (although it is not 100% accurate) the totals of self-identified democrats.

[polichick]

33. I agree with you...

And it's not just the young people who have worked so hard in this ONE election ~ many of us who have worked so hard in MANY elections would become Indies too.

[Zhade]

35. I think nearly everyone would have a problem with her cheating.

Or so I thought, until she started trying and a slew of people here defended it.

[MagsDem]

36. Obama will be the end of the democratic party

His insistence on courting rethugs and hinting that they will have cabinent positions, and that he will reach across the aisle to them is tantamount to saying that progressive and liberal policies are bad. It is the DLC you hate on steriods, instiutionalized to make it acceptable with platitudes and flowery rhetoric.

[WVRevy]

41. So, because he is willing to admit the existance of

the Republican Party and the roughly 50% of the country that follows their ideals, he's going to be the end of the party?

I'm sorry, I just don't understand that kind of "thinking".

[Dark]

45. That's what I like about him. He isn't a partisan hack.

I'm just so tired of feeling at war with my fellow Americans, of being divided. We have a lot in common, and most of us are sane. We could accomplish a lot together.

But I'm sick of the "Repigs/DemoncRATs" lines. I want us united again.

[Zhade]

52. Polls do show what you're saying - most support liberal policies and don't even realize it.

You're not off-base. I've met people who are republicans by dint of just not being informed about reality, and I know them to be decent people who stand tall for what's right when the chips are down.

This is why I'm an independent. No party for me.

[Dark]

58. It's true. They just don't understand the bigger issues, and as I've told others, it's not so much

that they disagree with us, as they just don't realize that the liberals are right about the how. For example, Keysnian economics, which even Reagan abided by, says that gov't spending is the way to head off a recession. That's why Reagan took us so far into debt in the arms race.

Spending money, be it on "entitlement programs" or defense, creates jobs when a recession, which is caused by the populace hoarding money, is looming. ONly the gov't can really spend the money confidently.

But most Americans believe the opposite. They think tax cuts will help the economy. Which, to anyone familiar with John Keynes, is BS.

[Omega3]

69. you are a typical Dem and a typical BO supporter. This is EXACTLy what the hatefull, spitefull GOP

wants. They are licking their chops at ppl like you, ready to pounce at Rove's command. you many be talking about your neighbors or the parents on your kids baseball team but the partisian Repukes in Washington are looking at their interests only. They are unified to beat us. They stick together. The fight dirty and are good at it.

Where in the hell was the unity and bipartisianship the last 7 years???? Bush has run this country like he was elected with a 98% majority. I hear alot of pukes talking about bipartisianship now and you typical dems don't realise it's only b/c they are losing control and the dem were/are the favs for the WH, that's it, the ONLY reason why.

There's something in our DNA as Dems that makes us better ppl. we are more likely to help out at the local soup kitchen, more likely to trust others and see the good in other who are different from us, to respect that differnce. The repukes use that and take advantage of us. We need to stop being enablers.

Why do most of the bills stall in the Senate? It's b/c the "majority" the dems have is so much smaller than in the House. Where is the help now from them? There is almost no bipartisianship to speak of. They will not give up their power willingly or easily.

[RamboLiberal]

46. Like Bill traveling around with Poppy Bush

I have no problem with Obama doing the Abraham Lincoln thing and including Republicans in his cabinet instead of the stupid sycophants we've had for the last 8 years!

The country is getting tired of this us vs. them crap and there are both Democrats and Republicans who recognize this. Obama IMHO can win many Independents and some Repubs disgusted with their party.

[Zhade]

51. As if Clinton isn't a DLC pawn.

I support neither and oppose her - no one who tries to cheat to the nom deserves office, period.

[Eric J in MN]

59. When Bill Clinton made William Cohen the Secretary of Defense,

...did that end the Democratic Party?

[goclark]

62. HC would most certainly have Repubs in her cabinet

Wasm't it Cohen and some others?

[BlackVelvet04]

50. Superdelegates are not bound to vote in any particular way for

any particular reason, period. They never have been.

[TheWebHead]

56. nnever mind the superdelegates

how divided will the party be if Hillary squeaks by in OH and TX and uses it to justify continuing on to PA, which is 7 weeks away... 7 weeks of in party flame throwing all to the benefit of John McCain. For the good of the party, this needs to end Tuesday, or it won't matter who gets the nomination.

[Blondiegrrl]

60. I don't think the superdelegates would vote against the will of the people.

However, if they did?

I would renounce (AND reject) the Democratic Party and register as an Independent.

[skids]

61. I'd be VERY irked. Enraged. But I'd still show up and vote for Hillary. n/t

[Johnny__Motown]

66. Ummmm,,,,, well.... how does President Nader sound to you?

If that happens it could seriously damage the party permanently

[cooolandrew]

67. The downside is if the vot with or not with the pulic it could hinder their re-election.

[WVRevy]

70. So could the vote on the war...

...and look how well playing politics ended up that time? Time to find some guts and do the right thing, even if it's unpopular with a minority of voters across the nation.