The only number that matters is 2025 (the pledged delegate "lead" premise is utterly bogus)

[ruggerson]

1) The only number that matters is getting to 2025.

2) A candidate gets there with ANY combo of pledged delegates and superdelegates that they can cobble together.

3) If one candidate leads in so called "pledged delegates" but has not reached 2025, guess what? They aren't the nominee or the presumptive nominee until they have put together the actual majority.

4) The Obama camp/media spin that the superdelegates must line up the way the pledged delegates do is entirely made up out of whole cloth. It is a premise they invented. It is FICTION. There is nothing in the rules that the superdelegates have to vote for whomever is in the "lead" with pledged delegates. Any more than they have to vote for whomever is in the "lead" with the overall popular vote. The only thing the superdelegates have to do is vote for the candidate they prefer - just like you and I.

5) To pretend that there is some rule, moral or otherwise, that the superdelegates must follow is just as wrong as the Clinton camp wanting to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations. You don't change the rules to suit the whims and desires of one particular campaign. And that includes coming up with an edict that whomever "leads" wins. Wrong. Whomever puts together 2025 wins.

6) If Obama should come into the convention without a pledged delegate "lead" or a popular vote "lead" and gets the nomination anyway, then that's because more superdelegates thought he would be the better candidate than Clinton. And vice versa.

7) If you don't like this concept, then rewrite the rules for 2012 and mandate that in the case no candidate has the magic number coming into the convention, the superdelegates must vote for the candidate who has the "most" delegates. Or write a rule that they must vote for the overall popular vote leader. But as of today, 2008, no such rule exists. The superdelegates are bound by only one thing: their preferences, just like you and I. A pledged delegate lead or a popular vote lead shouldn't mean anything to them whatsoever, unless, individually, they decide it's a criteria.

Don't try to change the rules midstream to try to fix things for one candidate over the other. That isn't democracy. Let the process play out as agreed to and understood by all before the game began.

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. You clearly aren't taking your cues from Axlerod today.

[leftofcool]

2. Absolutely correct!

Thems the rules, deal with it.

[ruggerson]

4. Half the fucking posts on DU are about who leads in delegates

It's getting a little irritating because they're pretending the game is being played by their own self serving, made up rules.

And it isn't.

[joshcryer]

24. I'm glad someone had the courage to point out this obvious fact.

Thank you.

[dansolo]

3. The ends justify the means, eh?

While you are correct in that the real number is 2025, but how the nominee gets there is important in determining the support they will get in the general election.

[ruggerson]

5. no - you deal with the rules you have, honorably

you don't invent new ones to suit your current needs.

[Spider Jerusalem]

15. You mean like the Clinton campaign's insistence on trying to seat FL and MI delegates?

Or their discounting of caucus voters?

So much for dealing honourably with existing rules.

[ruggerson]

27. That's exactly my point

read the OP. I'm AGAINST Fl and MI being seated.

[joshcryer]

29. Actually, there's no rule against seating them either. A mere proposal at the DNC is all that is...

...required. Then they vote.

[Rick Myers]

6. FACT is: Every day this drags on hurts the party

Every day we look more like the Pukes, waiting for the High Council to deliver us.

[anamandujano]

50. That is not a fact. The only thing hurting is our ears with this spin.

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. I agree that uncommitted Super Delegates need a good reason

...if they don't back the candidate who wins the most pledged delegates. More than mere loyalty to one candidate. If it is just a matter of Hillary coming back and winning a few more delegates than Obama in the remaining races, without racking up any particulary impressive victories, without surging ahead in the polls, getting serious closing momentum, maybe pulling ahead in the popular vote, and showing the type of strength in the states that really matter to defeat McCain while Obama falls short of doing so, Super Delegates should back the candidate who narrowly wins the most pledged delegates this year.

But it is too early to say those things won't happen and if they do than Super Delegates would be remiss not to take that into serious consideration.

[Omega3]

38. what's the point of SD's if they're just suppossed to back the can. with the most delegates? Do you

know what the reason for the SD's in the first place is?

[Tom Rinaldo]

52. Actually I think it is for situations like this among others

Obviously they are not supposed to mechanically just do the math and line up behind whoever has the slightest lead. What if something comes out in the second half of a campaign that swings momentum very strongly from one side to another, but not quite in time for the side that was behind to quite catch up all the lost ground? Super Delegates are well suited for such a scenario. What if a candidate emerged with very strong regional support within our Party that tipped the pledged delegates toward him or her, but that candidate was uniformly strong in areas that Democrats were doomed to lose anyway and relatively weak in the areas where we needed to be able to compete in order to have any chance to win?

[high density]

8. So what would you guys propose

Flipping a coin? Fights with folding chairs? Asking McCain who he'd like to run against?

This new balloon floating around the forum today that the pledged delegates don't matter because nobody can get to 2025 is a non-starter. What you are basically saying is that we might as well not vote at all. You evidently do not care what anybody thinks because no candidate can hit the magic 2025. This is hogwash. Clinton herself doesn't even seem to believe this given her own comments.

[ruggerson]

14. No

what I'm saying is that whomever gets to 2025 wins. What some of you are saying is whomever gets the pledged delegate lead wins. But that's not the rules. That's "let's make this up as we go along" nonsense.

We haven't found ourselves in this situation before, and the honorable thing is to let the process play out as the rules dictate.

Whomever can cobble together 2025 with pledged and superdelegates wins the nomination. Period.

[high density]

22. Most of us feel the super delegates are very unlikely to "override" the pledged delegates

So that's why we are focused on the pledged delegate count.

[ruggerson]

33. But we don't know that

that's the meme the Obama camp is pushing because it suits their needs. Just like the Clinton camp is pushing the idea that we have to seat FL and MI.

The supers may vote for the pledged delegate leader, they may not. It's totally up to them. If either candidate can make the case to them that they should be the nominee despite not having a lead, and they win making that case, then that outcome is just as legitimate, by the rules as written, as any other outcome.

[high density]

37. What is the purpose of the primary season if the superdelegates are going to override the

results?

Obviously the Clinton Camp wants the superdelegates to override the pledged delegates, since that's virtually the only way they can win.

The Clinton camp has known since August 2007 and December 2007 that Florida and Michigan delegates will not be seated.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4916783#4917626

[ruggerson]

39. the superdelegates aren't "overriding" anything

they're just as legitimate a part of the process as you and I. If we feel they have too much influence in the rare case like this year when no candidate gets a majority through pledged delegates, then change the rules for NEXT time.

[high density]

40. They can change the rules next time all they want

I don't think there will be much of a party left if this scenario happens.

[mudesi]

9. Here is another FACT

In order for Hillary Clinton to win, the super delegates will have to vote against the pledged delegates.

You're right, that is certainly allowed and not against the rules.

That doesn't mean it won't hurt the party, discourage Democrats from voting in the general election, and help McCain win the general election.

That you Clinton supporters have no problem with this scenario playing out is disturbing to say the least. McCain is going to have a three month lead on fundraising and campaigning while this primary goes all the way to the convention.

But I guess having your candidate win by destroying the party and possibly giving the white house to the Republican is more important.

[ruggerson]

10. By your line of reasoning then we should seat Florida and Michigan

because we're pissing off two huge states that we need to win in the fall and we're destroying our party and their state parties in the process.

I don't buy that logic. We're in this fix because these are the rules. Well, so let's change the rules for next time.

The superdelegates should vote for whomever they prefer and FL and MI should not be seated.

[mudesi]

13. I don't disagree

But Hillary Clinton can still do the right thing and end this before it's too late. Her dropping out is also not against the rules, you know.

[Nine]

54. And why is that "the right thing"?

Why is it any more of a moral imperative for Hillary to sacrifice herself for the supposed good of the Party than it is for Obama to do so? He has a slight lead now. If Hillary has a slight lead at some point in the future, should Obama drop out then?

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. I'll make this extreme to make it simple

If everyone agreed that the final numbers were close but the Obama campaign were fully imploding in the final months and Super Delegates could instead deliver the nomination to someone who was surging instead, someone winning over new support every single week, someone killing him in all the latest polls, they should be imprisoned if they failed to do so. That's the extreme case, obviously there are lesser scenarios where that choice would not be quite so clear cut.

[AtomicKitten]

11. Really? There's no second place in politics.

He's ahead and it would take a miracle for her to catch him.

Say hello to President Obama. ;)

[ruggerson]

25. I'm happy you're happy

but what does that have to do with the OP? :)

[JeanGrey]

12. Then WHY bother to vote at ALL if the SD's can do

as hey wish??? It is absurd.

[ruggerson]

19. Because the rules dictate that it's a COMBINATION of pledged and supers

that make the majority.

The supers don't decide this on their own.

If a candidate had gotten to 2025 all by pledged delegates, how the supers vote would be irrelevant. They couldn't change the outcome.

But since we find ourselves in a situation where neither candidate has the majority of pledged delegates, this time around, it's the supers who are going to tip the balance.

[JeanGrey]

78. One candidate Will have more and more of the popular vote.

The SD's should vote as their constituents do, period. "The Will of the People"

[RiverStone]

16. Check out this Delegate calculator, plug in the most...

...optimistic scenario you can imagine for Hillary - and let me know how she wins this thing without pulling strings or having SD's go against the will of the popular vote.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4917211

[ruggerson]

23. You're apparently not getting the point

THe superdelegates may vote for the pledged delegate leader or they may not. But it's just as valid for them to vote either way. There is no rule or ethical reason to mandate that they vote one way or the other. They only have to vote for the candidate they like better. If, individually, they decide that they have to vote for pledged leader, that's fine too. But they are under no obligation to do anything other than vote their preference.

[RiverStone]

69. Define "preference"

Who they want or what would be better for the party?

I say the latter should be the prime directive.

[joshcryer]

28. Hillary needs 1.4 million more votes than Obama to tie in delegates.

Because of how the delegates are portioned. So she has no chance of winning on "pledged delegates." But as the OP said, there's no rule about "pledged delegates," and superdelegates can decide on whatever persuasive argument the candidates want to make.

[RiverStone]

70. But would you agree if the SD's chose a candidate...

...contrary to the will of the pledged delegates --- all hell would break out at the convention?

I see no upside to 1/2 the convention being really, REALLY pissed off.

[Obamaniac]

17. It's "bogus" in your warped mind...

Your argument is essentially that we should disregard what the voters say? Because pledged delegates are allocated by the votes of people.

If Obama wins the pledged delegates, the super-delegates will follow.

Accept that as true. It's just the way it is.

[ruggerson]

21. I'm saying we should play by the rules as written

apparently you aren't happy with that.

[high density]

26. In the thread title you said the pledged delegate lead is "bogus"

In other words, you seem to be telling us that you feel it would be perfectly fine if the super delegates should override the pledged delegates and give the nomination to the candidate of their choice.

[joshcryer]

30. You don't think their decision would be fair?

It'd either be the winner of the popular vote, the winner of the delegates, or the one they believe is most electable.

[high density]

32. If they override the pledged delegates

The cost and time put into this primary season is a total waste. If that's the case, next time we should start and end with a smoke filled room where party insiders tell us who the candidate is. The caucuses and primaries are nothing but a farce at that point.

[ruggerson]

41. But they are, as the rules are currently written, a LEGITIMATE part of the process

they aren't overriding anyone. They're expressing their preferences, it's just that their individual vote is more powerful, because their one vote represents the preferences of one person. Which is why they're called superdelegates.

[high density]

45. We'll have to agree to disagree

I don't question what the rules are.

They can vote for whoever the heck they want. I just don't think it's a particularly healthy thing for the country/party/voters for them to do it in a way that turns the results of the grass roots voting efforts upside down. I don't cast a vote in a vacuum, nor would I expect the super delegates to do such a thing either.

You are the one saying the pledged delegate lead is "bogus" which is counter to the claims of BOTH of the campaigns.

[anamandujano]

57. The pledged delegates are already reflecting the will of their constituents.

The supers are on their own, unless they bow to threats of the Obama campaign to run challengers to take their seats.

Unfortunately, it is the black supers who are getting this treatment.

Can anyone imagine how stupid it would be to try to replace Sheila Jackson Lee because she did not worship at the altar of Obama? This is someone who has worked hard and long for her community with unmatched grace and intelligence.

Yeah, this is the kind of new politics Obama is talking about. F'ing slogan spewing liar.

[joshcryer]

64. They wouldn't override the pledged delegates unless it's close, you know that.

And it looks like neither Obama or Hillary is going to have a real pledged delegate mandate.

[eggman67]

20. The interesting thing is

That it doesn't even have to be the superdelegates that make the difference if it goes past the first ballot. After that there are no more "pledged" delegates, they can go any way they wish.

[pnwmom]

31. And, in fact, there would be no PURPOSE for super-delegates if all they

were supposed to do was to fall in line, proportionately, with however the other delegates voted. Why would they exist at all?

Clearly, their original purpose was to balance, and even to counter, the votes of the regular delegates. Maybe the system has out-lived its usefulness. But this is the system that we've always had and until the rules change, we're stuck with it.

[AZBlue]

34. K/R

Nothing to add - you said it all and very well. Thank you!

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

35. Yes, some folks have invented a set of imaginary rules and seek to will them into existence

[ruggerson]

36. Exactly

aided and abetted by Tweety and Co. and various other vacuous talking heads.

[Little Star]

81. Yep

[writes3000]

42. You NEED to believe the superdelegates will overturn the pledged delegates

Because if you don't believe that, then your candidate has lost.

Factually, you are correct, the SDs could/might overturn the pledged delegates.

But I don't think they will. And there have been far more indications that those SDs within the Democratic party are very, very hesitant to do it.

So I choose to believe they most likely won't.

Neither belief is bogus. We'll see whose belief is right.

[ruggerson]

43. I don't "believe" either way

I have no idea how it will play out.

The point of the OP is whichever way it plays out is completely LEGITIMATE.

[writes3000]

44. Then the pledged delegate lead premise ISN'T bogus.

It is one factor in the decision making process of the superdelegates. And it could be the deciding factor. It may not be.

But claiming that the argument is bogus is....incorrect. The argument isn't set in stone. It also isn't bogus.

[ruggerson]

51. The argument that they HAVE to vote for the pledged leader

is indeed bogus. If they decide on an individual basis that it is an important factor in their consideration, then that's legitimately their prerogative.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

46. Good lord... have you ever seen a candidate collapse? I have.

It is within the realm of possibility that Obama will collapse to below Huckabee level and get only 25% of remaining delegates.

That stuff happens sometimes. Howard Dean was in a commanding position, then vanished. It's politics... never say never.

I am not saying it WILL happen, I am saying that it isn't impossible.

You are saying that it's IMPOSSIBLE, assuming that everything goes pretty much how it has gone.

Things that are IMPOSSIBLE don't carry that kind of assumption.

[high density]

48. Well let's say he does collapse as you have proposed and then the

super delegates still give it to Obama after he lost the pledged delegate count. Do you think this is a good thing?

I don't think that's a good idea no matter who is in the lead.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

56. Since I am not psychic, I want the SDs to help assure the strongest candidate

None of us know what will be going on in April, let along August.

If August rolls around and Obama is polling ten points ahead of McCain and Hillary is polling ten points behind, I would want them to pick Obama, even if Hillary had a 5% pledged delegate lead.

And visa versa.

And most of the people who elected those pledged delegates would want the SDs to overturn their will. Someone who voted for one candidate or another in January doesn't want the SDs to ratify their choice in August even if it looks like a bad move.

Most voters want a winner, same as the SDs. They vote trying to pick a winner, not to set up a suicide pact.

In August it is too late to ask the voters, so the SDs are here to deal with the unforeseen.

I accept that Obama is 70% to win the nomination, and I'm cool with that.

[high density]

59. Telephone polls in August are not going to predict a win in November

The polls paid for by the media should not be used as a reason to override the decision urged by the grassroots of the party, the voters.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

61. The Democratic Party does an incredible amount of polling not paid for by media

[totodeinhere]

47. Is that so?

You don't change the rules to suit the whims and desires of one particular campaign.

Correction. You don't change the rules unless it helps Clinton. Isn't that what the Clinton campaign is trying to do with Michigan and Florida?

And BTW, the Obama campaign is not trying to change the rules. Everybody knows that the supers can vote for whomever they want. It's just that for the sake of party unity and in order to have the best chance to in in November, it would behoove the supers not to thwart the will of the primary voters and caucus attendees by voting for the candidate who has fewer pledged delegates.

[ruggerson]

53. why is that "thwarting the will"

when, as the rules are currently written, they are as much a legitimate part of the process as you and I. And have as much freedom to vote their preference as we do.

[totodeinhere]

65. As I already said, everyone knows that the supers can vote for whomever.

But if the supers give the nomination to the candidate who got fewer pledged delegates, many supporters of the loser, presumably Obama, would become disgruntled and may either not vote in November or worse yet vote for McCain. This may be an especially serious problem in the African American community, and yet no Dem can win without African American support.

[ruggerson]

67. I realize that's always a danger

but your point makes the argument to me that we should change the rules, possibly, for 2012 and beyond.

For this year, we're stuck with what we have.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

58. That's like arguing categorically against amending the constitution

Clinton cannot possibly "cheat." If FL and MI were seated it would be done under the rules. It's the responsibility of the credentials committee to seat delegates. That's their job under the rules.

If they decided to seat those delegations, it would be under the rules.

If someone requests that the rules be changed and that change is accomplished under the rules, then that's the rules.

Nothing can possibly happen that isn't under the rules. Hillary isn't going to hold people at gunpoint...

[totodeinhere]

60. The Clinton campaign is trying to change the rules.

I didn't say they were trying to cheat. What they are trying to do is change the rules in midstream. Yet the OP accuses the Obama campaign of trying to change the rules about supers while they really are not. They are merely urging the supers to support them if they have more pledged delegates.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

63. fair distinction, sorry

[Orangepeel]

49. Democrats telling the superdelegates they OUGHT to vote a particular way isn't changing the rules

it's campaigning.

The Obama campaign NEVER suggested that the rules be changed so that the superdelegates weren't superdelegates. They suggested that they believe the superdelegates should vote the same way as the pledged delegates. Of course they do and they have every right to say so.

The Clinton campaign has every right to say that the superdelegates shouldn't vote with the pledged delegates. It's just that that argument is going over as well.

[Redbear]

55. Good luck banging your head against this wall. (n/t)

[Little Star]

62. Please send to MSNBC. They don't understand the rules or the

process. They are the new Democratic Network? Pretty lame.

[Yossariant]

66. Da ROOLZ iz da ROOLZ. Great thread.

:yourock:

[stop the bleeding]

68. Here is my 2 pennies ruggerson

I completely agree with your post, and based on this we know the SD's can do whatever they want(free will) like you and I. I was thinking about how most of the SD's are leaders and hardcore party followers etc. Now I know some of them will say fuck it I'm gonna do what I want to do, but I feel that a majority will look to keep the party together given the fact they care lots about the party. It will be real interesting to see how the media will spin this(primaries) over the coming months, cause ultimately I believe they crown the nomination by way of swaying public opinion and then in effect the SD's will in majority terms go with that media built public opinion.


just my 2 pennies:D

[Radical Agitator]

71. Reality -- Clinton leads in the critical swing states where it matters n/t

[Little Star]

72. k&r

[WDIM]

73. They don't have to vote at all.

Basically just like the electoral college this is the elitist way of saying the common people aren't smart enough to vote for the right person so just in case they don't lets have the final say on who gets the nomination.

[Little Star]

74. The system may need to be changed, I agree. The rules,

were specifically set up for the Supers to vote their own conscience. Read Ruggerson's post...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4916783&mesg_id=4916783

[Jennicut]

75. All of you who hated Al Gore's defeat in 2000 should hate the Superdelgates overriding the people

The electoral college is a rule based system and its a joke. Of course, the Bushies played a role in stealing the election as well. Superdelegates are a rule based system and its a joke. Hillary will take this to the convention, I don't doubt that. But getting the superdelegates to vote for the eventual winner of the Dem nomination is pretty sickening to many of us. If Hillary had the lead in pledged delegates than fine. However, she does not and most likely will not. She wants Florida and Michigan delegates seated, fine. Do them over. That is the fair way. I voted for Obama but am not blind to his flaws and I am not a robot. I just don't want the Dem party hurt over this. If the Dem party is weakened that leaves the Rethugs with more of an advantage. I am slowly losing all respect for Hillary and her crew as Ickes and others keep talking about taking this to Denver. Hillary said she doe not think anyone in the Dem party will help work out a deal there. However, this means that the Superdelegates will decide. Uggg. Al Gore, where are you? We are gonna need your help.

[WVRevy]

76. Tell it to the party leadership

It would seem Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, and many others disagree with you.

Overturning the will of the people just so Shrillary can get what she feels she has coming to her would flat out destroy the party. The fact that so many people are blind to just how that would happen is just ridiculous.

[Little Star]

77. kick

[LadyVT]

79. Except for the times in our history when the one with lowest delegates won

[latinolatteliberal]

80. A few points of disagreement.

First of all, in a very literal sense, of course you are right. It takes 2025. No way of getting around that.

But I want to point out two things.

1. The impact the superdelegates will have on voter enthusiasm and turnout for the general election is important. Having the SDs affirm the decision of the pledged delegates is much preferable to having the SDs overturn the pledged delegates. Those are two very different scenarios. Sure, they are both legitimate ways of getting to 2025, but one will leave a huge chunk of our party feeling betrayed and less motivated for the GE (Notice I did not say unmotivated... just less motivated).

2. Making the argument that SDs should affirm the pledged delegates is not changing the rules in the middle of the game. It is simply playing the game. Like you said, there is no rule mandating how SDs vote and since there isn't, they must be persuaded. Saying they should follow the pledged delegates is simply Obama's strategy for persuading them. I happen to like his argument, but they don't have to listen to him. No rules have changed.