the myth- you win by having the most pledged delegates

[paperbag_ princess]

I think that many Obama supporters have convinced themselves that Obama just has to win the most pledged delegates to wrap up the nomination.
It just doesn't work that way even if you wish it did. Until and unless he reaches 2025 this thing is going to the convention.

The superdelegates have the obligation to vote based on their own reasoning for who should be the nominee. Both candidates will have to make their case to the superdelegates.

The superdelegates can choose based on whatever reasoning they see fit, whether it is leader of pledged delegates, popular vote totals, types of states won, who would make the best president, who would best beat McCain, who they feel loyalty to, or for any other reason under the sun. They might factor in Fl and Mi in to their decision whether their pledged delegates are seated or not. The superdelegates can change their minds back and forth until the convention.

The posts claiming "It's over" and "Do the math" are wrong and pointless.

Hillary may not be able to beat Obama in pledged delegate count, but she has other strong arguments that she can make to sway the superdelegates. It is not stealing and it is not cheating...it is the way that the process was designed.

Hillary has every right and every obligation to work within this system to gain the nomination. She owes it to all of those who believe she would make the better president and who have given their money and time to that cause.

(next up: the myth of the scorched earth policy)

[BumRushDaShow]

1. Denial

is not just a river in Egypt. The minute the SDs throw it to Clinton IF she doesn't have the popular vote lead, doesn't have states-won lead, and doesn't have the pledged delegate lead, is the day that will end the DNC as we know it. I.e., mass exodous of people (including me) to being "independent".

[paperbag_ princess]

11. strong arguments

Obama has a strong argument with the delegate count lead. The farther ahead he is, the stronger his argument. No doubt.

but, it is easy to make the arguement that the delegate count is not acurately reflecting the will of the people. Democrats easily understand that concept from Bush/Gore. Not to mention, dems are tired of losing. The case could be made that she will win the states we need to win the GE...and the case could be made that she would make the better president and most dems would love to see the Clinton/Obama ticket. That would appease any voter ill will to be sure.

I am not saying that the SDs won't just fall in line with the delegate count...it all depends on how convincing each campaign can be to the SDs and the media.

[Royal Oak Rog]

15. She's lost the last 13 of 15 contests nt

[ChairmanAgnostic]

26. say, who won that squeaker last night, anyway?

[BumRushDaShow]

16. Obama

has the popular vote lead and number of states won lead. The fact that he has actually personally traveled to and solicited the votes of Democrats in states neglected for decades by the DNC means that he is reaching out to those folks and the turnouts are reflecting that.

There is a bitter hatred of the Clintons and the recent negative tactics taken by that campaign, including endorsing the other party's candidate over our party's candidate, should be reason enough to eliminate her from the ticket.

[paperbag_ princess]

21. you are convinced of that

but that does not mean that the SDs will automatically be convinced. I am not arguing that Hillary will win, but that she can.

I believe in the 50 state approach, I hope that if Hillary pulls it out...she will learn her lesson on that front.

I don't see the bitter hatred for Hillary except for here. (which I agree, there is a lot of it) I have no idea what the SDs are thinking regarding this..but there could be agreement that we want her fighing on our front lines against the GOP

[BumRushDaShow]

32. I think there are many factors

that are being and will be looked at over the next month or so. However regarding "hatred", I would perhaps say it is more disgust and it is a regional thing. It is not just what goes on here on a very elite political forum. It is the watercooler talk - at least here in Philadelphia and where I work and frequent. The consensus is that the repukes must go. But the divisive turn that this campaign has taken is putting the party itself in a bad light. Alot of people still remember the repuke "Willie Horton" ad and compare such tactics to the "Is he or isn't he a Muslim" smears, the Bill Clinton snide remarks about Jesse Jackson, the Mark Penn "Change you can Xerox", the fear-mongering 3 am ad, and other such nonsense, and this does not sit well with the majority of people who are sick of what the political process has become. This is why the turnouts have been low in the past as people just can't stomach that crap.

When you find a candidate who had so far been able to transcend his race and gender to speak to and reach out to a diverse and often forgotten set of demographics and then you have "politics as usual" keep rearing its ugly head by bringing up the old race and gender cards and mud-slinging - supposedly as a "trial by fire" against the opposing candidate, but in reality resulting in giving the other party fodder to use against our party itself, then it is time for this to end right now.

McCain is not a strong candidate at all. He has many many things going against him. But it is up to the Dems to keep its electorate energized to give them that margin of victory.

[rug]

12. Idle threats are not arguments.

[Ravy]

42. What if Obama doesn't have all those things?

And personally, I discount states won. WI is not equal to NJ for reflecting the people's will. You need to look at the size of the states.. and if you look at them weighted the same way that the Electoral College does... the playing field that the candidate will be playing on in Novemeber, Clinton needs to win one more state to wrap it up.

[Kahuna]

2. Is that a fact? There's a lot more to it than your simplistic approach.

While it is true that the power to decide is with the SDs, many of them do understand what happened at the 1968 convention and fear a repeat of that if they overturn the will of the voters.

[paperbag_ princess]

3. It is simple but it is not my approach...I would have come up with a better system

You may very well be right. That may factor into their decision too....but that is all just a best guess..

We can't know ultimately how they are going to decide until they do.

[okoboji]

5. Overturning the WILL of the voters?

If as many republicans have truly crossed over and voted for Obama, then for the super delegates to vote for Obama, would be wrong as well because it really wouldn't be the will of the voters (democrats), just the will of the republicans.

And for the msm to put out the fear mongering of the 1968 event, that's just there job these days.

[Kahuna]

19. You are obviously too young to have seen what happened at the

1968 convention. It was a nightmare that was aired on nightly television. The msm doesn't have to fearmonger about it. Anybody old enough to remember seeing it will never forget what happened and its aftermath. :scared:

[paperbag_ princess]

27. there are a lot of people too young to remember that

but most everyone remembers Bush/Gore....I think that the average democratic voter recognizes that the system does not always work the way it should.

[tekisui]

4. The SD's can vote for whomever they choose.

They have two strong candidates, neither of which are "fringe". They are both mainstream, winnable choices. The SD's have NO motivation or reason to go against the votes of the people.

If it does go to the Convention and Obama has the Pledged delegate lead and the popular vote, the SD's will give us an Obama Nomination on the first and only vote.

[Royal Oak Rog]

6. Please take your nonsense back to the Republican party from whence you came

Take Tonya Harding back with you. I was convinced they were trying to destroy this party when that Republican Lite, sex crazed Bubba got into office, now I'm sure of it.

[MonkeyFunk]

7. Freep much?

Good lord, you people are so transparent.

[Royal Oak Rog]

13. Bill Clinton on Rush Limbaugh Show Day of Texas Primary

Who's the Freeper?

[MonkeyFunk]

14. That's another lie

he didn't do the Rush Limbaugh show.

Anybody who obsesses on the clenis is a freeper, imo.

[Royal Oak Rog]

17. Here Ya Go

EIB Guest Host While Rush Is "Sick" 3/4/2008 Mark Davis of WBAP Dallas/Ft. Worth Link for March 4 show



Mark Interviews Bill Clinton (no, really) on the Rush Limbaugh Show

Ex-President Clinton Talks to WBAP's Mark Davis

(WBAP) - Still campaigning for his wife on a critical primary election day, Ex-President Bill Clinton told
WBAP's Mark Davis that he believes Hillary Clinton will defeat Democratic rival Barack Obama on Tuesday.

Click here for the complete interview




So, Bill Clinton goes on the Rush Limbaugh show to "campaign" for his wife, a sure way to remind/inflame local republicans to vote for Hillary, as GOTV insurance for McCain.

[Royal Oak Rog]

18. Here's the link

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_030408/home.guest.html

[MonkeyFunk]

20. He appeared on Mark Davis' show in Texas

Not the Rush limbaugh show.

You honestly think that would've snuck by here on DU unnoticed?

See this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4971403&mesg_id=4978865

[Royal Oak Rog]

28. Jeez, I gave you the link to Rush's show

And it didn't sneak by, look further up the page. Read Much? I suggest you get back to the Freeper boards, you make little sense here. Take Senator Tonya Harding with you, I'm sure she's over there telling of the vast experience of her and John McCain.

[MonkeyFunk]

29. read this and try to understand it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4971403&mesg_id=4978865

[BumRushDaShow]

35. Anyone who is a "guest host"

either appears in the studio at WABC -OR- has his or her own show (if they have one) broadcast remotely THROUGH the Clear Channel satellite feed during Rush's timeslot as part of Rush's broadcast. If they don't have a show, the station will merely call up the guest host and will feed that host's remote call through the studio and the producer will manage the callers/host/commercials as part of the show. So regular listener's of Rush will hear that guest host or his/her show DURING Rush's timeslot.

Did you somehow think that Rush would have 3 hours of dead air when he's off?

[Royal Oak Rog]

51. Don't confuse her with the facts!

[Kahuna]

25. Do you EVER post from facts. He most certainly did do the limbaugh show.

Now what????

[MonkeyFunk]

30. Nope

and yes, I always post from facts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4971403&mesg_id=4978865

[BumRushDaShow]

36. You have never worked at a radio station have you?

I have including doing a call-in talk show. You and the poster you linked to don't understand how "remote feeds" work.

[Vinca]

8. It will be a dream come true for McCain if the SD overthrow the

elected delegates. Do you think the young voters filling arenas for Obama are going to show up for Hillary? Not in large numbers. Don't you think African-Americans will be highly offended if a black candidate with a majority of elected delegates is not the nominee? I'll pull the Democratic lever for whoever the candidate is just to stop McCain, but many people will not.

[Royal Oak Rog]

10. It's not about that for Hillary, it's about 2012

Don't ya get it she destroys Obama and the party to take on the corpse of John McCain in 2012.

[Kahuna]

22. If they overturn the voters, I will change my voter registration the very

next day to Independent. I'm sure many will do the same thing.

[rug]

9. Very calm and accurate description. It's not how it should be but it is how it was designed.

Obama and Clinton both knew it going in.

[eShirl]

23. I hope they do both work within this system

and not try to bend the rules "in the middle of the game" so to speak

[Gore1FL]

24. You are ultimately right inthe assessment

however, to think pledged delegate counts do not play a major, if not majority role in the decision making process is to think incorrectly.

Many things can bring a super delegate to the final personal decision. The super delegate's own electability after the decision, the candidate's the super delegate chooses favorite color, softdrink or radio station might play a hand in it.

It might be popular vote. It ight Popular vote plus some modifier * caucus vote totals., It might be number of caucus wins. It might be number of primary wins. It might be total number of states won. In might be how many states the candidate puts in play. It might be current GE polling. It might be who ran a better campaign, or more unifying campaign, or who is the best speaker. It might be the brand of luggage they use. It might the number of syllables in their name. It might be a freaking lot of things.

However if a large portion of the party who elected delegates by a specific and measured and agreed to allocation might get really pissed if a candidate with a substantial pledged delegate lead comes to a convention and loses. See, popular vote, and past voting turnout in the GE, electoral votes of the states, etc, are built into the dlegate allocations. To ignore a big lead, ignores a lot of important facts that go beyond the mere number of delegates--that number represents those facts.

So the it's over, do the math are not pointless, nor have they ever been satisfactorily countered. One would think if they could be countered they would have been rather than the dismissal as pointless.

When 60%+ of the super delegates have to come to a conclusion that counters all the factors that already are included in the pledged delegate count, then one can only consider such an outcome to be unlikely, at best. When the need for 60%+ is the best case scenario for the second place candidate the math argument gets a little stronger. When 56% of the Super delegates have already committed to one candidate or the other, and the ratio is for the second place candidate is significantly less for the second place candidate that is needed overall, the math gets even stronger.

Worse case scenario under curtrent conditions is Obama comes to the convention 100 pledged delegates ahead. Clinton in that scenario needs over 79% of those remaining to buy into the "big state popular vote where caucuses don't count" argument and forget the pre-measured facts of the pledged delegate allocation, and reverse the 6-monhs of contests leading up to the convention while doing so, is more than a little freaking optimistic. To assume that at least 79% of the Super Delegates don't understand the process, the fatrs of the pledged delegates, and the party consequences, is frankly pointless. For that "Best case 100 delegate lead I mentioned, Clinton has to win every one of the remaining primary by 6%, including at least 5 of which he is expected to win by much a larger margin than the 6% Hillary would have to win them by.

The math is a much better indicator than the what-if fantasies proposed by those unwilling to do or believe the math.

Name some Super delegates who you believe will make their decision unencumbered by the pledged delegate numbers,or who you believe do not understant the factos used in their allocation that they will easily dismiss them.

[dkf]

31. The first priority of the Dem convention should be to get rid of SDs.

Repubs don't have them, we shouldn't either.

[paperbag_ princess]

33. I agree

I think we should also get rid of caucuses....and we should do something so that states don't get punished just because they don't want Iowa and New Hampshire to decide our nominee every election cycle.

[MadBadger]

40. Did Iowa and NH decided our nominee this election cycle?

Doesnt look like it to me.

[paperbag_ princess]

41. no

but it hard to argue that they do not have an overly strong influence. This year was the exception not the rule. You know that.

[MadBadger]

43. I dont agree taht they should have such a strong influence, but I dont agree with what FL/MI did.

They knew it was against the rules and did it anyway. They have to pay the price. If they wanted something to change, wait till the next cycle and try to change the rules. I personally like that states like Iowa and NH have a big say. I would argue to switch the order though, where maybe Nevada goes first, followed by NH, then SC, then Iowa. I think having these first four early small states is good for the democratic party.

[Dinger]

34. 2 Da Greatest Page Wit Ya!

That's Wisconsinese for "To the greatest page with you!"

:patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

[Jawja]

37. I believe the real MYTH

is that Hillary Clinton is the best candidate for the GE.

If Obama goes into the convention with the most States won, the popular vote and the most delegates won, it WILL be STEALING and CHEATING if the super delegates give it to Clinton. The only reason the super delegates would do this would be based on the MYTH that Hillary Clinton would be the best candidate against McCain in the GE.

The result of this thinking will be a bitterly divided Democratic Party and a McCain victory in the GE.

[paperbag_ princess]

46. you are going to have to prove that following the rules is stealing and cheating

it isn't so....just because you wish it.

[Jawja]

52. I don't have to PROVE

anything.

If Obama goes into the Convention with MORE pledged delegates,MORE States and MORE popular votes then Clinton and the Super Delegates give it to Clinton, that is STEALING a victory from Obama. It may be indeed be "theft by the rules," but THEFT it is,nonetheless.

To give it to Clinton under the above conditions is also CHEATING the majority of the voters, out of their candidate. It may be "cheating by the rules", but it will be cheating, nonetheless.

[maddiejoan]

38. exactly so

Kick

[MadBadger]

39. Alright genius, what ever you say.

[Usrename]

44. Can you describe a plausible path to victory for her.

I'm curious about what you think Hillary's path to victory really is.

How is she going to win this thing? Can she lose the delegate race, lose the popular vote, and somehow come away with a win from the convention?

And if she does, this scenario helps the party how? She won't ever win a general if she does that, will she? Her negatives will be even higher than they were when this thing started. A year ago half the people in the country wouldn't vote for her. If she snakes the nomination away from a movement that won more votes and more delegates then she'd be almost guaranteed to lose every state in the general election. Half of the people that can still stomach her now will never vote for her if she continues.

How does she get to the Whitehouse?

Do you have any plausible scenario?

[paperbag_ princess]

48. every win makes a stronger case for Obama but

it depends solely on how effectively the campaigns can argue their case. That is something that none of us have control over. If her campaign can convince the superdelegates then she wins. The more she can win the stronger her case is and the easier it is to argue. The strongest case doesn't always win though...it just depends on how convincing each camp can be.

I guess it is a different discussion to talk about how far one should go to win in a primary...and it is one that I have not completely resolved in my own mind. I also think it is too early to determine who could win the GE. I think that they both have good chances against McCain...but neither is lock.

but ultimately it does not matter what we think...it matters what the SDa think.

[Usrename]

49. You are avoiding the heart of the issue. I think you know it, too.

So what if she can convince the superdelegates to go her way? How does that help her get to the Whitehouse?

If she did this it would completely destroy the movement that has grown up behind Obama. Her negatives would soar above 70%.

How does this help her get to the Whitehouse; she gets the nomination, but as a result of HOW she got it, only 30% of the country would even consider voting for her? Can you come up with ANY plausible scenario of how she can win?

I don't believe you can do it, no matter how hard you try.

[Exilednight]

45. Your logic is flawed.....

Super delegates were created for two purposes.

1. To stop a person who does not fit into the Democratic ideology and prevent a non-Democrat from hijacking the party. That can not be said about Obama.

2. To prevent a person from winning the nomination that has no chance in winning. This argument falls apart quickly since polling shows that Obama would win more electoral votes than Hillary would.

If SD's use any other criteria, I would suggest they look over their shoulder for the up and coming Democrat who can take their seat.

[paperbag_ princess]

47. I didn't put forth any logic of my own

I just stated the rules as they stand.

At this point everyone is just guessing at what the superdelegates are going to do.....it is the campaigns that are going to have to make their case. It really does not matter the purpose of their creation...only what they will do with their vote.

[Seabiscuit]

50. Hammering some of the Obamanoids over the head with the truth like this is an exercise

in futility. They won't take their heads out of their arses.

But the truth you speak needs to be spoken nonetheless, because for every post like this there seem to be 10 "Its' over"/"Do the math"/"Why hasn't Hillary dropped out yet" threads by the koolaid drinkers.