I'm a DEMOCRAT but if super delegates override pledged delegates I STAY HOME IN NOVEMBER!

[wndycty]

If Hillary Clinton wins fair and square by securing the most pledged delegates I will be happy to vote for her. If Barack Obama wins fair and square by securing the most pledged delegates I will be happy to vote for him. If however, super delegates over turn the will of the people by selecting the candidate who does not have the most pledged delegates I'm staying home in November.

I originally planned to just not vote in the presidential election, but that is not good enough. Many of these super delegates are elected officials down ticket who need to be held accountable if the will of the people is not followed. All of my elected officials actually support Obama however the party needs to know that this issue is important enough that its worth sacrificing others over. Maybe if the super delegates realize their butts and majorities in Congress are on the line they will do the right and just thing.

AGAIN, if Hillary secures the most pledged delegates I will vote for her, and be happy to do so.

This is not an "if I don't get my way I'm not voting" post, I have said if Hillary wins the most pledged delegates I would gladly support her.

Forget demonstrating in Denver, lets send a message to the super delegates. Go against the will of the people as reflected by the pledged delegates and ruin the party.

Can I get an AMEN?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wndycty]

2. Neither freeper or plain ignorant. . .

. . .if any Democrat wins the nomination (Obama or Clinton) wins the nomination by OVER RIDING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE which is reflected by the number of pledged delegates we deserve McCain.

I will vote for Hillary ONLY if she secures the most pledged delegates.

[sellitman]

7. Having that happen would suck.

Staying home if that happens sucks even more.

Get off your high horse.

[Kahuna]

4. You're entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to call a

long time and respected DUer a freeper.

[wndycty]

5. Thanks for the back up!

:kick:

[Kahuna]

8. We've had our differences back in the day.. But I never ever

considered you anything but a loyal and steadfast Democrat. :yourock:

[wndycty]

16. Are you sure we have had our differences?

I think we have always been on the same sides on most of DU's divisive issues.

[Kahuna]

17. Most of the time..

we have been on the same side. But you're a bit more conciliatory than I am. :)

[sellitman]

12. I gave a choice "B" n/t

[madaboutharry]

29. I am with Kahuna here.

You are entitled to your opinion, but calling a long time and respected DU member a Freeper or ignorant is out of line. You should apologize.

[sellitman]

49. I don't respect a Dem who promotes staying home and not voting.

I voted for Obama and would hate for the Super Delegates to pull a switcher-roo but.... Promoting no vote at all gets the Democrats four years of McCain.

And that is fucking wrong.

[wndycty]

66. I don't respect a party to promotes back room deals and ignoring the will of the people

which exactly is what is happening if we give either Obama or Hillary the nod as the result of a backroom deal.

[paperbag_ princess]

78. it is not ignoring the will of the people

it is adding their will to that of the people...The people will vote and if no candidate reaches 2025...then the SDs vote adding to (not taking away) the will of the people that was already expressed.

I don't like how camp Obama is misrepresenting the system. It is a flawed system but we have to follow it. You are basically saying that you won't vote because the rules were followed and you just didn't like those rules.

[madaboutharry]

91. I did not advocate staying home, I said that

calling a respected member a Freeper is wrong. Please read more carefully. :)

[Kahuna]

58. I left out the apology part. But I did consider putting in my post. And

I do think one is owed.

[Adelante]

38. Wndy is no freeper

You've been here long enough to know that.

[wndycty]

82. Thanks WesDem

:kick:

[sellitman]

3. Duplicate post

Browser hung up.

[mmonk]

6. I understand the sentiment. Nobody particularly wants something

that's looks or gives the appearance of an insiders game.

[wndycty]

11. Hillary will have won the battle but lost the war. . .African Americans and younger voters will...

...revolt.

[UALRBSofL]

37. Why do you say african americans?

As usual, the Obama campaign brings up Hillary and Bill as being racists. That said, Hillary supporters are SICK of it.

[Spider Jerusalem]

46. That should be pretty obvious to anyone with a brain;

the first black man with a real shot at the presidency has the nomination STOLEN from him? (Because that's what the perception would be, if he has MORE pledged delegates, and Hillary gets the nomination anyway.) Not only can the Democratic Party forget about the African-American vote going to Hillary in November, that's something that might spark RIOTS.

[wndycty]

81. That and there is a strong perception in our community that the Democrats take us for granted. . .

. . .seriously.

[Kahuna]

15. Right now I don't know what I will do as the makeup of the SCOTUS hangs

in the balance. I do know that I will change my party affiliation to Independent.

[City Lights]

30. The USSC is another thing that makes me sick about HRC declaring

McCain more fit to be CiC than Obama. From where I sit, the make up of the USSC doesn't seem to matter to Clinton. Someone needs to ask her if she's okay with the judges a President McCain would appoint. Her glowing words about McCain need to be thrown right back in her face.

[Kahuna]

59. Good point. nt

[mmonk]

54. And I understand that sentiment as well.

Sucks, doesn't it?

[NDambi]

9. Count me in your lot..and many more that I know..

[flor de jasmim]

10. THINK SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS...

[wndycty]

20. I will and the super delegates better FUCKING think about them too. . .

. . .because they will fuck it up. If Hillary steals the nomination she will not win the general election.

[GoldieAZ49]

47. yanno, that is the smartest thing I have heard yet, they always use that

to get the sheep to vote for who they say, turning it around on THEM

Their super delegate system is undemocratic, the responsibility is on THEM not on the voters. We did our part, in record numbers, they damn well better do theirs or they will not be holding elected office for long and the SCOTUS appointments will be on them.

[JVS]

64. Obama supporters need to swamp Denver to demonstrate that will of the people must not be denied

If they see enough people demanding they not fuck it up, they'll realize that nominating Hillary over the wishes of the people is a bad idea.

[IndianaGreen]

13. Well, we do have many honest Democrats to elect at the local level

and that's where I am going to concentrate my efforts. Our Democratic slate will be hurt by having a slime ball like Hillary at the top of the ticket, so the best we can hope for is that enough voters take the trouble to split their vote and vote for our local Democrats.

[GCP]

14. No - don't you get it? It's about SCOTUS

Let McCain in and you can kiss goodbye to any balance on the Supreme Court.
Get off of your high horse and think of the good of the country, not your precious idealism.

[wndycty]

18. And that should be taken into consideration BEFORE the super delegates. . .

. . .disenfranchise the people.

[sellitman]

25. My candidates DK and then JE were ignored by the media

I could of packed my bags and gone home twice but I realize the most important thing left to do is get a "D" in the White House. My next choice is Obama BUT

Any "D" is better than McNasty.

Any one.

[backscatter712]

19. I will vote for the winner of the pledged delegates,

and if that person isn't the official Democratic nominee, I will write him in.

[hobbit709]

21. If you don't vote, you forfeit your right to bitch.

[wndycty]

23. Oh as a person who votes in every election. I FUCKING VOTE by staying home. . .

. . .you are not talking about someone who is disengaged. I'm voting by staying home.

Would you rather I vote and vote for McCain?

[sellitman]

26. That is voting for McCain

Anyway you slice it.

[hobbit709]

31. Then you become part of the problem

The percentage of people not voting is high enough without adding to them. I've been voting for 40 years and 90% of the time I was on the short end-it doesn't stop me from trying.
Democracy is the worst possible form of government-except for all the other ones, Winston Churchill
And I have seen other ones in action.

[GoldieAZ49]

51. What good does it do to vote...

If the super delegates overrule the voters?

We have voted in record number in this primary, if they SELECT the nominee against the majority of votes cast, why bother?

Our primary votes give us the right to bitch.

[Kahuna]

62. I think many Americans, mostly Dems will believe that their votes don't

count either way. The republicans steal them and the Dems ignore them. They ALL suck.

[Joe Chi Minh]

85. Maybe charades have grown on some DUers. They can be quite spectacular, after all.

[Benhurst]

22. A plurality means nothing under the rules. Anything short of the magic

2025 is a loss. The "will of the people?" What does that mean? Which people. A majority have voted against each and every one of our candidates, including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. No matter who the super delegates choose to back and push over the 2025 threshold, they will flying in the face of the choice of elected delegates and the people who voted for them.

You seem to have decided that a plurality justifies a nomination. Maybe that is a good idea which should be instituted for the 2012 primary election. But under the 2008 rules for our primary, agreed upon by all our candidates, 2025 elected delegates is the magic number-- anything short of that is a loss. And all our candidates, from Mike Gravel to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have failed to reach that number. They are, under the rules, all losers. Pretending, contrary to fact, that a plurality is what matters is inventing a new rule.

[Lyric]

24. And what if the popular vote goes to one candidate and the most delegates to another?

It's entirely possible. So what happens when the "will of the people" (as demonstrated by the overall popular vote) is circumvented by political machinery?

[wndycty]

27. That is the only circumstance in which I'm willing to allow the super delegates

. . .to decide it which ever way they decide to go.

[Jersey Devil]

61. How do you determine the popular vote when some caucus states

do not report the total number of participants? Furthermore, do you count Michigan where Obama was not even on the ballot?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

28. The Rules Exist For A Reason. SD's Exist For A Reason. If Ya Don't Like It, Change It.

But this time around, that's part of the rules and part of our process. All this talk about overturning the will of the people is highly immature and ignorant as it relates to the process. It is over reactionary and over dramatic, and is really quite silly. The process is set up so that they have some say in the nominee. Furthermore, your whole 'will of the people' argument is just oh so silly, since you're acting like the popular vote is like 70%-30% or something, and they're going to install the 30% candidate. That ain't reality bub. The reality is that from a standpoint of the will of the people, the people have made it known that BOTH candidates would be acceptable in the GE. That BOTH have enough support from the Democratic Party to be chosen (Hillary, actually, has even more support than Obama). So spare me this will of the people crap. We are choosing a nominee here. We are weeding out weaker candidates and choosing who we feel is strong enough to run in the GE. From a standpoint of the 'people', it has been quite readily shown through how monumentally close this all is that the people consider BOTH of these candidates to be good enough to run in November. But NONE of these candidates can get enough pledged delegates to outright win the nomination. So what does that mean? It means your will of the people argument is ignorant in concept and false. The will of the people shows that both candidates are acceptable. If one was to be weeded out, the other would've been able to get enough pledges to WIN the nomination. That didn't occur. Know why? Because the contest is so close. Because the will of the people is that BOTH are fine. To have the SD's, based on many electoral factors, put one of them over the edge for strategical reasons, is not only PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE, but is even part of the goddamn rules.

So quit your damn cryin and overdramatic crap. There are rules and processes for a reason. There is nothing wrong with the SD's pushing a candidate over the edge here, since neither one could achieve it on their own. Wake up and open your mind to political reality a bit. And if you want to be so utterly selfish and tantrum throwing, that you'd rather see a republican win the presidency and wreak further havoc, merely because you are bitter, then I can't stop you. But shame on you.

[mudesi]

57. Unfortunately, that would mean a McCain presidency

You're right, of course. The super delegates are there so that they can overturn the pledged delegate count, which is now mathematically certain to be for Obama.

But that means we have to wait until August for the nominee to be decided. McCain therefore has a 6 month head start. It also means that people like the OP will not vote. Again, be prepared for a McCain presidency.

It's not against the rules for Clinton to drop out, either. She should have done so last week.

[elocs]

32. Staying home in November is an ignorant and short sighted decision.

Republicans, even ones who do not like McCain are far more pragmatic. They know the next president will either be McCain, or Clinton or Obama and they prefer a Republican. They know a Republican president will be a check on the Democratic Congress and McCain would appoint far more conservative judges to the Supreme Court (remember them?) who will serve for a lifetime. I support Obama, but I will not pout--I will vote for the Democratic nominee in November.

[wndycty]

35. So you are saying we should just take it if Hillary STEALS the fucking nomination?

:kick:

[kentuck]

33. That is the Clinton plan...

in my opinion. To win the Super delegates. If they win PA, they will make an aggressive and concerted effort to get the super delegates remaining.

On edit: of course, I think John Edwards is getting ready to endorse Obama as we speak. :-)

[elixir]

I'm happy to send a message to the superdelegates but your OP header indicates you won't be

voting, which I find very hard to believe.

[wndycty]

36. Believe it, I will not be voting at all. If the super delegates know their asses, their offices...

. . .are on the line too maybe they will think twice before stealing the nomination.

If Hillary wins be securing the most pledged delegates I will happily vote for her.

[BlackVelvet04]

34. If she wins by getting the most superdelegates

it's STILL fair and square. That's the way the system is set up and if you don't like it then you need to work to change the system.

[BootinUp]

39. WAAAA! I don't like the rules unless they help Obama! nt

[wndycty]

41. Go right ahead and mock me. . .

. . .all you want. :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi:

[BootinUp]

42. Ok thanks. nt

[powergirl]

40. I will vote for the candidate with the most ELECTED delegates

Obama

[annie1]

43. great, next!

[against all enemies]

44. If the party goes against the will of it's members, I will no longer be a Dem.

[Pisces]

45. Please sign this petition to have Hillary disclose her taxes

Here is the link

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/hcinctax/petition-sign.html?

[Window]

48. Amen brother/sister!!

[wndycty]

87. Its brother BTW

;)

[polichick]

50. The time to protest (or quit the party) is AFTER the election...

...unless you'd like a draft and decades more war.

[wndycty]

52. If they do it and win, they have no incentive to do the right thing

:kick:

[polichick]

53. The country is more important than our anger at the Dem party...

I will quit the party if the superdelegates go against the will of the people ~ but there's not a chance in the world that I'll fail to vote against McCain when the stakes are so high.

Staying home ensures that more of our kids will lose their lives ~ that is not an option.

[Benhurst]

55. Unless one of the candidates gets a majority and reaches 2025 elected delegates through

an admittedly flawed process, just what is "the Will of the People?"

No matter which candidate the super delegates back, they will be overriding the votes of the majority of Democrats who bothered vote or attend the caucuses.

I think there should have been a provision for a national runoff between the top two if neither achieved majority support; but it's too late for that now, since this must be resolved under the 2008 rules.

Our candidate, is not going to be the choice of the majority of voters no matter who is picked. We need better rules for 2012. `

[polichick]

70. As things stand, I'd say that if both candidates are short of 2025...

...the will of the people is shown by the most pledged delegates.

[JVS]

65. The time to protest is at the convention so that they can avoid making the mistake at all

[polichick]

68. Yes, I agree with protesting at the convention - but not with sitting out the election.

I see that I didn't make that clear in my earlier post.

[Thepricebreaker]

56. I with you.... I leave the President portion of the ballot blank..

[polichick]

71. You must not be in danger of being drafted...

...or have children who could be drafted in a McCain admin. Not voting is completely unthinkable imo.

[Zachstar]

60. Amen!

I will not encourage bullshit.

And that includes any backroom deals for Clinton to be VP.

[EndElectoral]

63. This superdelegate thing has to go after this. It is elitist and offensive to me

[annie1]

67. what about if superdels follow their winning states, and she wins popular vote...

even though he wins the pledged dels.

[ctaylors6]

83. What if SDs followed the popular vote (and/or pledged delegates) of their OWN state?

[gulliver]

69. Good! Stay home. The last thing we need is a bunch ...

... of fringe fools out canvassing for the Dem candidate. They just work against us.

The "I'm gonna stay home and cry" folks are such a small percentage that they don't matter at the ballot box. And on the street, all they do is turn off everyone they talk to. One can only take so much bad breath and pee pants whining.

For every one of these bozos we are lucky enough to lose, there are ten folks who don't have substandard IQs who will do what it takes to defeat McCain. Those are the folks we need. Let the my-way-or-the-highway bums walk. Point them to the nearest lake.

[polichick]

72. It's such a selfish attitude - basically saying "Tough shit" to...

...all those kids who could be drafted and lose their lives in a McCain administration.

Not to mention what would happen with regard to global warming and other critical issues.

[wndycty]

86. If you knew anything about me, about my history on both DU and in real world politics. . .

. . .you wouldn't be calling me a fringe fool.

[lojasmo]

73. I'm gonna have a hard time voting for Clinton given IWR and Kyl-Leiberman

If she gets the nomination undemocratically, using underhanded, shady, armtwisting, I will not be casting a presidential preference vote.

If she somehow pulls off legitimate wins (FL and MI having re-votes, etc) I'll certainly vote for her.

MARK MY WORDS! If Clinton is the nominee, the next POTUS will be McCain.

[ruggerson]

74. They can't "override" anything. They are an integral part of the process, like you and I.

If you don't like the current rules work to change them.

I don't like caucuses - but if Barack wins by taking more caucus states, he did it WITHIN our current rules and I will vote for him.

If Hillary wins because the superdelegates move to her, it is a thoroughly legitimate win.

Those are the rules they ALL agreed to before the game began.

[damitajo1]

75. hold your horses

neither candidate is going to get the 1/2 needed to win. so nothing is overruled. there's my amen.

[Upton]

76. Great post, my sentiments exactly

except I won't stay home, too many important state and local races. For pres.,I'll vote Green or some other obscure third party.

[Evergreen Emerald]

77. so...you want to change the rules in the middle of the campaign season?

Typical...as long as if favors your candidate, change the rules of the game.

[wndycty]

80. No leave the rules as is, but if those rules are used to go against the winner of pledged delegates

. . .don't count on my vote.

[ZombieHorde]

79. This is not an "if I don't get my way I'm not voting" post

And you also typed:

If however, super delegates over turn the will of the people by selecting the candidate who does not have the most pledged delegates I'm staying home in November.

It seems to me that if you don't get your way then you are not voting.

Your desire and plan for revenge will hurt our environment, schools, our chances for leaving Iraq, our senior citizens depending on social security,...

Revenge is satisfying, but in this situation, it is not worth it.

[wndycty]

84. No if Hillary wins it FAIR AND SQUARE I will march to the polls with my chest stuck out

and vote for the 1st woman president. She is not my choice in the primary, and I really badly want to be able to be enthusiastic about her if she got the nomination. But not if she stills it.

[ZombieHorde]

90. I must of communicated poorly.

If you choose not to vote because you do not like who the super delegates choose, then you are "if I don't get my way I'm not voting". Your way = the super delegates voting for the popular choice.

Though I don't like it, it is not theft for the super delegates to vote against our will. It is fair and square.

Personally I believe that only registered Democrats should be able to vote in the primaries and the super delegates should be removed from the process.

[Joe Chi Minh]

88. Don't you like charades? They can be quite a spectacle. I think they've

grown on me. It's an acquired taste, I believe.

[metalluk]

89. Staying Home

The superdelegates are every bit as much a part of the overall nomination process as are the caucus delegates. Both of those kinds of delegates are "undemocratic" in a sense; only the delegates elected by popular vote are selected by a truly democratic process. For better or for worse, the Democrats long ago opted not to base nomination exclusively on the "will of the people."

In Texas, Obama will likely walk away, in the end, with more than half of the delegates even though Clinton won the popular vote. How is that any different than Clinton walking away with more than half of the superdelegates even if Obama has more caucus and popular vote delegates than Clinton?

Clinton may very well win the overall popular vote and still have fewer elected delegates (primary and caucus combined) than Obama. Why shouldn't the superdelegates be swayed as much by the majority vote of the people as by the Obama's advantage in the caucases where the liberal wing of the party is represented disproportionately?

If the Democratic Party had intended that the superdelegates always simply fall into step with the elected delegate count, there would be no point in having superdelegates, other than to allow party bigwigs a ticket to the convention. The point of having superdelegates was to allow the party insiders an opportunity to override the results of the primary season, in the case of closely contested races, if it was felt that the good of the party was at stake.

There is always a risk that some of the supporters for either candidate will refuse to support the other if nominated. That is my situation precisely though in the opposite manner of your own dilemma. I can't personally vote for a candidate as manifestly underqualified for the presidency as Barack Obama.

[wndycty]

92. Welcome to DU

:kick: