Hillary supporters, here's what I'm afraid of...

[Nine]

I'm afraid this meme the Obama campaign is spreading - that pledged delegates and not superdelegates are what matter - is going to become an accepted truth among the public, even though it's completely wrong. They want people to believe that if superdelegates exercise their free will in voting that they are somehow "overturning the will of the people". All that is needed is for the media to act as willing accomplices in promulgating this idea. And we know how much the media hate the Clintons and have done for years. If this fairy tale becomes accepted as reality by the public, are some superdelegates going to feel pressured into following the pledged delegate count rather than their consciences? In 2000 we saw this same tactic by Republicans, where they tried (and to a degree succeeded in) creating a false impression that Bush had already won the election and Gore was trying to overturn the results. Now I see the Obama camp similarly trying to manipulate the public perception in their favor. Already there is talk of Obama supporters descending on the convention much like the GOP mob (what did we call it? - the Brooks Brothers mob?) did in Florida. We cannot let this happen.

A great number of states have already had their primaries or caucuses, but that doesn't mean we can cross them off the list for now. In those states, especially the ones that went for Clinton, we need to be educating people about the real nomination process and rules and challenging this myth of pledged delegates before it has a chance to take root. Below are a couple good articles that explain some things:

http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/48040.html
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/25/superdelegates/

And of course there is the fact that Obama has been accepting endorsements from superdelegates all along, which belies the Obama camp's contention that superdelegates have a moral obligation to sit on their hands or to defer to the pledged delegate final counts.

[Evergreen Emerald]

1. They are attempting to change the rules mid-election.

Because it will come down to super delegates. They don't like the rules the way they are because the rules are not favoring Obama.

[UALRBSofL]

5. He's also been

buying the superdelegates 10 to 1 over Hillary. I suppose money speaks louder then the strength and qualifications of a candidate.

[Bluerthanblue]

9. care to prove this slander?

go ahead-

I dare you-


PROOF-

[Evergreen Emerald]

11. It appears that you have your head in the sand when it comes to your candidate

Of course it is common knowledge to those of us who are listening.

[Evergreen Emerald]

19. here you go.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4989272

[Bluerthanblue]

29. I appreciate your showing me this- I did not

see the post you linked to.

There are some real problems with the information on the sight that is linked to-

The 2 'pac's Hillbac and Hopefund aren't equally documented.

There are no statements from Hillpac beyond 2006?

The Hope Fund's are listed- but nothing from Hill- 2006-2008.

How can it be said that Obama 'outspent' Hillary if there are no records to date from Hillary?


I find this very odd- and troubling.

Can you set me straight on THIS issue?

And I do thank you for educating me about the concept of 'buying' delegates. I was not aware of this.


peace~

[Bake]

27. You can look it up.

Obama has contributed $$$$$$ and lots of it to many of the supers campaigns.

Or you can continue to enjoy the view up your backside.

Bake

[Bluerthanblue]

41. Thank you I did- and guess what I found out????????????

HILLARY is the super shopper-

NOT Obama-


The nice link that was provided, didn't factor in all of Hillpac's purchases-

Have a look:

Clinton's leadership political action committee, HILLPAC, which was formed during the 2002 election cycle, in addition to her Senate campaign committee, gave politicians now serving as superdelegates about $617,500 in the 2002 and 2004 election cycles, bringing her total since 2001 to at least $853,600. This includes a $10,000 contribution to Obama's Senate committee in 2004; his PAC, Hope Fund, made a $4,200 contribution to her Senate re-election in 2006.

Obama's Senate committee gave $18,000 to candidates who are now superdelegates during the 2004 cycle, which would bring his total to $729,000 if contributions prior to 2005 were included.

How's your view?


peace~

[Window]

22. That is total Bullshit!

[EmilyAnne]

33. Its not changing the rules. Those are expectations, not rules. We all know they can do whatever

the hell they want, but we expect that their pledge to keep the best interest of the Dem party in mind will lead them to consider the choice of the majority of voters. See?

[sandnsea]

2. If OUR votes don't matter

then what the hell did we just spend millions of dollars for. We should have just let the superdelegates choose a year ago.

What in the hell is wrong with all of you Hillary supporters.

[bilgewaterbill]

What's wrong with them is that they are losing.

They wouldn't be championing the "disenfranchised" if they were ahead or if Obama had been the only one on the tickets in those states.

[Nine]

15. the superdelegates are NOT deciding the election

It's not that superdelegates matter more than pledged delegates. Superdelegates make up less than 20% of the delegate total and they do not vote as a block. It's just that superdelegates actually "matter" this year whereas most years they don't because the nominee is decided before the superdelegates get to have any say at all - just as late primary/caucus states "matter" this year whereas in most years it's decided before it ever gets to us. The advantage of being one of the early primary/caucus states is that you have a lot of power to set things in motion. The advantage of being a late primary/caucus state is that every once in a while (not often), like this year, you actually get to play a role in helping to break the tie. Superdelegates are similar to late primary/caucus states in that regard because they go dead last. But most people accept that going earlier has the bigger benefit. Have you ever heard of states vying to go last? If a large number of states have already held their primaries or caucuses and Candidate X is leading, and then the remaining states end up changing the outcome so that Candidate Y wins, would you argue that those later states "overturned" the results of the earlier states? No. It's just that they went last.

(edited typo)

[sandnsea]

21. Oh.bull.shit.

I live in a late primary state. A superdelegates vote IS NOT like mine, not remotely. I do not turn my vote over to a bunch of party insiders, not for one minute. If half the country had ALL decided on one candidate, the way it did in 2004, then that's the will of the people and I respect it.

The superdelegates are there in case we find out a nominee is a murderer or something outrageous like that. They are NOT intended to come in at the last minute and tell the country to fuck off.

[Nine]

28. That's simply not true.

Show me a historical basis for saying that "The superdelegates are there in case we find out a nominee is a murderer or something outrageous like that."

[sandnsea]

31. It's to prevent losing candidates

And the only thing that would really create a losing candidate is something catastrophic, like a murderer or some scandal arising between primaries and the convention. Clearly the party itself has no clue where the interests of the people lie because they completely missed the simmering anger over the war, outsourcing, corporate interests, etc.

[Nine]

35. I repeat, show me the historical basis for that claim.

Incidentally, you really are the campaign of hope if you think that is the only thing that would create a losing candidate.

[sandnsea]

38. Supers are to prevent losing candidates?

That's what they're for.

They've proven they don't know anything about how the American people think or they'd have never concocted the stupid IWR strategy. Their only usefulness is to prevent some hideous scandal.

[AJH032]

37. wrong

Our votes DO matter. They're just not the ONLY things that matter.

[sandnsea]

39. In a democracy, they're supposed to be

What the hell kind of American says our votes are not the only thing that matters. :crazy:

[AJH032]

40. Just like the electoral college, right?

Bush did not win the popular vote in 2000, but he became President. If everything was truly democratic, we would base our nominee and president on popular vote winners, not pledged delegate/super delegate/electoral college votes, don't you agree?

[sandnsea]

44. They're based on OUR votes, like delegates are

Not the same thing as the superdelegates at all.

[AJH032]

45. but they are NOT our votes

afterall, Clinton won Nevada/Texas yet LOST the delegate count. Is that democratic? I'll answer for you: no, no it is not.

Like it or not, the purpose of the superdelegates (undemocratic as it may be) was never intended to be simply to follow the people's will. At the same time, we don't have to follow the super delegates' will either, and pledged delegates actually make up a greater percentage of the total delegates than do supers.

[sandnsea]

47. Because the party chooses proportional representation

So that various districts that vote overwhelmingly Democratic are rewarded. Those rules the Clinton people keep pretending they give a shit about.

The superdelegates are there to prevent a catastrophic candidate, a real disaster, a scandal - not to otherwise overturn the vote of the people just to appease the party insiders.

[patrice]

3. What is the difference between "conscience" and bias?

Why would superdelegates, unlike just ordinary people, have superior abilities to differentiate the two, especially in a system that rewards them so heavily (and I don't mean money) for the roles that they play?

[Nine]

20. I don't understand your question.

When I voted in my primary, I chose Hillary. I voted my conscience because I honestly felt she was a better candidate. But I guess you could also say I was biased toward her - for the same reason. So I guess I'm not sure what you're asking.

[patrice]

24. It's all about "calculating" what will be best for the U.S.

That is at least a very hypothetical effort, so ANYONE, on any "side", MUST make their decision relative to the DISTINCT probability that they are Wrong (Big! Time! given the current stakes).

When a person is trying to make such a decision, what is it that makes an inclination toward one candidate a matter of conscience, rather than a manifestation of more-or-less covert bias(es)?

The maunderings sketched above are based upon the assumption that conscious processes (i.e. the psychological things you can identify and "manipulate") are, on the average, a definite minority in the overall sets of things that influence cognitive outcomes/decisions/choices. How many Americans do you suppose recognize that what they "think" is heavily influenced by a whole lot of stuff of which they are unaware?

There are an awful lot of absolutists around; they either have divine knowledge or they don't care that they COULD be wrong.

What IS the difference between conscience and bias?

[Nine]

30. I still don't understand what you're getting at.

I have a preference for Hillary. I have a bias toward Hillary. I believe in my conscience that she is the better candidate. I don't really see much difference in these statement but you apparently do. So you tell me what the difference is. You keep asking that question but it sounds like you have something in mind. I've already said I don't see much difference.

And yes of course I could be wrong on my vote, just like any other voter. And any superdelegate can be wrong on his/her vote as well. What's your point? Should no one vote because no one knows anything for certain?

[patrice]

32. It really was just a curious question.

Have only just started thinking about it myself. Conscience would be solely directed toward what is "right"/good, inspite of what I want. Bias, may or may not be consistent with conscience because it is directed solely toward what I want. My point is that though there may or may not be overlap, they are not identical and that I suspect that many (most?) people ignore how they lie to themselves about this.

I will not reduce what you say to an absurdity if you don't reduce what I say to an absurdity: Of course! everyone should vote, certain or not. Right or wrong, as long as we actually (ha!) are Free, we'll adapt and get closer and closer to what is right for Us, but that does not relieve us of the responsibility to get it as close to right as possible Now.

I'm just saying folks should predicate their advocacy upon the principle that there is some chance that they are wrong, rather than savaging others on the justification of their "conscience" (which could very well be a case of mistaken identity, i.e. it's their biases rather than their conscience).

[Nine]

36. ok

I wasn't trying to reduce your argument to an absurdity; I was really just trying to prod for some clarification.

[Johnny__Motown]

4. It is already an accepted truth. 6 SD have dumped Hillary since super tuesday.

If SD change the outcome of the contest it will destroy the party for a generation or more. It is a political necessity to respect the results of the primaries and caucuses.

[ruggerson]

6. If Hillary wins the popular vote (which will happen if MI and FL revote or are counted)

then this worry is not a worry.

Just as easy to spread a meme that it's a must for superdelegates to vote for the popular vote leader.

Even though neither is correct.

[John Q. Citizen]

12. In most democracies, the ability of a candidate to campaign and to have their name on the ballot is

considered a minimum threshold for determining the legitimacy of the popular vote, wouldn't you agree?

[ruggerson]

14. Actually, in Florida, the only candidate who campaigned was Barack Obama

who ran cable television ads there.

No other candidate did that.

[John Q. Citizen]

16. ANd Hill showed up the night before the non-election and got lots of local coverage.

Neither constitutes a campaign in any legitamate sense, would you agree?

[ruggerson]

18. She went to a fundraiser

Obama also attended fundraisers in FL.

But only one of them ran a television ad for two weeks prior to the voting.

In other words, only one of them campaigned.

[John Q. Citizen]

23. Look you can split hairs, you can spin, but there was no campaign by any objective measure or

meaning of the word.

Either you support democratic norms or you don't. Which is it?

[ruggerson]

25. he's the only candidate who violated the agreement

that's not splitting hairs or spin, that's the fact.

Regardless, I'm not advocating they seat the delegation as is, I'm merely responding to the question the OP posed.

[Johnny__Motown]

17. Her surrogates campaigned for her, no other candidate did that

[Diane R]

7. If anything, your plan would give Obama MORE votes. A lot of arms were twisted for Hillary's SD's.

[John Q. Citizen]

8. Why do you imagine the supers would vote for Hillary? Many of them are elected

officials and need to get the votes of their citizens.

Obama is leading in all delegates, all contests won and in the popular vote.

Why would the supers shoot themselves in the foot by supporting Hillary? If you can answer that, then lets talk.

[BzaDem]

13. Just because Obama is leading now in the popular vote doesn't mean he will still lead later.

After PA and revotes in FL and MI, she could win the popular vote. If she does, the new "meme" will be that pledged delegates are thwarting the will of the people, and thank god we have superdelegates to fix is from another Gore mess.

[Nine]

46. I very much think Clinton will win more SDs but I don't assume it as a certainty.

What's important is that the process not get short-circuited before we even have a chance to find out.

And why haven't more SDs endorsed Obama if he's such a sure thing? The vast majority are still uncommitted.

[PseudoIntellect]

10. No, you have it wrong.

You seem to indicate that exercising free will means voting for Hillary. Many of the SDs have made it clear that they will not overturn the pledged delegates. There has never been any evidence to the contrary. Obama supporters are stating the fact that the will of the superdelegates is to keep the will of the people intact. It's not necessarily a rule that they have to, but they will likely CHOOSE to do it that way based on what they are saying.

Also, Obama supporters don't think superdelegates don't matter. They believe that BOTH pledged delegates and superdelegates matter. The only thing is that they believe the superdelegates will not overturn the will of the people, which has evidence behind it. They believe having a lead in pledged delegates IS important in the eyes of the superdelegates.

It's HRC who says that pledged delegates don't matter, and that the superdelegates will choose the better candidate, which must be Hillary. However, when your candidate is getting less than 20% of the superdelegates in the last few weeks, that doesn't sound like a strong case.

[Window]

26. Not at all a strong case to coronate Hillary.

[Nine]

34. No, that's more Obama manipulation.

You claim there is evidence that the SDs will defer to the pledged delegate outcome. Show it to me. You claim there has never been any evidence to the contrary. I think the evidence to the contrary is the fact that the vast majority of SDs remain uncommitted. For the sake of argument let's take the following claims the Obama camp makes as true: that not having a nominee at this point is harming the Party, that there is no realistic way for Hillary to win on pledged delegates, that SDs' constituents will want them to defer to the pledged delegate outcome. What reason is there, then, for the SDs to not come forward and announce that this is their intention? If all the Obama camp claims are true, Hillary would have no choice but to drop out. The Party would be saved. The SDs' constituents would throw flowers at them. So why hasn't that happened?

No, the real reason the Obama camp is making that claim is to fuel hatred toward Hillary for staying in the race and more importantly to create the perception that deferring to the pledged delegate count is the honorable and moral thing to do. They are basically saying, "We're sure the superdelegates would never do anything so dishonorable as voting against the pledged delegate outcome." (hint, hint) It's just a tactic of manipulation, pure and simple. They're trying to make their pledged delegate myth a reality in the mind of the public.

ETA - This statement "It's HRC who says that pledged delegates don't matter, and that the superdelegates will choose the better candidate, which must be Hillary." contains three false assertions.

[Gore1FL]

42. I can't tell

is this serious or satire?

[theredpen]

43. What matters is that Hillary win, right?

So caucuses are undemocratic because they go against her, but superdelegates are "part of the process." I agree with you that superdelegates count, but I also agree that caucuses count and I think Texas' system is just fine. I also think that the governors of Florida and Michigan were given fair warning of the consequences of their decision to move their primary off-calendar and their acquiescent voting populations should have spoken up before their favorite nominee fell behind in the race.

I don't selectively attack parts of the nomination process that go against me.