pnwmom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 06:06 AM
Original message |
Why is it fine for Obama to draw superdelegates from inside HRC territory -- |
|
like Ted Kennedy -- but it is unfair and conniving for HRC to accept the votes of superdelegates whose constituents supported Obama?
It seems to me that Obama's fervent supporters are trying to have this both ways. They celebrate every superdelegate vote promised to Obama -- whether or not it accords with the wishes of the superdelegate's constituents -- but threaten to desert the party if HRC wins via the votes of other superdelegates.
I am sick of Democrats on both sides threatening to jump if their favored candidate doesn't win. Enough is enough. Anyone who can't see the profound differences between either of our candidates and a hard right-winger like McCain needs to get his eyes examined.
|
tekisui
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 06:09 AM
Response to Original message |
1. SuperD's are free to choose their candidate for any reason. |
|
As long as the rules are followed, I see no reason to complain.
|
pnwmom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 06:23 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
polichick
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 06:10 AM
Response to Original message |
2. imo Supers like Kennedy and Richardson are voting with the people... |
|
Edited on Tue Apr-01-08 06:14 AM by polichick
...of the country, not necessarily of their state. Actually, Kennedy and Casey chose before their states voted.
I don't see a problem with voters unless, in the end, the remaining Supers go with the one who has less pledged delegates. That will look like overturning the people's decision. I hope all the Supers jump in soon.
|
Saturday
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 06:27 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
8. Talk about cult talk. Good grief. |
|
DS's ARE "voting with the people of the country, not necessarily their state". I'm so dizzy from that spin. ROTFLMAO
|
polichick
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #8 |
44. Which part don't you understand??? |
|
Kennedy, Kerry, Casey and others voted BEFORE their states voted ~ obviously they made decisions based on the mood of the country and their own views rather than local results.
You're dizzy alright ~ but that's a whole other problem!
|
pnwmom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 06:31 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
10. Why should your freedom to vote as a superdelegate be limited |
|
depending on when you announce your decision?
Kennedy announced before his state voted. Why does that matter? He's still voting against the wishes of his constituents at convention time.
Who are the "remaining supers"? The ones who haven't already announced support for Obama?
If Kennedy has the right to exercise his freedom of choice in voting, then so should all the other superdelegates, regardless of whom they support or when they announce their decision.
|
polichick
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #10 |
45. Obviously the remaining Supers are the ones who haven't voted yet... |
|
Of course they can do what they want WHEN they want to do it ~ but if they'd like to avoid an appearance of overturning the votes of pledged delegates, it makes sense to do it early. That's not hard to figure.
|
rox63
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 06:10 AM
Response to Original message |
3. The superdelegates are free to support whomever they choose |
|
Their constituents are also free to express their opinions of these choices. As an Obama supporter, I'm happy to see more SD's going for Obama in the last couple of months. I'm also happy my Senators are supporting Obama, even though my state did not give him the majority of their votes in the primary.
|
pnwmom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 06:32 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
13. Then you are being entirely consistent in your beliefs, and I applaud that. |
|
I wish I saw that attitude among more Obama supporters.
|
susankh4
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 06:16 AM
Response to Original message |
4. Alot of us would like to know the answer |
|
to that question.
So if you figure it out... let us know!
|
DerekJ
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 06:22 AM
Response to Original message |
5. pnwmom, do you know that if SDs vote their constituency, Obama will have about 30 or 40 more than |
|
Hillary by now?
Weird eh, but true, he won double the states.
|
pnwmom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 06:35 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
14. And if we had winner-take-all, as we do in the general election, |
|
then HRC would have sailed away with the nomination months ago.
In the general election, winning "double the states" isn't nearly as important as WHICH states do you win.
|
DerekJ
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 06:42 AM
Response to Reply #14 |
|
Obama would have conducted his campaign differently. He chose the right strategy for the race. A leader quality.
|
pnwmom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 06:46 AM
Response to Reply #18 |
21. He HAS been running an excellent race, |
|
and I hope, in the increasingly likely event he's the nominee, that he will continue to do so.
It's some of his supporters, rather than Obama himself, who have begun to grate on me -- particularly the ones who threaten to desert if by some chance HRC manages to pull out ahead.
|
DerekJ
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 07:01 AM
Response to Reply #21 |
34. pnwmom , It's called emotions. |
|
Once the primaries are over, then all of a sudden it's McCain Vs Hillary for instance, even the most stanch Obama supporter will realize the blatant truth. Hillary is an angel compared to McCain. If she wins fair and square, they will get over it, and support her.
|
mkultra
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #14 |
46. id like to see some numbers on that. |
|
i personally think Bush won based on grabbing the small rural vote.
|
JimGinPA
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 06:24 AM
Response to Original message |
7. It's A Convoluted Argument The Clinton Camp Tries To Use... |
|
When it's been pointed out that some members of congress whose districts have gone overwhelmingly for Obama, but who have endorsed Mrs. Clinton anyway, will need to be elected by the voters they chose to ignore.
|
Saturday
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 06:29 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
9. Obama has no problem ignoring FL and MI delegates.nt |
DerekJ
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 06:32 AM
Response to Reply #9 |
11. Hmmm, take it with the judge who said MI is unconstitutional. |
|
Or is the constitution dead to you now?!!
|
Tesha
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 06:32 AM
Response to Reply #9 |
12. At this point, seating those delegates wouldn't matter; Obama would still be numerically ahead. (NT) |
|
Edited on Tue Apr-01-08 06:32 AM by Tesha
|
JimGinPA
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 06:38 AM
Response to Reply #9 |
15. So How Did Obama Trick FL & MI Into Breaking DNC Rules? |
pnwmom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 06:38 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
17. I've seen the argument coming from the Obama camp, not the HRC camp. |
|
It's the Obama people who are convinced that there is some way that superdelegates are "supposed" to vote -- other than by exercising their freedom of choice.
Historically, that's never been the case. In fact, there wouldn't be any purpose to superdelegates if all they were supposed to do was add a proportionate vote to the overall totals. Why would superdelegates even exist if all they were supposed to do was echo the votes of the pledged delegates?
|
JimGinPA
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 07:04 AM
Response to Reply #17 |
|
What they've actually said is there's no way the SD's could justify taking the nomination away from the candidate who has the most votes, most elected delgates and most states won. If you say you haven't heard the very argument used in the OP you are either ill-informed or a liar.
|
pnwmom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #37 |
41. I have no idea who the "they" is that you're talking about. |
|
If you're talking about HRC, show me where she has said the SD's shouldn't be free to vote however they wish.
|
cali
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 06:38 AM
Response to Original message |
16. it's not and the same goes for all the hillfans who have trashed |
|
and savaged numerous good dems for backing Obama. But you have nooo problem with that now, do you. I have congratulated Hillary on EVERY prominent endorsement she's gotten. I wrote a thread in defense of Sheila Jackson-Lee just yesterday. Have YOU ever bothered to critcize your cohorts for savaging Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy and dozens more?
And I've said repeatedly I'll vote for the dem nominee. I agree with your 2nd paragragh
|
pnwmom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 06:43 AM
Response to Reply #16 |
19. Who are my cohorts? I'm bi-candidate |
|
and I call them as I see them. It does get me upset when supporters of either candidate threaten to leave the party.
In this particular case, I see many more Obama supporters who seem to think that superdelegates are supposed to vote "with the people," whatever that means -- except that the rules don't seem to apply when it comes to superdelegates who choose to support Obama (like Ted Kennedy).
|
cali
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 06:47 AM
Response to Reply #19 |
22. More hillfans have trashed Obama SD endorsers than |
|
the other way around by far.
|
pnwmom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 06:51 AM
Response to Reply #22 |
26. That's not the way it appears to me. n/t |
flor de jasmim
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 06:45 AM
Response to Original message |
20. What IS unfair and conniving... |
|
is that the morals of any SD be questioned (namely Richardson). To me this is a blatant attempt at intimidation regarding the remaining SDs (bringing the WRATH of ....you-fill-in-the-blank.... down upon them). That is unacceptable and should have been denounced and rejected by HRC. It is that kind of behavior which is condemned more than the actual shifting of position, and I would say the same if Obama or a surrogate were demonizing an SD who decided to side with Clinton.
|
pnwmom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 06:48 AM
Response to Reply #20 |
23. I haven't heard anyone questioning Richardson's morals. |
|
That's wrong, if it's occurred.
I think he has the perfect right to make the best decision he can, as do all the superdelegates.
|
flor de jasmim
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 06:52 AM
Response to Reply #23 |
27. You didn't hear Carville call him JUDAS? |
pnwmom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 06:57 AM
Response to Reply #27 |
31. No, and that was stupid, like most things that jerk says. n/t |
crispini
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 06:54 AM
Response to Reply #23 |
28. Carville equating Richardson to Judas? |
|
I think calling that "questioning his morals" is a bit of an understatement.
|
pnwmom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 06:58 AM
Response to Reply #28 |
32. Carville is an idiotic blowhard. I don't pay any attention to what he says, |
crispini
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 07:06 AM
Response to Reply #32 |
39. Well, I'll agree with you that he's a blowhard. |
|
but he is also a close friend of the Clintons and some have viewed it has his attempt to be an "enforcer" type.
|
flor de jasmim
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 07:03 AM
Response to Reply #28 |
36. for those who missed it the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. time around: |
SunsetDreams
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 06:48 AM
Response to Original message |
|
I thought the United states belonged to the people.
Secondly, I thought Hillary herself, said that SD's had the right to choose independently. I am not sure why this subject is brought up by either side.
|
pnwmom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 06:56 AM
Response to Reply #24 |
29. Kennedy is the Senator from Massachusetts, a state which |
|
supported HRC in the primary.
I'm not on either side. I'm reacting to an inconsistency I see among Obama supporters more than HRC supporters -- coupled with a threat to leave the party if they're not satisfied with the outcome.
HRC didn't question the right of Kennedy to endorse Obama and to vote for him at convention time. But Obama supporters often DO claim that superdelegates should be bound to vote in accord with their constituents, just as the pledged delegates do. On the other hand, they celebrate superdelegates like Kennedy who decide to exercise their freedom of conscience -- as long as that conscience directs them to vote for Obama.
|
SunsetDreams
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 07:02 AM
Response to Reply #29 |
35. actually I see it from both sides... |
|
even the campaign itself on Hillarys' side, trashing Gov Richardson for his support of Obama.
Have we seen that from the Obama campaign? Not to my knowledge.
At any rate, we really should all stop doing that.
|
Popol Vuh
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 06:51 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Edited on Tue Apr-01-08 07:44 AM by Popol Vuh
I just remembered who this OP is and her feelings about Mexicans.
|
Warren Stupidity
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 06:57 AM
Response to Original message |
30. Superdelegates are free to vote as they choose. |
|
Edited on Tue Apr-01-08 07:05 AM by Warren Stupidity
I am no particular fan of superdelegates. I'd prefer that we chose our candidates through direct elections. However the rules are what they are for this contest and should be followed. The superdelegates can vote however they want. That said, if Obama ends up with more committed delegates than Clinton, almost a certainty at this point, overturning that result through the superdelegates would be unfortunate to say the least. Likewise for Clinton. If by some chance she manages to win big enough in the remaining states to actually lead in committed delegates it would also be most unfortunate for the superdelegate vote to overturn that result.
|
pnwmom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 07:01 AM
Response to Reply #30 |
33. I agree with everything you said, unless . . . |
|
there is some major revelation about either candidate in June or July that causes all the superdelegates -- and the party as a whole -- to think twice.
I sincerely doubt this will happen, but I suspect that is part of the reason for the existence of the superdelegates.
|
Warren Stupidity
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 07:05 AM
Response to Reply #33 |
38. It would have to be real serious and beyond redemption. |
|
The one good thing about Clinton's sink-throwing is that we can be pretty sure that there isn't much left to throw. But indeed if the leader implodes before August the SD should probably do the right thing. (And better yet the implodee ought to withdraw.)
|
TomBall Democrat
(332 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 07:08 AM
Response to Original message |
40. It seems to me that HRC supporters... |
|
are so obsessed with her impending failure that they whine endlessly.
And risk the failure of their candidate due to THEIR behavior.
If you cannot offer another of value - SHUT UP.
|
pnwmom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #40 |
42. I'm not an HRC supporter, I'm bi-candidate. |
|
Edited on Tue Apr-01-08 08:55 AM by pnwmom
And unlike some of the partisans (like you) around here, I don't try to tell other people to shut up.
Even when I think their threats to sit out the election could hand the Supreme Court -- and the whole country -- to the Rethugs for another few decades.
|
Pawel K
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-01-08 09:52 AM
Response to Original message |
43. Which supporters are you talking about? |
|
I can only speak for myself but as an Obama supporter I think superdeligates are free to vote for whomever they wish. And I do not think that they will over turn the will of the people, they are not idiots.
The problem with Hillary is that she is now saying that trying to convert pledged deligates is fair game. That's cheating and it is down right shameful.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Mon May 06th 2024, 04:37 AM
Response to Original message |