Who "would" you (as a SD) support if HRC wins the Popular Vote but BHO wins the Delegate Count?

[zerostar]

I think this is a very likely scenario, some of Hillarys best states are coming up and I do believe she will edge out in the popular vote by a little over 520,000 votes.
And now neither one has the 2025 delegates needed to secure the spot...

Even if you don't agree, lets just assume that is what happens...

Do they do the same thing to Hillary that was done to Gore and use the current delegate count as the decision maker (discounting the people's voice) or do they discount the system the DNC supports?


EDIT::

I was really wanting opinions referring to who the super delegates (some of whom at that point are undecided), who they will vote for? Obviously if Obama has more delegates at the end (when everyone has cast) he will be the nominee, NOT Arguing to change that AT ALL!

Sorry for any confusion.
*******************************

[babylonsister]

1. Clinton won't win the popular vote. I don't see this happening. nt

[zerostar]

4. read my post

"Even if you don't agree, lets just assume that is what happens"

thanks for the input tho.

[bilgewaterbill]

17. Let's assume the Sun rises in the West tomorrow.....

[TheWraith]

5. I agree. There's simply no practical way for her to close the gap.

The media helps sell the "neck and neck" idea because it keeps the race going, but the reality is Clinton would have to win every remaining state by unthinkably vast margins to even have a prayer of drawing even by any metric.

[JeanGrey]

34. And this seems to be a fact that is totally ignored - I've never

seen anything like it. Did the ability to do math suddenly fall away?

[DemVet]

60. Actually, from...

...all the sources I've been reading, it IS quite possible.

My crystal ball is broke so I'm not actually predicting it, but...it IS possible.

She will not overtake Obama in delegates, though, and neither will have the 2025 required for the Nomination.

[zerostar]

2. Better question... (what I really meant)...

who should the super-delegates support at that point?

[MaineDem]

64. Replied to wrong post...sorry

[KansasVoter]

3. Obama...see this post....

http://hillary-is-unelectable.com/2008/04/01/hillary-here-is-why-popular-vote-should-not-matter-to-the-super-delegates.aspx

[zerostar]

9. I am assuming he will not have 2025 delegates...

I see no way that he can so the article is moot.

[frazzled]

6. Well, in that case, I'd have to go with ...

Sinbad!

[Skwmom]

7. It's a delegate race. When you change the rules midstream it's not fair

to the states that already voted. More people would have voted if they knew it was a popular vote race. Plus, a portion of the votes cast for Clinton include spoiler votes urged by Rush Limbaugh and gang.

[StevieM]

28. And the same rules say that the pledged delegates don't decide the race (eom)

[Clintonista2]

45. Who's changing the rules?

The rules say that the SD's can vote for whomever they want, regardless of anything. So what rule is changing, exactly?

[roseBudd]

68. The issue is not whether SDs can it is whether they should overturnthe voters esp. AA voters AND new

young incredibly energized and enthusiastic supporters of Senator Obama, our most charismatic candidate since JFK would in the longterm interest of the party and progressive goals would be a strategic mistake of mind blowing proportions.

To do so also would be to shit on every loyal voting straight D in every election since LBJ African American voter who voted for Barack and to the AAs who voted for Hillary, to take the nomination from the black guy to give it to the white woman who is where she is because of the white man she happened to marry, I am predicting will not set well.

And it's undemocratic.

[Clintonista2]

71. The entire delegate process is undemocratic, but Obama supporters didn't seem to complain when

Clinton won the popular vote in Nevada by 6%, yet Obama took home more delegates. It's undemocratic to deny the voices of florida and michigan, because "party rules" trump democracy. I guess "rules" are only democratic when they support Obama :eyes:

[Zueda]

8. The contest is for delegates. n/t

[BlueIdaho]

10. Say it with me now - there is no accurate popular vote total

Because of the states that choose a caucus system. Now don't get all crazy about how unjust the caucus system is because unless you own a time machine the caucus system is.

[sandnsea]

11. The Rules Were Set, We Are Electing Delegates

And we elect them proportionally in order to give voice to loyal minority populations.

If it was a nomination based only on popular vote, then the candidates need to have an opportunity to design their campaign to win based on popular votes.

[BlooInBloo]

12. Teh stupid! It burns!

[onehandle]

13. Unlikely she'll have more votes. The vote winner should be nominee. Bush won without the votes.

I don't want the nominee to win like Bush did.

[KittyWampus]

14. There is NO SUCH THING as a "popular vote" in a Primary Season including caucuses

[PseudoIntellect]

54. Exactamente. Caucuses proportionally represent a vaster number of people.

Pledged delegates is a more accurate representation than the will of the people than popular vote is, UNLESS the primary season consists of either ONLY primaries or ONLY caucuses. That's my two cents.

[StevieM]

55. To say that caucuses proportionately represent a vaster number of people is blatantly false

It isn't believable that they are splitting the primaries about even, while he is 14 to 1 in the caucuses by coincidence. Washington State had a caucus where Obama won in a blowout, and a non-binding primary that he won narrowly. And Texas obviously demonstrates the difference.

Steve

[PseudoIntellect]

70. Caucuses are fair game. Whoever can rally the best for enthusiastic supporters will win them.

Obama has proven he is better at doing that. With Hillary's 15-state strategy, she ignored some of the caucus states. Does that mean they're simply not fair? Or does it indicate a failure in strategy?

They favor the one with the best management skills and organization skills.

They didn't become unfair until Hillary started losing them.

[wileedog]

72. Irrelevant argument

Some states have caucuses to determine their delegates.

Feel free to fight this fight for 2012. For this election they stand, and they make make Pledged Delegates more relevant than popular vote.

[C_U_L8R]

15. We're Democrats.. we play by the rules.

The nominee is selected by our elected delegates on a state by state basis
not the overall popular vote. That's the rule of the game.
And anyone who doesn't know that really shouldn't be running for President anyhow.

[MonkeyFunk]

56. No, the nominee is NOT necessarily

selected by the elected delegates. Not if the candidate can't get 2025 of them.

[C_U_L8R]

59. This may be helpful - the official rule books for your enlightenment

The nomination process is entirely driven by delegates whether it reaches a quorum threshold or not.
It's all about the delegates and anyone who tells you differently is just selling you another "sniper story"

http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/de68e7b6dfa0743217_hwm6bhyc4.pdf

http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/72b0d4b4a0768275fe_0wm6b3kl2.pdf

http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/e824f455b24c7782dc_jjm6ib44l.pdf

http://www.democrats.org/page/-/pdf/20070607_DistrictAllocationChart.pdf

[MonkeyFunk]

63. Don't be sneaky

yes, it's about delegates - but it's NOT all about elected delegates.

Either candidate is likely going to need superdelegates to secure the nomination, and those superdelegates are free to vote as they wish. Arguing what criteria they should use in making their decision isn't changing the rules.

[wileedog]

73. Horseshit

Pledged Delegates are the primary yardstick. The system is built around them.

Superdelegates are not considered to be a working part of the process, they are a safety valve if something goes catastrophically awry.

If the Popular vote had any meaning than caucuses would have been eliminated decades ago. They have not.

Again, it is the pledged delegate vote that is the primary measuring stick because of the existence of caucuses. Because one candidate does not come in with the pre-requisite 2025 that does not mean that all gets thrown out the window and it is freestyle rules.

[Life Long Dem]

16. Pelosi already set the guidelines for this.

It's not the popular vote, it's the delegate count and always has been. What do you think? That we all make new rules for a queen or someone?

[zerostar]

20. Not new rules, new decisions

EDIT::

I was really wanting opinions referring to who the super delegates (some of whom at that point are undecided), who they will vote for? Obviously if Obama has more delegates at the end (when everyone has cast) he will be the nominee.

Sorry for any confusion.

[StevieM]

31. It's all the delegates, not just some. Pelosi is an Obama supporter--and she doen't get to set

the guidelines, she can only offer her opinion.

[Life Long Dem]

41. No Shit.

[MonkeyFunk]

57. Pelosi doesn't set any guidelines or rules

she's offered her opinion, which is as meaningful as anybody's.

There are no rules being proposed - SD's can vote for whomever they want.

[DemVet]

62. Except that Pelosi doesn't have jack squat to say about the process.

[Zueda]

18. The thing "done to Gore"...

was lousy vote counting not a matter of popular or delegates.

[stahbrett]

19. Who is the winner of the football game, the team with the most points or most yards?

It's a race for delegates, and not a popular vote contest...

[gristy]

21. Likely!!?????

What to give me odds on this? How much money you got? LOL.

[zerostar]

26. I said "Very Likely".

I don't bet, but feel free to bookmark this and poke fun at me :p

[McCamy Taylor]

22. I will support the nominee

[Asgaya Dihi]

23. Loaded question, isn't it?

What was done to Gore involved faulty lists of improperly disenfranchised voters, probable fraud, and any number of others things. It had little to do with a simple electoral vote loss. Just like what happened to Gore? It isn't even close to what happened to Gore.

It's always been a delegate race and the Presidency has always been about the electoral vote, given no fraud that's the way the system is set up to work and it has happened in the past with little controversy. It would be fair enough to debate if we should change the system for next time, but to change the rules mid race just because it suits our cause at the moment? No. If we did that we'd be no better than anyone else. Finish the campaign with the same rules we started it with. Try to push through changes for next time if they are needed and get them done before that race starts.

[zerostar]

24. Please re-read my OP, I am an idiot for not making it clear! n/t

[jillan]

44. No - you're not an idiot. You were very clear in your OP - it's just

that people around here like to argue.

[Yavin4]

25. If The Popular Vote Mattered In The Primaries

Then the campaigns would never even visit small or mid sized states. They'd just campaign in CA, Ill, TX, and NY for months on end.

If you change the nomination rules to be based on the popular vote, then, in the future, little known, underfunded candidates from small and mid-sized states would have no chance for the nomination. You wouldn't get an Edwards, Dean, Kucinich, Dodd, or even a Biden in the race.

[Snarkoleptic]

27. It's decided by delegate count. You know this and still propped up this canard...why?

Who could benefit from this divisive horseshit? Only McSame and his handlers!

http://www.slate.com/id/2188151/

[zerostar]

32. Check my voting history bud before you throw allegations.

Re-read the OP, I am sorry for not making it clear but my question is not in the title, something many seem to read & reply without a second thought.

[Snarkoleptic]

36. Gonna edit your post again to duck controversy and reposition yourself.

Stick to the fringe forums.
"Check my voting history bud..." Sorry, but I think you already smoked it before your ill conceived post.
Perhaps it's time to retire to-

[GarbagemanLB]

29. Loaded hypothetical. The popular vote was never a calculation at the beginning of the primary season

It is, was, and always will be, about DELEGATES.

[babylonsister]

43. It's again, moving the goal posts. I don't think it will matter. The

people are speaking, and that's amazing!

[billyoc]

30. Whoever the super delegates decide on.

But that's who I'll vote for whatever the hell happens anyway.

[maximusveritas]

33. If I was a Superdelegate, I'd rely on the delegate count

It's more accurate than the popular vote, which is mostly just an estimate since it doesn't include many caucus states.

The only way Hillary can win the popular vote is if you include MI and FL. which wouldn't be fair. If Hillary won the popular vote without those states, I could see her taking the nomination and I would support her. I don't see that happening though.

[zerostar]

35. THANK YOU!

For being the first to answer the real question (even if I did make it hard as heck to figure out what that question is)

Lets just assume she takes the pop vote without FL and MI (not by a huge number obviously)

So you say if she does that you support her being the nominee if Obama does not have the required # of Delegates, but he does have say a hundred or so more? You think the SD's would vote the way you are saying too?

[maximusveritas]

40. I think the pledged delegate difference would have to be very close

like 20 or less difference. Then people might feel free to look at other metrics like the popular vote. And if Hillary has a clear lead in that, I could certainly see some Superdelegates going in that direction. Again though, I just don't think that's likely. What I think is most likely is that Obama will win North Carolina and Indiana and then get a bunch of Superdelegates endorsing him. This will end any doubt about the outcome.

[MojoMojoMojo]

37. Whomever can win the GE is the best candidate.Obama loses Florida .He must step aside

[Snarkoleptic]

38. Unless you employ logic and reason to arrive at the natural conclusion that Hillary is Screwn.

All your delegate are belong to us.

[stevietheman]

39. This is a delegate race, period. n/t

n/t

[jillan]

42. To me, the person who wins the popular vote should be the winner.

I would like to believe that our votes count.

[Blondiegrrl]

46. I would support the winner of the delegate count.

The presidential race is based on delegates, not popular vote.

Just ask Al Gore.

[AZBlue]

47. This popular vote meme is false - many caucuses don't count the number of voters.

So there really is no tally of the popular vote.

[FlyingSquirrel]

48. I think they'll be swayed by more than one different thing.

Some might be swayed by overall popular vote, if she wins it.
Some might be swayed by the way their states voted.
Some might be swayed by the delegate count.
Some might be swayed by the most states, other by the most support in swing states.
And some, of course, might just choose the person they like the most.
Or the one they just have a "gut feeling" about.... See Daily Show episode night before last.
Or maybe different polls showing matchups with McCain.

Point being,

I don't see the superdelegates voting en masse according to any one particular theme such as popular vote. I'm sure it'll be important to some, or factor into many of their decisions - but not be the end-all be-all thing that clearly sways a big enough majority to, for example, overturn a big enough pledged delegate win.

[quantass]

49. Here is my best unbiased guess...

If i were a SD then if Hillary somehow can make up the 700K deficit of the popular vote that she is currently down by and capture it but Obama contnues to hold the delegate count then i, as a SD, would then look to other factors found in the numbers....there will be signs of other potential areas that she might be climbing in...if i dont see it and it just seems like she simply one the popular vote at the last second then Obama will get the nomination without question.....so it really comes down to NOT just the popular vote for her but other tell tale signs that might be shifting to her...if nothing else shows and Obama still holds them then she's finished.

When you look at these #s and trends nothing looks good for her...this guy is just better at campaigning in every way. Granted some good states are coming up for her in the months but there are also good states for him too. If she can't somehow break this pattern and surprise the pundents then she is finished. Obama tends to be the one that does the surprising.

It's kind of funny because i notice that Hillary tends to know that Obama is better campaigning than she is and so she tends to end up relying on dirty tricks (e.g. make up something) and hope the media picks up on it. If she relies solely on playing fair as an upcoming contest approaches you will virtually notice every single time that her leads shrink -- this is when she will employ her "scorched earth strategy"....for example, take a look at PA...as expected Obama is starting to cut into her lead...so if this trend continues next week then the following week is when hillary wil introduce a new false allogation in hopes ot reverse the trend...she plays dirty but a number of people love this...but thankfully Obama knows how to keep her in check...the hardest part for him is having enough time to react to them.

It's been a very fascinating race.

[Political Heretic]

50. As a SD, Obama purely for the money he has avaiable to campaign

[johnnydrama]

51. he's up by 815,000 votes

How exactly is she going to make all that up?

Florida and Michigan without Obama getting any votes from Michigan?

[MadBadger]

58. My thoughts exactly

with like six million votes left or so, shed have to beat him with 60 percent of the total vote...Not gonna happen.

[anonymous171]

52. Won't matter. All of Hillary's talk about how voters don't count will come back to bite her.

Hard. She won't be able to make any case whatsoever without drowning in her own hypocrisy.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

53. who else except "the will of the people"?

[cornermouse]

61. Hasn't happened = not going to worry about it.

It may never happen.

[MaineDem]

65. Since it's impossible to determine the popular vote...

I would go with the delegate count, if this situation were to actually happen.

The Democratic Party has no way of counting popular vote. It is a non-issue. Caucus states don't count popular vote, for example. Those numbers aren't available.

It's all about the delegate count. Regardless of what the Clinton camp says at this point.

[mmonk]

66. Obama.

It should be the pledged delegate determination IMO. First off, early primaries and caucuses had multiple presidential candidates and early voting. That alone skews the "popular vote" position. So therefore, it's not a "real" will of the people.

[book_worm]

67. don't see her winning popular vote. PA is closing, Obama has big lead in NC

will take Oregon by a large margin. Indiana is competitive. She will win KY and WVA, probably by large margin, but O will take Montana and South Dakota by large margins.

[Sir Jeffrey]

69. The nomination rules set total delegates as the standard...

by which the nominee will be selected. Those are the rules established prior to the contest. Setting new metrics after the contest starts is unfair.

Specifically, the popular vote argument advanced by the Clinton campaign is complete and utter bullshit. It does not include caucus states at all. It punishes any candidate retroactively who focused on delegates in smaller states. Think about it: if the metric was supposed to be the total popular vote, then Obama would have spent much more time and money in primary states only to run up the totals. He could have ignored caucus states totally and spent his enormous resources in primary states only. All the popular vote argument tries to do is retroactively reconfigure the electoral landscape to validate the Clinton strategy of focusing on the "big important states" and ignoring everyone else.

If we want to have the total popular vote of all contests decide the nominee, then we need to have either:

a. A national primary and add it up

or

b. The complete elimination of caucuses and go with staggered primaries.

These steps need to be taken *prior* to the beginning of the nomination season so everyone plays by the same set of rules.

With all that said, the rules state that Superdelegates can vote for whoever they want. If every Superdelegate wants to vote for Clinton and hand her the nomination today, they can do it. It might be ill-advised, but at least it is within the rules established prior to the nomination season.

The Superdelegates may use any metric they want to decide on a candidate. Personally, I think the popular vote metric is dumb for the reasons outlined above. I think they should look at:

1. Pledged delegates

2. Who their state and constituents supported (and how big of a margin it was)

3. Who won the most states

4. Who, in their opinion, is the most electable

5. Who can raise the money to fight the Republicans

6. Who can help Democrats downticket