WaPo poll: Pluraltiy of (leaned) Democrats think SuperDelegates should decide on popular vote

[rinsd]

18. (ASKED OF LEANED DEMOCRATS) The Democratic nomination may be decided by so-called "super delegates" who can pick any candidate they choose. Do you think the super delegates should support the candidate who won the most (delegates) in primaries and caucuses; the candidate who won the most (overall votes); or the candidate they think is best, regardless of either delegate or vote totals?

Overall Candidate they No
Delegates votes think is best opinion
4/13/08 13 46 37 4

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/postpoll_041408.html?sid=ST2008041600002

Seems like Democrat don't buy the pledged delegate argument, opting instead for going with the pop vote winner & personally made decisions.

Totals as they stand now

Pledged Delegates 1415 - 1251 Obama + 164
Total Delegates 1646 - 1507 Obama + 139

                      Obama	Clinton		  Spread
Popular Vote Total   13,355,209	49.5%	12,638,123 46.9%  Obama +717,086 +2.6%
		
Est w/IA,NV,ME,WA*   13,689,293	49.6%	12,861,985 46.6%  Obama +827,308 +3.0%

[my3boyz]

1. Who gives a shit? The rules say pledged delegates. Even if you use the popular scenario Obama still

wins.

[SoCalDem]

2. You commie pinko.. you forgot Michigan & floridaaaaaaaaa

:rofl:

and logic & reasoning & intelligence & rules

those damnable rooolzzzz :rofl:

[Dawgs]

5. Even with Florida he will still have more pop. votes and delegates.

I will ignore politics for good if any SD uses the sham MI contest in any argument.

[SoCalDem]

7. I knew I omitted something important

:sarcasm:

[rinsd]

I am not inclined to include Florida.

If you do, his lead in pop vote is cut nearly in half.

MI has its own issues.

Again my solution is split pledged delegates between the two. Don't allow FL or MI Supes to vote.

[rinsd]

6. Where is the rule that says Superdelegates must vote with the majority of pledged delegates?

I thought the poll result was interesting and a blow to the Obama campaign;s attempts at making this about pledged delegates.

[SoCalDem]

9. see

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5551071&mesg_id=5551268

[MattBaggins]

27. Blow my ....

even you have the answer in your own stupid head line-----PLURALITY.

IF you include Florida and Michigan his lead is cut by half? Math is difficult for Clinton followers but if you cut is lead in half, it's still a lead and therefor by your own stupid reasoning he wins.

[rinsd]

28. What is that annoying chirping sound.

I never included FL or MI. In fact I specifically state that I am not inclined to include them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5551071&mesg_id=5551275

Here's my quote dealing with FL

"If you do, his lead in pop vote is cut nearly in half."

You'll notice (when someone holds you hand and points it out for you) that I do not claim this lead vanishes.

The Obama campaign has been making this about pledged delegates but when asked what Superdelegates should base their votes on Democrats; 46% wanted pop vote, 37% said vote how they wish and only 13% said go by delegates.

Now WesDem made the point that the delegates vs pop vote question may be skewed by confusion over the process. She makes a good point.

But I believe my point still stands that this poll is a blow to the Obama campaign's hopes of pinning this to pledged delegates.

I hate cicada season.

[rinsd]

4. The rules do not say most pledged delegates wins. And yes, Obama still wins with pop vote.

[Clintonista2]

11. Wrong. The rules do not say that.

[Texas Hill Country]

23. rules also say the SDs can vote any way they choose, so no whining about stealing elections, ok?

[sandnsea]

3. That's because they haven't been informed

about all the reasons behind delegate proportionment, and the representation in caucus states; or that you can't change the rules the candidates based their campaigns on after the election is over.

[ShortnFiery]

8. If you wish to see a massive demonstration of BITTER by Democratic Party Members ...

just go ahead and let "the party royal" power elite STEAL the Nomination for HRC.

DAMN! You haven't seen *BITTER* yet!?! :grr:

You'll only have HRC cronies and members of the DLC left in the entire Democratic Party. And don't even TRY to unite us ... NOT. THIS. TIME.

[Oregone]

10. A plurality of people are ignorant...

Popular counts disenfranchise caucus states. Its a ridiculous measurement to continually use in a PRIMARY where DELEGATE counts determine the winner.

[rinsd]

14. Popular vote counts do not disenfranchise caucus states when those states are included.

RCP has every caucus state but 4 listed in their popular vote counts and includes estimates from those 4.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

The only reason caucus states are "disenfranchised" by popular vote totals is that their participation level is far below that of primaries.

[Oregone]

16. "The only reason caucus states are 'disenfranchised' by popular vote totals...."

And its a real reason. Caucuses measure total support based upon the amount of dedicated supporters who care enough to make it through the process. Its an imperfect system, but those caucus goes are representative of thousands of people in their state (too lazy to make it there). When you do not count the people the caucus goers represent, you disenfranchise them. You fully know that there is a real problem using the popular vote because of this point.

Delegate counts clearly equalize the idiosynchrocies in the processes and turnout levels that vary across the states. It also makes sure a state primary that only had 4 candidate visits in 1 week before voting (resulting in 10% turnout) is proportionally represented equally to a state that had 10 weeks of campainging and 100 visits (resulting in 50% turnout). If we go with the popular vote, it really screws the ability of states to make a difference who are a victim of circumstance (as mentioned in the previous example).

[rinsd]

18. You cannot extrapolate the amount of caucusers to reflect what a primary would show.

Which is what I think you were trying to say.

My thing with caucus is the limited timeframe for participation.

With primaries one can vote that day from early in the morning to late at night, vote by mail or absentee if they cannot vote that day.

I reject your label of lazy for not participating in caucuses as many people work or have children to take care of that does not allow for a 2 hour absence.

I also have an example dealing with delegates.

Say you have districts within a state with an even number of delegates for that district.

Unless one candidate blow the other out (60 to 40), you can end up with situations in which both candidates walk away with equal delegates.

Then you have the awarding of bonus delegates in some states.

[Oregone]

21. And you can't extrapolate who "should" win based on a popular vote...

...that does not take into account turn out levels based on: open/closed systems, primary/caucuses, registration difficulties, access to voting facilities/mail in systems, effects of timing and candidate visits, general feeling the state/voter will make a difference (based on landslide trends, it can cause supression), etc....

The "popular" vote cannot account for all the problems that determine how many people within a certain state showed up to vote. Especially when you have a Delegate system, people's perception of the importance of their vote is based upon that concept, and polls can suppress or increase turnout (as can the media, other primaries, and numerous factors). The bottom line is every state wants a proportionally equal say in the process, and the "popular" vote overrides that completely.

BTW, yes, its all a shitty system currently. As you mentioned about the 60 to 40 deal...crappy. But its a system we work within till its changed...because the system itself shapes the popular vote (not the other way around currently).

[rinsd]

25. I'm not saying you should. The plurality of polled Dem does(at this time).

Excellent point on the varieties out there even amongst primaries.

[Oregone]

12. If they "Should" (or must), there would be no point in having Super Delegates

BTW, Im not in favor of SDs, and hope they are abolished. With that said, they exist as autonomous delegates whos votes do not depend upon any criteria (other than personal/political). If it is "just", "right" isn't the question. If it was intended for them to do so, the Democratic Party would of automatically awarded virtual bonus delegates to the winner of the important criteria. No, instead they created real people (who can do anything). They can and should do whatever they want, because that is their purpose. Thereafter, hopefully we can get rid of them.

[rinsd]

15. Agreed on all counts.

[cali]

13. one way or the other, all this will be settled within 6 weeks.

And the SDs will put an end to it. I'm OK with their going for Hillary if she has the pop vote, or not going with her. I don't, however, see her catching up.

[AtomicKitten]

17. "leaned" delegates = the euphemism de jour & new metric trying carve out victory from her defeat

already in progress ... Obama's DELEGATE lead (ya that's regular, super, leaned, probed, kinda, etc.) is insurmountable, but you go on with your bad self and keep banging your head against the wall.

[rinsd]

19. That says leaned Democrats not delegates AK.

"Obama's DELEGATE lead (ya that's regular, super, leaned, probed, kinda, etc.) is insurmountable"

When Supers can change their mind at any time and it is impossible for either candidate to achieve the majority necessary with pledged delegates, the lead is not insurmountable.

If Hillary can come close in pop vote & pledged delegates, I think she can make a case to the Supes to vote for her.

[AtomicKitten]

20. The legal metric is total delegate count, but you can keep trying to change the metrics.

With Hillary up-front about trying to poach delegates, this reframing is absurd. Her campaign keeps coming out with new metrics to try to persuade others that she has a snowball's chance in hell, which she doesn't; in fact, her negative campaigning is having precisely the opposite effect on voters AND superdelegates, i.e., http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5550917&mesg_id=5550917
And that frustration trickles down to her supporters who are becoming bitter, refusing to do the actual math.

His delegate count is insurmountable.

Hillary is solely responsible for the division in the party with her pig-headed resistance to reality. It's becoming tiresome at best, but mostly John McCain is benefiting because Barack is busy fending off the GOP, the MSM, and your candidate who doesn't have the good grace to admit she blew it and it's over for her.

[Adelante]

22. With no disrespect to the general public intended

I doubt they understand how political primaries work. They know they want one candidate or the other to run in November, but the pledged delegate aspect of the primary system goes over their heads and popular vote sounds to them like something they know about. Unless they are party activists or other political freaks.

[rinsd]

24. I would tend to agree with that.

"the pledged delegate aspect of the primary system goes over their heads and popular vote sounds to them like something they know about."

[ProSense]

Obama +827,308. That number ends all the discussion. n/t

[ProSense]

26. Delete dupe. n/t

[ieoeja]

29. Obama or Hillary will *win* 1627 delegates in the primaries.

The Scooby Doos will then unmask John McCain as the villain who ... wait, wrong SDs.

The Super Delegates will rubber-stamp the winner of 1627 pledged delegates (a majority of the 3253 total) as the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008.

Anyone who thinks they will do otherwise is fooling themselves. Doing otherwise would make the 1968 and 1972 primaries look clear and clean by comparison.


This still lets the SDs throw their weight around concerning the Party platform and other Party decisions.

And more importantly attend all those really cool parties during the convention. I mean, who goes to a convention and NOT get laid?