If HRC were imposed by the superdelegates, wouldn't that make the primaries a waste of time?

[Ken Burch]

Wouldn't be the same thing as saying "what we did over the last year and a half was pointless?"

Wouldn't it be the same as saying "to hell with the voters"?

Wouldn't it be a raised middle finger at ALL of us?

What good would come that would outweigh all of that?

It goes without saying that she couldn't govern as a progressive if she were nominated against the will of the primaries.

And it goes without saying that if she governed just as far to the right as Bill it would be pointless to elect her.


SO...why bother if it comes out that way?

[thunder rising]

1. What it means is that you only need enough primary delegates to get close enough to deal your way to

the office.

[Triana]

2. IMO: Yes. Why bother with votes if they'll just be overturned...

...by wayward 'superdelegates' OR hacked up, rigged voting machines.

[Cronus Protagonist]

3. NO, the primaries are the proving ground where candidates are vetted

And people's opinions of them change over time. I wanted Kucinich. Then I wanted Edwards. No one in my state got to vote for either of them. Does that also mean the primaries are a waste of time too? Of course not.

[Ken Burch]

25. I supported Kucinich first as well, then would've backed Edwards but he dropped out to fast.

Nonetheless, among the two remaining candidates, Obama is clearly more progressive and clearly more inclusive of and respectful of the role of grassroots activists.

It goes without saying that a HRC nomination would let all the air out and make the fall campaign a "passion-free zone". Which means we'd be doomed like in '68.

[Cronus Protagonist]

31. I respectfully disagree

I don't know enough about Obama to say what he will do when handed the reins of power. Neither do you. And whether he retains his respect to and from his grassroots activists (not all grassroot activists are respected by Obama, of course), remains to be seen.

As for the election being a passion free zone, that's not such a bad thing, but history tells me that it will be FAR from that no matter who the candidate is. And still, to agree with you partially, I can assure you there are lots of people who will immediately be passion free if Obama gets the nod, myself included in that group.

[Ken Burch]

32. Cronus, a Gore draft is not going to happen.

It's too late.

[Cronus Protagonist]

33. Your fortune telling isn't very supportive of the unity write-in candidate

And the man who should be president right now. :P However, I understand.

[Ken Burch]

34. I'm not trying to be a downer, just realistic.

Also, isn't it going to be really bad optics for the party if, after a race where it looked like we'd have either our first female or first black nominee, we ended up with just another white guy?

(The last line wasn't meant as a slam against Al as a candidate, just about how it's gonna look.)

[sandnsea]

4. But we have to respect FL & MI voters, and let everybody vote...

And then have the Superdelegates throw it all out in the end and give it to Hillary. Hasn't made sense to me for a long time.

[Occam Bandage]

5. Yes. It would mean that every vote cast was thrown in the trash.

[2rth2pwr]

9. Except for the ones in FL and MI, they are already in the trash.

[Ken Burch]

15. Those states don't represent legitimate outcomes, since your conservative candidate gamed the system

Why impose This Year's Mondale?

[Occam Bandage]

19. Yeah. MI and FL threw them in there when they decided to violate the rules they had agreed to.

It's laughable that you'd try to count a primary in which Clinton was the only serious candidate to appear on the ballot.

[2rth2pwr]

6. Absolutely not. The wins that Obama got at the beginning are questionable now that we

know more about him.

[Ken Burch]

8. Why should we nominate someone who doesn't represent anybody?

You don't represent much of anybody if you aren't ahead.

[2rth2pwr]

17. Most of the SD's are elected officials representing millions of voters.

[Ken Burch]

18. We're not nominating them.

And most of the hacks who imposed Humphrey and a "war forever" Vietnam plank in '68 were elected officials representing millions of voters.

Again, why impose an unpopular conservative candidate against the will of the voters?

[Occam Bandage]

20. Which is why Team Clinton cries foul when their constituents threaten to nominate challengers

if their SDs vote opposite to their desires, right?

[endarkenment]

7. Not entirely. If Obama's lead made the SD's irrelevant

it wouldn't matter how they voted. However overturning the primary results would be a stunningly bad thing to do.

[The Traveler]

10. No ... it would not be a waste of time

Primaries are also the process by which the ideas are aired out and the components of a platform are selected. Even as losers, Obama and Edwards, for example, could wield powerful influence over the content of the platform and hence the flavor of congressional campaign efforts.

It would, however, also be a real pisser ... and an eye opener for many. The movement style politics Obama has attempted to craft this year remains the only way a party for the people can really be formed. We cannot count on Democratic Party appartchiks to put that together for us.

If the scenario outlined above comes to pass, that merely means we haven't quite pulled it off yet. Hold down your bile, smile, and vote Clinton anyway ... for McCain will bring disaster to America. And get back to the trenches. The 2010 mid term elections become our next opportunity to expand the progressive movement and refine the progressive agenda.

In it for the long haul, mate?

[Ken Burch]

12. I will vote Clinton anyway.

I just don't want this to be a situation where the regulars deliberately crush everyone, like they did in Chicago '68. Everybody that year who went to Chicago as a Humphrey delegate knew they were voting to deliberately lose the election just to keep LBJ's war going.

[The Traveler]

16. I hear ya, Ken

and you said what I feel. I will vote for Clinton ... but with resignation. I would vote for Obama with considerable pride and satisfaction. Either way, progressives have to pound the ground game.

[SoCalDem]

22. Won't matter.. the people who were "turned on" and tuned in, will "drop out"

like they did after '68..and we will wander through the weeds for decades of republican or democrat-lite administrations until another charismatic candidate comes along and captures the imaginations & hearts of our grandchildren..

Maybe they will prevail..

once a generation they come along..and if we let the moment pass, we pay for it long-term..

[Ken Burch]

26. That's my point exactly.

What do we have to go on for if HRC is nominated? It'll be a victory in name, but will it really be anything that anyone will care about?

[Redbear]

11. Superdelegates only get involved if the primaries are so close

that no candidate reaches the magic number of 1/2 of all the delegates plus 1.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

13. I have always felt the SD process...

is wildly undemocratic and unworthy of our party. It has a seriously paternalistic nature, one that I find insulting as a Democratic voter.

If the SD's were to impose Clinton - or any other candidate -- against the wishes of the Democratic voters -- I think it would be a disaster.

[BlooInBloo]

14. Clinton and her supporters don't care. They're in it only for her, everything else be damned....

... Everything else DESERVES to get trashed, to them.

[Citizen Kang]

21. I tell you one thing it would do...

end my affiliation with the Democratic Party. If the party does not abide by DEMOCRACY in this primary and sells its soul once again the DLC corporatists, I'm gone.

[Freddie Stubbs]

23. There are not enough superrdelegates to form a majority without a significant # of pledged delegates

[Ken Burch]

24. A significant minority, you mean. And it would be a minority.

Imagine how YOU would have howled if there'd been SD's in 1980 and they'd imposed Teddy Kennedy(the clearly more electable candidate) instead of Jimmy Carter, (a decent man who everyone already knew was doomed to lose).

You'd have been wearing a Democrat for Reagan button within twenty minutes. Maybe ten.

[Liberal Gramma]

29. Don't misinterpret this, because I like and respect Sen. Kennedy

but he has so much baggage he'd have to hire a moving van to carry it all. He's a great senator, and loved by all of us liberals, but he'd never get past the RW slime machine.

[Ken Burch]

30. I don't totally disagree, but by the 1980 convention, Carter was political roadkill

And everybody who went to the convention as a Carter delegate knew he'd lose in the fall. It's fine that they were loyal to him, but they were loyal in that knowledge. Nobody thought he could get reelected by that point.

I was mainly making the point about intervention in the process by the hacks.

[Freddie Stubbs]

38. Either of those candidates was doomed to lose

Carter because of the unpopularity of his first term, and Kennedy because the issue raised in the phony ad from National Lampoon:

[JuniperLea]

27. I think we should lay off the whole superdelegate discussion and let them just do their jobs

I'm pretty tired of hearing both camps whine about "stealing" delegates.

[Ken Burch]

35. The question is whether this "job" is something they SHOULD be doing at all.

After all, it's not like the party insiders haven't nominated their share of stinkers over the years.

[JuniperLea]

36. This is true...

But you can't change the rules in the middle of the game, so we're stuck with the way things are now.

[kwenu]

28. Disenfranchisement is only a problem if it doesn't help Hillary.

[meow mix]

37. if they pick a candidate who polls worse, cant raise funds, cant win the primary

then its nothing less than a coup de'ta from within our party, imo