Hillary Supporters: Don't Let Super-Delegates Steal the Election!

[Austinitis]

Hillary Supporters: Don't Let Super-Delegates Steal the Election!

If super-delegates hand the nomination to anyone other than the popular-vote winner, the election will have been stolen. The process by which pledged-delegates are assigned to candidates is so deeply undemocratic that only the popular vote can deliver a legitimate result.

Moreover, while Obama's supporters will surely insist that the current, anti-democratic rules have already been agreed upon, we need to reply that both candidates need the support of super-delegates this election. Those super-delegates have the power to chose to respect the popular-vote, and no rules are changed when we hold them to that standard. (Moreover, less than a month ago Obama's supporters were making similar arguments. I doubt they want to change their tune so quickly).

The Pledged Delegate System Is Undemocratic:

The pledged-delegate system can give more delegates to the candidate that loses a state. In both Texas and Nevada Hillary won the popular vote yet Barak Obama walked away with the vast majority of the delegates. You don't have democracy if your the votes don't determine who wins.

Moreover, in Iowa the pledged-delegate system allowed Obama to take over some of Edwards' support without any follow-up election to confirm that Edwards supporters would all take Obama as their second choice (obviously they wouldn't all do that, so Obama stole at least some pledged delegates there.)

The pledged-delegate system violates the principle of one-person one vote. Among the most egregious examples of this, on the pledged delegate system a voter in Wyoming has more than sixteen times the influence that a voter in California has. Voters in Alaska are given almost seventeen times the influence of voters in New Jersey. Voters in here Texas get negative influence, because the pledged delegates from our state go the the guy we voted against. See the chart below to get an idea of how many people from your state have to fight with each other for the same voice as one person from Wyoming:



(The popular vote count can be found http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html">here and the delegate distribution can be found http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html">here. Note that I've done Ia, Me, Nv, and Wa as one state, because turnout estimates are only available for all four together.)

The Pledged-Delegate System is Racist: Even within states, pledged delegates are assigned to geographic areas based upon the rates at which those areas voted for Democrats in past elections. Moreover, since minority populations can cluster in geographic regions, members of a minority community can be given a disproportionately small voice in the nominating contest. This, in fact, happened here in Texas, where the largely Hispanic Rio Grande valley was given a smaller distribution of delegates than its population size merited.

Moreover, in the same way that the racial biases and ingrained in the pledged-delegate system, geographical and economic biases are built in as well. All of these biases are undemocratic and all of them violate the principle of one-person one-vote.

The Pledged-Delegate System Deeply Candidate Standing:

And while it might seem that any oddities in the pledged delegate system have an irrelevant impact over the course of a whole nomination race, the chart below shows that, in fact, the vast majority of Obama's delegate lead results from states that either a) give hugely disproportionate weight to their voters over voters in other states, or b) hand the majority of delegates to the candidate that loses the popular vote, or both (like Iowa).



Let me stress that the chart above only shows delegates gained by Obama out of the states noted. Thus, it doesn't include delegates canceled out by delegates gained by Hillary in those states. (Also note that with Texas, I've listed Obama as gaining the delegates beyond what he would have gotten had delegates been distributed proportionally based on the primary.)

What the charts reveal, then is that Obama's "insurmountable" delegate lead is almost entirely the product of heavily undemocratic institutions. And once these undemocratic biases are removed - once we look the popular vote that gives every voice an equal weight - Obama's lead not only shrinks greatly, but the race also becomes a highly competitive one.

So those of us who support Hillary need to send a message to super-delegates: That they must validate the will of the people; that they must ratify the popular vote; and that we won't accept an the results of a nominating race which are entirely product of counter-democratic bias.

Again, the winner of this race will largely be decided by super-delegates, and it's up to us to ensure that those super-delegates decide the race in a way that is fair, equal, and democratic.

[tekisui]

1. Good luck with that.

You got the itis.

[DJ13]

2. Our primary system is NOT based on the popular vote

Its based solely on pledged delegates.

If a premise starts with a lie, the entire premise is flawed.

[GarbagemanLB]

8. BINGO. If it was based on popular vote, Obama's strategy would have been different.

[dchill]

24. I'm SURE that's of no import to the OP.

:shrug:

[kenny blankenship]

34. A couple of weeks ago, they wanted the Supers to give it to Hillary b/c she was "the best" candidate

"more electable" "more experienced".

But that wasn't STEALING, no it was just being prudent.

[Austinitis]

42. The system exists to be fair to the voters, not nice to the candidates.

[Austinitis]

10. And as it stands that system is hugely undemocratic

(After all, it includes things like super-delegates.) But the super-delegates can make it reflect the popular vote. And we should make them.

[sandnsea]

14. Nice try at muddying the waters

Pathetic.

[rinsd]

17. Our primary system is based on pledged and Super delegates.

The point is to make a persuasive argument to Supers and I think pop vote is a factor there.

As an Obama supporters said the other day things like:

Obama performance vs McCain

His fundraising & organization

His approval/disapproval numbers

These are all arguments in his favor to make to Superdelegates.

[Exilednight]

57. If Pop vote really counted then Gore would have been President for the past 8 years. n/t

[Austinitis]

58. Doesn't that tell you what we need to be doing now that we have a chance

to make this about popular vote?

[Exilednight]

60. No. Winning a popular vote requires a different strategy than winning delegates or electorals. n/t

[Austinitis]

61. The system exists to be fair to the voters, not nice to the candidates.

[Exilednight]

65. I am firm believer in the electoral college, though it does need to be modified, and ...............

of the primary system, though we need to get rid of SDs.

The system does not exist to be fair to voters, it's designed to make sure that the majority does not run over the minority.

[Zhade]

75. Not in the middle of the contest, no. That's called "cheating".

NT!

[Austinitis]

86. It's not cheating for super-delegates to support the pop-vote winner

And I'm saying that since they're able to, they're obligated to make this a democratic contest.

[Exilednight]

93. Hillary swears up and down that they aren't obligated to do anything. n/t

[rinsd]

67. You just proved my point, many people consider Al Gore the rightful winner based on pop vote.

We're not talking about the winner of the pop vote being declared the nominee.

We're talking about arguments to be made to the Superdelegates to get them to vote for one's candidate.

One of which is pop vote winner.

[Exilednight]

74. But you don't win the GE by the POP vote, you win it by winning the most electorals.................

two totally different strategies.

I'm a firm believer that Gore had the election stolen, but not because he won the overall popular vote. He lost due to the Supreme Court. Gore was not the first, nor will he be the last, that loses the White House despite winning the popular vote.

[rinsd]

80. Again, we're not arguing for pop vote to be the nominee.

We're talking about making the argument to Superdelegates in order for them to vote for one's candidate.

As I stated pop vote is only one of the arguments.

[Exilednight]

85. but it's not a legitimate argument. It's a strawman. Elections aren't won by pop vote. period. n/t

[rinsd]

90. LOL oh the irony using the word strawman.

"Elections aren't won by pop vote"

Yes I am quite clear on that.

What you may not be clear on is that Superdelegates can vote based on the smell of the candidate's farts if they so feel like it and are in no way required to validate pop vote, pledged delegates or whatever measure you wish to use. They do not have to report their reasons for voting and they vote in secret.

So again, winner of the popular vote could make an argument to supers.

So could the candidate performing better in head to head polls.

Or the one who performs better on favorability polls.

[Exilednight]

97. I agree, they are allowed to do just that. I'm not saying that it's not within............

their power to make such a judgment based on those criteria. I would make the ethical decision and say that by doing so they are ethically wrong. You don't overturn the will of the people. My argument against the popular vote is that you have no real way of giving a real number of popular votes to caucus states, thus the reason we use delegates.

[Austinitis]

100. You can estimate the caucuse states (I included the estimates)

But even in those caucuses that do a head count, the person-to-power ratio is just obscene. There's no reason someone in Wyoming should have 16 times more power than some in California.

[Exilednight]

103. Well, if you don't like the system you should have said something and pushed for changes............

before the primary. We all knew the rules before hand.

[Austinitis]

106. And those rules included super-delegates who can chose to ratify the popular vote.

I'm saying they need to to prevent defections in the fall.

[Exilednight]

111. No matter who they give it to, there will be defections. Personally I believe that we..............

we will lose more with Clinton. Obama turned out large amounts of first time voters, and if he doesn't win they won't vote for a Democrat again. They will see the corruption of the DLC, although they will not realize it's the DLC, and walk away for a very long time, if not forever.

My theory is this. If Obama is leading in pledged delegates and doesn't get the nomination, then the Democratic party left me and I didn't leave them. If Hillary leads in the pledged delegate count going into the convention, then I would also consider it robbery if she didn't get the nomination. I've always said that, and I make no bones about it. If this election is stolen, I will start looking for third party candidates. Call me anything you want, but it would just show the corruption within our party. After this election, I will go to work at changing the party and work at pushing out everyone involved.

[Austinitis]

114. The election isn't "stolen" if super-delegates go with the popular vote

Why is it stealing not to endorse a system where Obama can pick up more delegates, even when more people vote against him that for him?

[Exilednight]

116. Having SD's pick it is no better than having the Supreme Court decide it, and it....................

goes against the very reason that SD's were given their power.

I've never been a big fan of SD's, and have been a vocal critic since their inception. Most people chose to ignore me because they said this would never happen. Looks like I might get the last laugh.

[Austinitis]

117. They're ALREADY going to pick it no matter what. I'm saying they should pick democratically

If they go with the pledged-delegate lead over popular-vote then they're going with the party's archaric, anti-democratic rules and against the people. And there's no way that doesn't cause defections.

And it doesn't matter why super-delegates got their power. I'm saying that now that they have it they need to use it for democracy.

[Exilednight]

119. Again, there is no pop vote leader. You're using a number that doesn't exist because...............

of the caucus system. Spin it all you want, but the pledged delegates is the best way of determining who has the popular vote lead.

If you know the system, then you know what I'm saying is true.

[Austinitis]

124. Estimates

We're going in a loop:

I say "use the popular vote."

You reply, "no such thing because of caucuses."

I reply "estimates" (this is where we are now)

You reply "disagreement about estimates."

I reply "Even given that, estimates are better than the horrible pledged delegate system"

You reply ????????

[Exilednight]

125. An estimate is nothing more than a guess. Educated guess or not, it's still a guess. n/t

[Austinitis]

126. I reply

But the solution to an imperfect popular vote system (and I agree it's imperfect) is not the pledged delegate system. It's better to be uncertain with a good system than to be certain with a really crazy, jacked-up system.

[Exilednight]

127. I've seen estimates that put Obama over by ...............

as much as a million votes and as low as 700,000. That's a 300,000 difference. Which number do you use when the given vote count could be as close as 200k?

[Austinitis]

128. I just want the controlling issue in their decision to be popular vote

How that should be tallied is going to become a campaign issue (just like what the job of super-delegates is has become a campaign issue).

But the pledged-delegate count is just out of the question. It's really, seriously the worst measure of popular will ever. I would almost rather pledged-delegates read tea leaves.

[Exilednight]

129. Well we will have to agree to disagree because I see................

the pledged delegates as being the best measure of the popular vote.

Edit: I would also add that using the popular vote as the only measure goes against the very nature of a representative democracy.

[Austinitis]

95. There's no reason for super-delegates not to back the pop-vote winner

[rinsd]

99. Again Superdelegates can vote any way they wish, for any reason.

The point of the Super Delegates was to use their individual wisdom to select the candidate they thought was best even if that choice ultimately conflicted with the election results.

[Exilednight]

There's no reason they should either. Tell me, who won the pop vote and by how much..............

in all the caucus states. Go to five different news sites and you will probably get five different answers.

How do divide them? Easy - we use pledged delegates. The pop vote has no meaning since you can't get a real answer to who has more votes.

[Austinitis]

104. Pledged delegates are INSANELY undemocratic

anything, even rough guessing, is better than giving people in Wyoming 16 times the say of people in California. Or giving the loser of Texas more delegates than the winner.

I agree that there are problems with the popular vote, but the pledged-delegate system is the worst possible solution to those problems.

[Exilednight]

105. See my answer above. n/t

[kenny blankenship]

84. No. Al Gore was not the rightful winner because he won the popular vote

Al Gore was the rightful winner, probably, because Florida's electors were stolen for Bush.

The fact that Al Gore got more votes overall than George Bush is an unfortunate footnote of the 2000 election, a memory that should spur us to reform the Electoral College by eliminating the allocation of Electors for Senate seats. This does not make him the rightful winner though. A majority in the Electoral College would have made him the winner. Why? Because that's how the Constitution says Presidents are to be chosen. He was denied an electoral majority through A) the presence of a spoiling 3rd party candidacy and B) the partisan highjinks in Florida and the intervention of the US Supreme Court.

[Exilednight]

89. To be fair, and I say this as a Gore supporter, I don't buy the A) argument...................

Third parties are not spoilers and votes are earned and not owed. Gore's platform was a little weak and he didn't make forceful statements. Gore now is much more electable than Gore then. I wish the current day Gore was the Gore running in 2000.

[Austinitis]

92. It's not good enough to hide behind the "rules" - Super-delegates can chose to make this

a democratic contest by backing the popular vote winner. Anything else risks defections by Hillary supporters.

[kenny blankenship]

3. Change Rules to make Hillary WIN !!!!

Yay! To hell with rules.

We already have a President whose party thinks like you do AND IT SUCKS.

[Saturday]

15. No one is changing the rules. nt

[kenny blankenship]

30. You're damn right they won't

[papau]

20. one person one vote democracy is the ONLY fair way - and the SD's know that

[kenny blankenship]

26. Great you can convince the Party to make the primaries one big plebiscite for next time

or you can shut the fuck up.

[Austinitis]

40. The supers should fix things now

and then we can fix the rules the formally reflect the importance of the popular will.

[Rob Gregory Browne]

4. STEAL?

I hate to break it to you, but Obama is ahead in the popular vote as well as the delegate count. Nothing is being stolen if the SD's decide to go with him. They'd only be doing what's proper: following the will of the people.

[cali]

5. desperate little thing, aren't you?

gonna post this everyday until hilly drops out? Pathetic.

[Saturday]

6. Super delegstes are NOT in place to validate the will of the people.

You need to check into what super delegates are for.

[Hawkeye-X]

7. jlake, is that you?

[onenote]

29. sort of sounds like him/her doesn't it

[LTR]

63. Not enugh racebaiting to be jlake

jlake was a racist piece of trash.

Not known for windy threads such as this one, unless he/she got wordy all of a sudden and started to spend hours doing bar graphs for a bunch of DUers who really don't give a shit.

[sandnsea]

9. Aargh, you can't measure popular vote in caucus states

You can't change the rules after the election is over. This is a PLEDGED DELEGATE election.

[book_worm]

11. but they will go with the popular vote winner--Obama.

[Austinitis]

144. He's not anymore.

[Dawgs]

12. HILLARY HAS ALMOST ZERO CHANCE OF GETTING THE POPULAR VOTE!!!

Do the Math!! It's Over!!

[Austinitis]

16. It's fine if she doesn't. But if she does, she should win. n/t

[Dawgs]

76. No. There is no argument because it won't happen.

Hypothetical arguments are stupid right now.

[Austinitis]

115. There's a good chance she can catch up.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/chooseyourown.html

[jackson_dem]

44. Let's see what happens tonight before declaring her popular vote chances dead...

[Dawgs]

72. She has to win by at least 20 to have a chance at the popular vote, or...

In other words, it ain't gonna happen.

[Austinitis]

88. See

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/chooseyourown.html

[Dbdmjs1022]

13. Yeah, let's get rid of a system that's worked fine for decades so the Goddess of Wars has her way!

Good luck with that

:sarcasm:

[pocoloco]

18. are you series??11!1

[babylonsister]

19. Bwhahahaha! Let's change the current system so your gal can win! nt

[dchill]

27. Minus the Bwhahahaha! - I'm sure the OP agrees!

:splat:

[babylonsister]

33. That's exactly what he/she's promoting. I found it funny.

:evilgrin:

[dchill]

36. Of course it's funny...

in a sick/sad sort of way. ;)

[tritsofme]

107. What is being proposed is making arguments to SDs on why she has the strongest moral

claim to the nomination.

No one is changing the system or asking for a rules change.

[babylonsister]

130. MORAL claim? Tell me more. What exactly do you mean by that? nt

[tritsofme]

139. dupe

nt

[tritsofme]

140. If Hillary is the choice of the People through leading the popular vote when this is all over

I believe she would have the strongest moral claim to the nomination.

[babylonsister]

146. She hasn't been 'the choice' of the people for a long time,

so PA makes it so? I don't think so.

[tritsofme]

148. And she may not ever lead in that variable.

But whoever does lead, IMHO (and probably that of many SDs as well), has the strongest claim to the nomination.

[lojasmo]

21. Failure to understand does not excuse douchebaggery. EOM.

P.S. this is a contest for pledged delegates. You are arguing for the REPUBLICAN system.

[tritsofme]

108. It is a contest to get to 2024. Pledged delegates are but one variable

in that quest.

[lojasmo]

157. The one variable that matters.

Along with...you know...most states won, popular vote, money raised...things like that.

[BlueIdaho]

22. Hilarious! So now the SDs go under the bus?

Weren't the HRC supporters the ones saying the SDs were gonna ride in on white horses and save Hillary from the voters that got this all so horribly wrong?

Unbelievable.

[dchill]

32. Axiom: If one is a Democrat, one can be thrown under...

the bus. :eyes:

[Kittycat]

23. Damn Newbie. you've been working all day on this

And your premise is all wrong :rofl:

[mrJJ]

25. GoalPosts

ROFLMAO keep moving the GoalPosts. The non union Acme GolaPost Moving Company is the ONLY Clinton campaign vendor that Mr. Wolfson pays in advance! We appreciate their business.

[adoraz]

28. too bad Obama will win the popular vote as well

maybe if Clinton has a big night... but it doesn't look that way.

[Austinitis]

39. I'm fine as long as the nominee won the popular vote.

But if Hillary catches up in the popular vote she should get the nomination.

[MattBaggins]

59. No you're not fine with it.

As soon as tonight reveals that Hillary has not made a significant dent in any of the silly metrics you want to use; you will simply find another one.

[Bucky]

31. Nominate this thread for a DUzy! The irony is just too rich!

[BlooInBloo]

35. i LOVE all the fresh faces attempting to sow as much discord as possible!

[kwenu]

37. Hillary is not the winner of the popular vote so calm down.

Then you need to learn that primaries are run by individual states not the federal government so telling me about the influence of voters in Wyoming versus California is a waste of your time. Please learn about our federalist system of government you must have been asleep during your high school civics class.

[Austinitis]

131. She is now

We won't let this election be stolen.

[bowens43]

38. HIllary supporters desperately trying to staelk the election

pretty fucking pathetic . this tells us a lot about your candidate .thick as thieves, birds of a feather etc

[jackson_dem]

41. Another masterpiece from Austintis

:thumbsup:

[Capn Sunshine]

43. Who's paying the fees on H is 44 these days?

certainly not donations from Mental Health professionals

[kenny blankenship]

45. The RNC probably

[Hoof Hearted]

46. K & R Baby! ~ALL FIRED-UP FOR THE LADY~

This night just gets BETTER AND BETTER!

[cooolandrew]

47. The GE is NOT decided on popular vote so the point Is??????

The basis of selection is delegates the candidates wouldnt work for them if that wasn't the case. CHeck the GE the rules are similar.

[Austinitis]

49. We can't do anything to fix the GE

But the super-delegates have the power to go with the popular choice.

[BlueIdaho]

"Fix" being the operative word...

As in "the fix is in."

[kenny blankenship]

55. I bet you would if you could, though.

[Austinitis]

56. I would take steps to make it actually democratic.

There's a bill floating around in some state legislatures to assign the electors of that state to the popular vote winner. The bill wouldn't kick in until enough people had signed on to make it decisive. That way, we could get rid of the undemocratic electoral college and replace it with a better system.

[NorthCarolina]

48. Wow, I don't recall this outrage coming from Hillary supporters a few weeks ago

when the conventional wisdom was that Hillary would attempt to win by stealing SD's. There's a word for that....hmmm, what is it...it's right on the tip of my tongue......

[matcom]

50. you should be banned from this forum

it is OBVIOUS you know NOTHING about politics

[americanstranger]

51. Pretty spiffy presentation.

Shouldn't you be linking to whomever you stole all those neat graphics and wrong-headed text from?

(Oh, and by the way - FAIL. Delegates choose the nominee. Not popular vote.)

- as

[Austinitis]

52. The picutres are off Google Docs

I just cut and pasted the stuff into the spreadsheet.

[Gore1FL]

53. Do you understand how delegates are allocated?

By state acording to GE voters from the past three elections. (Except for the terrirories, and I am not entirely sure, myself, how those are allotted)

They are distributed according to popular vote. You are comparing caucuses and primaries as if they are both identical, and thisa is not the case. They represent roughly the same level of Democratic voters nationwide.

Please try to understand the system before trying to prove it doesn't represent something it was never intended to represent.

[Austinitis]

54. I don't care what it was *intended* to do. I'm saying it's undemocratic.

Surely you understand that argument. After all, you Obama people were making it just a few weeks ago.

[Gore1FL]

137. Lets take your points one at a time:

1> It is more republic based, however Caucuses have chosen candidates since the beginning of the nation. Your argument seems to be that the U.S. has never been Democratic.

2> I am not an Obama person. I am an Edwards person who happens to be gifted with the ability to do simple arithmetic, and apply basic logic.

3> Am unclear of what argument you are talking about, who made it, and your need to generalize some into everyone. I am clear on how elections work, however.

[Austinitis]

142. Reply

On One: Primaries originally were undemocratic, and they tended to be done with back-room deals. Our party's movement towards democratic primaries is a major improvement.

On Two: Again, the "logic" and "arithmetic" people employ goes like this:
(1) Hillary can't catch Obama in pledged-delegates.
(2) Hillary can't win unless she gets the most pledged-delegates.
Therefore: Hillary can't win.

And I'm contesting (2). Hillary can win even if Obama gets the most pledged-delegates by winning the popular vote and getting super-delegate support with that. It's about winning over super-delegates at this points, and my OP shows that popular-vote is a much better tool for that than pledged-delegates.

On Three: I don't know what you're referring to here.

[Gore1FL]

149. OK

1> I like priomaries better than caucuses too.

2> It doesn't matter because she won't have enough super delegates either. The pop vote argument holds no water because it automatically ignores caucus states, and thereby eliminates 20% of the super delegates immediately. (Why would a SD in a caucus state buy into an argument that their state is not important?)

When behind the last strategy you need to employ is wedging.

[washingdem]

62. Heh, funny how the rules were fine when Hillary was the front runner last year

Just because it doesn't work out for your candidate, you start whining about the rules?

[Austinitis]

64. There's a real risk of a defections if the contest is undemocratic n/t

We don't want to drive off a chunk of the base.

[WillyT]

66. Gee... And Yet Everbody Knew and Agreed To The Rules At The Start Of This Thing...

I suggest if you'd like to see changes, you might wanna set your sights for 2012. This cycle's rules have already been determined, and agreed to.

P.S. Don't EVER play poker for money. Just a healthy hint.

:wtf:

[Usrename]

68. I don't think some of your data is very accurate.

Obama picked up 55 pledged delegates in his home state of Illinois. I don't see that reflected in the artwork you used.

[Austinitis]

71. It's included in the "Other States" band (orange, on the top, about 15%)

You have to remember that some of his lead is going to get canceled out by states like California.

[Usrename]

77. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Besides, it only shows about 25 delegates coming from other states, not the 55 he got from Illinois.

[Austinitis]

81. Because the graph only shows the delegates that go into the lead he has over Hillary

There are other places where Obama picked up delegates, but most of those were canceled out by states where Hillary picked up delegates. The point is, if it weren't for the delegates he had picked up in those states his lead would only be 28 delegates.


And that's not even getting to the anti-democratic biases within a state.

[Usrename]

96. Whatever. I cannot even follow the argument your making.

:dunce:

[electron_blue]

69. The SD system was developed to specifically deal with a popular vote winner

that the Dem party leadership did not want.

Nice try.

[Austinitis]

73. So? I don't care *why* it was developed. If it's undemocratic, it should be changed.

Anything else risks alienating a big chunk of Hillary supporters who will feel robbed.

[electron_blue]

156. I agree this SD policy seems to be especially *not* working right now.

I bet it will be revisited after this election. It really is a way for the Dem party to control who is nominated - they don't necessarily want the nominee to be whoever gets the most votes in the primary season. They're thinking of a republican ringer who comes in and acts Democratic, but party leadership knows is really not.

[JBoy]

70. I can't keep track. So Hillary winning all the "big states" isn't the metric anymore?

[Catherina]

78. No popular vote, no delegate lead, NO MONEY and you're worried about superdelegates?

:rolf:

[SoCalDem]

79. Bill Clinton won TWICE with the same system..and LOVED it

:)

Most people read the roooooolz before they start the "game".. Obama's people obviously are better readers too.. we know they do math better :)

[Austinitis]

83. I'm not saying we should impose a formal rule change this year

I'm saying super-delegates are obligated, if they want a democratic contest, to support the popular vote winner. Anything else risks a backlash from her supporters.

[SoCalDem]

91. bzzzzzt wrong-O.. Primaries are about D E L E G A T E S

General elections are about popular votes..

[Austinitis]

101. You comment actually manages to be entirely wrong.

The primary has super-delegates who can decide to go with popular vote.

The general election, on the other hand, only has electors. It doesn't have popular vote or any real mechanism for popular vote to come in.

[apocalypsehow]

120. Ah, the old "I'll take my marbles and go home" threat, huh?

:eyes:

Peddle that shit somewhere else.

[Austinitis]

123. It's not my marbles you have to worry about

It's white, working class Democrats who are likely to defect.

[Erin Elizabeth]

82. Sometimes I read the titles of threads like this and just laugh.

I think it must be Bizarro World or some sort of alternative universe where people actually believe stuff like this. Loco!

[ms liberty]

87. If you don't like the way it works, the time to complain was BEFORE the primary season...

I would not be averse to discussion of changing the way our candidate is chosen, however to attempt it in the middle of the primaries is the height of madness and idiocy. It would destroy the party for the near future at least, and ruin any chance of winning the WH. And would this argument even be made if the delegate counts were reversed? I think not.

[Austinitis]

98. The super-delegates arne't changing the rules when they do what they're morally obligated to do

And there's no reason the supers can't give the nomination to the popular vote winner and start a conversation about reforming the system.


And this argument would if the count were reversed - it would just be Obama and his supporters making it.

[last1standing]

94. Stupid thread with a stupid premise.

About par for the course with this poster.

[charlie]

102. Don't let superdelegates do what Hillary's been badgering them to do

And you pledged delegates are on notice, too. Do what Hillary's been yammering about the past few months, and Hillary supporters are gonna getcha!

Too fucking funny.

[Joe the Revelator]

109. Yeah, thats not how the game is played.

Delegates baby, Delegates.

[Austinitis]

110. There's nothing stopping super-delegates from endorsing the popular vote

and not doing so risks a backlash from supporters of the candidate that won the popular vote.

[Joe the Revelator]

112. Thats not how the game is played

Have fun trying to change the rules. The popular vote counts for dick.

[Austinitis]

113. It's not changing the rules. It's pressuring the supers. And I have the Obama camp's

precedent to show me that that works pretty well.

Not going with the popular vote risks a defection from Hillary supporters.

[Joe the Revelator]

122. See ya then...

[Two Americas]

118. good post

I think you kicked over the bee hive here.

Excellent analysis and insight.

[Austinitis]

121. Thanks.

It's nice to get some posts that don't try to claw out my eyes.

[AZBlue]

132. So you want to change the system half way through the election to suit your candidate.

Know what that's called?

CHEATING

P.S. There is no tally of "popular vote" anyway"

[Austinitis]

133. It's not cheating to make super-delegates back democracy

The super-delegates can and they need to. It's about being right, and one-person-one-vote, and preventing defections from the popular vote winner if the super-delegates steal the election.

[AZBlue]

134. One person one vote? How did you count the votes in the caucuses?

The state election boards don't even count those votes. How did you?

And, again, that's not the way the primary system was set up. If you think it's wrong, work to change in 2012 and 2016. But for 2008, deal with it.

[Austinitis]

135. You use esitmates. They're imperfect, but the pledged-delegate system is the worst system EVER

I mean, there's no justification for giving voters in Wyoming 16.6 times more of a voice than voters in California.

[AZBlue]

141. I'm not saying it's a good system. I'd like to see both the primaries and the GE set-up changed.

However, it was the one in place when all candidates signed on. Rules can't be changed mid-process. I'd very much like to see changes for 2012 or 2016, but 2008 is already established. And I don't want to see anyone get elected by estimates. Our system's screwed up enough without throwing that in.

[Austinitis]

143. The super-delegates were in place too. The current proposal goes through them

and then we can fix it in the formal rules after this year. But there's no reason the super-delegates should favor pledged-delegate leads over popular votes.

[AZBlue]

145. There is a reason: that's the way it was set up at the beginning of this election process.

They were to change the vote only in the event of a catastrophe for the candidate in the lead.

[Political Heretic]

136. Change the rules change the rules change the rules change the rules change the rules until we win.

That's Clinton land.

[Austinitis]

138. There's no rule changing in pushing on super-delegates

They need to go with the will of the people. If they steal the election, people will defect.

[quakerboy]

147. Hmm

But Obama is winning in the vote count as well. So, shouldn't the SD's all be over with him by your logic?

[Austinitis]

151. If he wins the popular-vote count then they should go with him. But Hillary picked up 200,000

votes today, which means she closed the gap one some methods of tallying the popular vote. How the popular vote should be tallied is going to be a campaign issue, and I'll let super-delegates decide for themselves. Any of the methods they could chose would be better than the pledged-delegate count.

[RareLubbockDem]

150. If she were winning, i'm sure the system would seem fine

They're both bound by the same rules. The fact that she's losing is no reason to start whining about it.

[Austinitis]

155. It wouldn't to Obama

Super-delegates are in the rules.

[JeffR]

152. Omygollygoodnessgoshamighty

Thanks for your timely post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

[Austinitis]

158. Sure. I hope you'll be happy when Obama loses bc/of the popular vote n/t

[Why Syzygy]

153. They have already said they will consider the DELEGATE COUNT.

Why can't people get stuff through their heads? Denial must be a strong hallucinogen.

[Austinitis]

154. I don't remember supers signing anything like that

Certainly it's not in the rules.

[aintitfunny]

159. Cheating = changing the rules to fit your

candidate choice.

[Austinitis]

160. There's no rule change. The supers can go with the popular vote under the rules.

And we're saying they need to. That's the democratic thing to do. That's the only thing that avoids risking a defection by Hillary supporters who feel cheated.

[aintitfunny]

161. Hillary risks defection by Obama supporters

who are sick and tired of her sleazy campaigning, cheating in Michigan and Florida and her recent lies about being ahead in the popular vote.