Rec this thread -U think: candidate with the most pledged delegates is the presumptive nominee

[grantcart]

This is the "Pelosi Position".


The candidate who has won the most pledged delegates in the primaries and caucuses authorized by the DNC will, in your mind, be the presumptive nominee.

That will probably occur on May 20th. Currently Sen. Obama only needs 136 and Sen. Clinton needs 291

Many fair minded Clinton supporters like Sen. Cantwell support this proposition:
http://www.columbian.com/news/localNews/2008/03/03242008_Cantwell-supporting-Clinton--for-now.cfm



U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, one of Washington’s 17 Democratic super delegates, isn’t ready to shift her allegiance from Sen. Hillary Clinton to Sen. Barack Obama — yet.

But in an interview with The Columbian’s editorial board Monday, she said the candidate with the most pledged delegates at the end of the primary season in late June will have the strongest claim to the party’s presidential nomination.

“I definitely don’t want the super delegates to be the deciding factor,” she said.

“If we have a candidate who has the most delegates and the most states,” the Democratic party should come together around that candidate, Cantwell said. The pledged delegate count will be the most important factor, she said, because that is the basis of the nominating process.


(After we have a presumptive nominee it will then be easy to formulate a compromise to the FL/MI delegations and unite the party)

Here is DemconWatch's page on the 'Pelosi Club'


If you support the idea that the candidate with the most pledged delegates in this campaign cycle should be the nominee then please add your comment and rec the thread.

[City Lights]

1. R&K

:hi:

[SleeplessinSoCal]

66. Of course the candidate with the most pledged delegates wins.

[newmajority]

2. Good to see Maria Cantwell taking a realistic look at this.

She's a big time DLC/Clinton supporter, so that says a lot.

[grantcart]

5. There are a lot more that have said something very similar to this but

not the exact words.

[Diane R]

32. I think Maria has been wanting to jump ship for quite awhile.

[me b zola]

76. I think that there are a lot of Clinton SDs who would like to get out from under her

I hope they have the courage to do the right thing.

[Zodiak]

61. I love the awareness of DUers these days

It only took two posts for someone to connect Cantwell to the DLC. Four years ago, whole threads would go by without any mention of it.

We have come a long way in understanding intraparty subdivisions, and THAT is why the grassroots has become so powerful.

[guyanakoolaid]

3. Rec 3, standing by

[grantcart]

13. ok you can take off now

[NEOhiodemocrat]

4. I agree

and recommend. If the person with the pledged delegate lead after the primaries and caucuses is not the candidate then the Democratic Party will loose many members in my opinion.

[grantcart]

7. I agree that they will 'lose' many but your probably right that it will drive many to drink

and they will also become 'loose'. lol

[goclark]

16. So right and K

[lojasmo]

6. R/K

[grantcart]

24. thanks

[Barack_America]

8. It's the only nominee I'll vote for.

:patriot:

*unless Obama goes and does something so stupid (like pissing on the flag, for example)...

[grantcart]

10. well I think we can safely rule that out. lol

[goclark]

9. K and R

[grantcart]

14. thanks

[Rosa Luxemburg]

11. yes

even if Hillary was winning delegates yes

[berni_mccoy]

12. k&r

[bigbrother05]

15. I am so sorry for our country right now

with the failed education system, that Hillary and her supporters want to play three card Monty.
It is obvious that they can not read, not follow rules, and can not count.
Senator Cantwell, thank you for your words of encouragement, hopefully we won't have to wait.

[grantcart]

17. thanks

[JBoy]

18. Rec'd. n/t

[grantcart]

25. thanks

[ms liberty]

19. K&R n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

20. The caucuses are not reflective of popular opinion.

If every state was a primary, I would be in greater agreement with this view.

Fundamentally, I want the presumptive nominee to be the person with the greater support of democratic voters. Our current caucus/superdelegate process is at odds with this.

[grantcart]

22. So your advocating that we change the rules in mid stream

[lumberjack_jeff]

39. No, I'm saying it was stupid to jump into this stream.

Yet, here we are. It is not at all likely that we'll know that the nominee is supported by most of the voters. In fact, it is looking increasingly likely that the delegate winner will have received fewer votes than his opponent.

The irony is that the thing that Obama has said recently with which I most agree is "Gore won".

[Barrymores Ghost]

57. Sorry, but what's "the irony?"

Gore DID win. He won the Florida popular vote and, hence, the Electoral College. He was stripped of his office by the Florida Secretary of State and the SCOTUS, through any number of illegal means.

[ekwhite]

88. I'm afraid you might be using 'fuzzy math' there

As has been explained in previous posts, Obama is ahead in pledged delegates and the popular vote, nearly any way you slice it, and will most likely have the delegate lead and the popular vote. This will not be an Al Gore situation unless the superdelegates overturn the pledged delegate count and the popular vote to give Senator Clinton the nomination.

[lumberjack_jeff]

99. The race is close.

The race is only unambiguous when we tell some voters that their votes don't count.

[ekwhite]

102. Oh, like all of the Michigan voters who DIDN'T vote for Clinton

The Clinton math only works if you give her the Michigan votes and give Obama NOTHING. She was the only major candidate on the ticket, and she only got 55%. And yes, I do realize that Kucinich, Dodd, and Gravel were on the ticket. Combined, they got less than 5%.

[liberalcommontater]

42. In general I would agree

that the candidate with the most delegates should be the nominee. But, what if the superdelegates judge the situation and feel that one is unelectable or one is more electable than the other.

I am a Clinton supporter, but I would not take too much comfort if I were you in Cantwell's comments.

She said,
"the candidate with the most pledged delegates at the end of the primary season in late June will have the strongest claim to the party’s presidential nomination"

The strongest claim is a relative thing. What if he simply does not wear well and he is seen as a possible disaster in November? Are the superdelegates required to be lemmings? Their responsibility is to win in November. Obama looks like the ticket even after the Penn loss. But with neither having the number required to win outright I think Clinton can make a case and the supers might buy it. We will see.

Clinton supporter voting dem in Nov.

[NJSecularist]

86. The only people who are changing the rules mid-stream are the Obamites.

Since when did somebody clinch the nomination without 2024 delegates?

[ekwhite]

103. Lots of times, actually

'Clinching the nomination' means that you have a commanding enough lead that the other candidates cannot possibly win, absent the leading candidate passing away or committing a crime or doing something so disgusting everyone agrees he or she should not be the candidate. Clinching the nomination before having the actual majority of the delegates has been the norm, not the exception.

If you look at the math, Clinton would have to have to win the states beyond NC by 20% or more to come out ahead in delegates.

As far as your claim that "only the 'Obamites' are changing the rules mid-stream,' that claim is prima facie absurd. Senator Clinton or her surrogates have suggested that 'only the popular votes count' or 'even if Obama leads in popular vote and pledged delegates, the superdelegates should look at electability.' Obama and his surrogates have consistently said that we should play by the DNC rules.

[newmajority]

26. So what you are suggesting is

That we should have every state decided by electro-fraud machines in the hands of DLC thugs, just like PA and Ohio?

[grantcart]

29. maybe a company rep lol

[lumberjack_jeff]

35. Of course that's what I was suggesting

All that white space was filled with text saying exactly that. How perceptive.

:sarcasm:

[phrigndumass]

30. Here we go again ... "certain states don't count"

I guess the states that held caucuses don't have the right to choose the method for their own elections. Or they do, and if we don't like the results, then we reserve the right to change it after it happens. :crazy:

On the flip side, Senator Obama has won more primary states (16 to 13).

Furthermore, a majority of Senator Clinton's "greater support" came from only five states!
CA - 2,524,799
TX - 1,459,814
PA - 1,238,232
OH - 1,212,362
NY - 1,068,496
Total - 7,503,703 of 13,877,547, or 54%

Welcome to the United Five States of America.

[lumberjack_jeff]

37. The results of the caucuses diverged from the primary results here in Washington

by far greater than the margin separating Clinton from Obama in PA.

The rules we have now are the rules we have. We have been keeping track of who voters support. We nominate someone who got fewer votes at our peril, but the opportunity to avoid that train wreck is long past.

[Rose Siding]

41. Because the primary was irrelevant because all the delegates were decided by caucus

Turnout at the primary wasn't the kind of blow-out we got at caucuses because voters realized this. It wasn't rocket science.

I wish they'd settle on one or the other but it is what it is.

[phrigndumass]

43. I agree, the rules we have now are the rules we have.

According to the DNC Rulebook, each state can decide to use either a primary or a caucus/convention to select their delegates. About a third of the states chose to use a caucus/convention to select their delegates. The party rules contend that both methods are democratic in nature. Until those rules are changed, delegates chosen in those states will count toward our party's nomination process. And the purpose of votes in a primary or caucus is to select delegates.

We nominate someone who got fewer delegates at our own peril.

More info: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5669409

[List left]

53. The primary vote in Washington state did not count.

Many people did not bother to vote in the Washington state democratic primary because only the caucuses counted.

[lumberjack_jeff]

62. I gather that.

700,000 democratic voters were disenfranchised, 46% of whom voted for Clinton.
http://vote.wa.gov/elections/wei/results.aspx?ElectionID=3

In contrast, no one really appears to know how many people participated in the caucuses, only that 68% of 'em wanted Obama.

[dbonds]

36. I would word that differently

The caucuses are more transparent and are least likely to election manipulation.

[lumberjack_jeff]

38. "less likely to manipulation"? You've been to a caucus?

The ancient Greeks went with secret ballots for a good reason. The psychology of the caucus experience is well understood and, as Washington's election data illustrate, demonstrable.

[Barrymores Ghost]

55. Then, when the rules are changed, the new rules can be applied.

Hillary Clinton agreed to the present rules, the MI and FL state Democratic parties arrogantly went against the expressed instructions of the DNC (knowing what the consequences would be), and now Hillary wants to change the rules because she's realized she's no longer the presumptive nominee. You can't assign 55% of the Michigan delegates to Clinton, because there's absolutely no sane way to claim that 55% of the Democratic votes would have gone to her had Obama's and/or Edwards' name been on the ballot. In Florida, she took less than 50% 0f the vote.

So, unless all agree to splitting delegates down the middle between the two remaining candidates in both states, or holding a re-vote and assigning weighted delegates accordingly, then Floridians and Michigan residents will need to take it up with their respective legislators and state parties.

[lumberjack_jeff]

63. I don't disagree

Nevertheless, the problem remains. If more people vote for the "losing" candidate, trouble follows. The caucuses and the MI/FL screwups make that outcome likely.

At that point, I think a unity ticket, for all its faults, is the only solution.

[Barrymores Ghost]

68. If they call for a revote in MI and FL and it happens...

...and if one candidate should win over the other, than that should put that matter to rest and we move on.

A unity ticket simply won't happen. It will be the reponsibility of the losing candidate to make an honest and exhausting appeal for unification behind the winner and the winner's choice of ticket mate, regardless...and it will be OUR responsibility to oblige and be adults and do the right thing for our country.

[Sunnyshine]

89. We are not rule by majority or popularity.

The caucuses are there to protect the voice of the minority, so the majority can't run rough shod over those who are in the activist part of our democracy. The ones working to make it a true representative democracy. Elections (should) be a sampling of both the popular and the minority.

That's why I like our way of doing things better. The Republicans remove the minority voice.
That's why I am a Democratic voter.

[lumberjack_jeff]

100. Whaaa?

George? George Orwell, is that you?

Uh, do they still give a definition of "democratic" in poly sci class?

No. Caucuses are not intended to guarantee that a candidate with less popular support becomes the nominee. Elections are not supposed to be "a sampling". They are supposed to be the mechanism whereby the public exerts their will on government.

All I can say is, yikes. I wonder where you Obama supporters get your reputation for elitism? Smoke filled rooms are fine so long as you get to be the bouncer at the door.

[Sunnyshine]

101. How Clintwellian! Your version of determining a candidate seems very authoritarian.

So, if the lagging candidate tries to thwart or steal the nomination based on tricked
up charges against the current leading nominee, we should call those vain acts Hillwellian.

HRC is popular to her loyal followers, but it ends there.
The majority of Democratic voters don't trust her.

I never said caucuses guarantee the less popular candidate becomes the nominee. You put those words in your post. I agree the caucuses are considered a mechanism for exerting public will. We elect the best candidate when he/she is supported by the collective voice of a broad spectrum of voters. The nominee's platform reflects overall national sentiment.

We have built a strong coalition of supporters from ALL voting blocks. That's why Barack is currently winning the popular candidate contest, and the delegate count, and the party organizers, and the grass roots activists, and pulling in new voices, and gaining in SD at the fastest pace, and he keeps on leading in national registered voter polling.

I am not sure what you are trying to dissect here. There's nothing to cut on, but hot air.
No need to be so rude. Please try to keep it civil.

[bvar22]

21. If Hillary surpasses Obama in pledged delegates,

I will vote for her in the GE.

[grantcart]

23. i agree absolutely

[Barrymores Ghost]

58. Likewise.

Mind if I take a few more breaths before I begin holding it?

[grantcart]

27. off to work kick

[Scurrilous]

28. K & R

:thumbsup:

[Mme. Defarge]

31. Recommended!

[GoesTo11]

33. Nope. Least pledged delegates does it for me.

Gravelanche!

[grantcart]

34. I have none - even my wife doesn't support me

[goclark]

93. K for the night owls

[YDogg]

40. 100

[delt664]

44. Hey thats my rep!

Good to see my vote is actually working.

Now if we could just get her on board to help us save the Sonics.

[hisownpetard]

45. Grantcart - you sure do have the Midas touch lately. Wanna run for office?

Just think about it, ok?
You'd have my vote in a heartbeat!

[NM Independent]

46. What? Then the people will decide, and that's undemocratic.

:sarcasm:

K&R

[Betsy Ross]

47. K&R! n/t

[Qutzupalotl]

48. From your lips to Bodhidharma's ear.

The candidate who has won the most pledged delegates in the primaries and caucuses authorized by the DNC will, in your mind, be the presumptive nominee.

That will probably occur on May 20th.


Darn right it will!!

[tekisui]

49. Go Obama!

[phrigndumass]

50. Rec'd ... Guess what! The DNC thinks the same way!

A rec for this thread is a rec for the Democratic Party.

[ORDem]

51. KnR - this is the only position that makes sense. nt

[Usrename]

52. That seems to be the way it's been set up.

:thumbsup:

[bigbrother05]

54. ...

kick

[nonoxy9]

56. And in the mean time lets all blow another $100 million fighting each other instead..

... of the real enemies in the GOP.
GREAT idea!!!:shrug:

[bigwillq]

59. Sounds good.

:thumbsup:

[lmbradford]

60. K and R.....

[myrna minx]

64. #169.

[Yes We Did]

65. because it is about the pledged delegates... and since Clinton can't win those...

then what the hell are you Supers waiting for?

[Barrymores Ghost]

67. Back to work, K&R. N/T

[debunkthelies]

69. Delegates

I think that sounds fair.:bounce: Unless it Hillzilla.:puke:

[rndmprsn]

70. K&R

[liberaldem4ever]

71. K & R!!

[trickyguy]

72. Hillary's doing a big flip-flop. Against the people who vote.

Right here on this site, she says early in the primary that "It's up to the voters"

Now, she's saying that "the voters really don't know the candidates except maybe at a speech or what they see on television".

(Read super delegates here)

In other words, screw you American public, I'm gonna win this no matter what. Boy, she is a real case for the books.

Let's let our votes count for something - like a decent commander-in-chief. Like Obama.:mad:

[DWilliamsamh]

73. K&R (N/T)

[dlfuller]

74. It's the rules, stupid

R&K

[LiberalFighter]

75. What is the point of having unpledged delegates if it is going to be based...

on one criteria?

What happens if there is an incident that causes doubt among the delegates supporting a particular candidate?

Does everyone know that even the pledged delegates don't have to vote for the candidate they were selected to support?

If the difference in delegates is under 200 should the candidate with the most delegate votes automatically be given the nomination even if they don't receive the required number?

[grantcart]

81. Its not one criteria

as the OP stated in this particular race this is how we feel

you are free to have other criteria.

[mopinko]

77. duh

every where but hillary world that would be too obvious to even state.

[LaStrega]

78. k&r n/t

[goclark]

79. We have your back Sen. Obama ~ the goalposts belong to you

You WILL BE the nominee!

Kicking and bouncing :bounce:

[FlyingSquirrel]

80. I'm not a big Cantwell fan (and I'm from WA)

I think what she's doing is purely for political reasons. Her state went for Obama, she wants to look good to the voters of her state. She has a weaker base than Patty Murray - Murray can afford to be stalwart in her support of Clinton. Cantwell, perhaps thinks she can't.

But hey, I'm glad to hear anyone agree that the candidate with the most Pledged Delegates should be tne nominee - whatever their motivations.

[grantcart]

82. As a Clinton supporter if she breaks first for Obama she will have done a great service

[Snarkoleptic]

83. K&mfn R

[grantcart]

90. oh thnks

[Infinite Hope]

84. I was Recommendation #234! n/t

[grantcart]

85. thanks

[ekwhite]

87. K&R

[Sunnyshine]

91. I agree.

I'm a bit new to putting my thoughts out there on blogs, and it feels comfortable here at D.U.
So, I jumped in after 6 months of bookmarking.Thanks grantcart, for always telling it like it is. Nice to finally say Aloha, in person.

[grantcart]

92. thanks momma welcome to DU

don't be shy

if you screw up just say your sorry and everybody will love you for it.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

94. Of course ! Everyone should - it's the rule ! haha K&R

[grantcart]

95. thanks

[oneofthepeople]

96. Judging electibility

The candidate with the most pledged delegate count should be the nominee.

Crawling into Americans heads and judging one as 'unelectable' is using a crystal ball and is not a valid reason to stray from 'most pledged delegates wins the nomination.'

Super delegates should not be the deciding factor, and most know that, especially the elected ones. There is a presumptive choice now with most pledged delegates. (Currently Sen. Obama only needs 136 and Sen. Clinton needs 291)

I rec that, and this thread.

[futureliveshere]

97. There is no question in my mind that this is the right thing to do!!! K&R

[Tommy_Carcetti]

98. Squirrel Award