Hillary supporters: How do you think people will react if she wins with a SuperD over-ride?

[RiverStone]

I understand your passion and dedication for a candidate you believe in. Honestly, I admire your tenacity defending her out-numbered on DU. My question is sincere.

I don't understand what you see when you look to Hillary's end game. What does that look like?

The only way Hillary can win is with the Super Delegates going against the will of the pledged delegates and very possibly the popular vote total. Hypothetically, lets assume the FLA/MI delegates are seated based on some elaborate compromise. Her scenerio includes a power play sometime in the middle distance, but no later then on the floor at the Democratic convention this summer in Denver.

For Obama supporters, we already know what we think this implosion would do to our party. Suffice to say, if it goes down the way Hillary wants - I think it would tear the party apart.

With all due respect to Hillary folks, please share your perspective on how you think voters will react if Hillary is handed the nomination via Super Delegates against the will of the pledged delegates. I appreciate an Obama nomination for you would be a very tough pill to swallow; but would anything seem unfair about it? I'm really trying to understand how you see her strategy as a winning one for our party and our chances to win the GE this fall.

Thanks. :hi:

[Rageneau]

1. Hell, in 2000, the whole ELECTION was stolen from us and we didn't let out a peep.

So I don't expect much of a reaction, myself.

[mamalone]

2. I'm looking forward to reading the answers...

and I really appreciate the pleasant non-confrontational tone of your post:)

[RiverStone]

11. I'm really trying to understand their perspective

Thanks mamalone. :hi:

Anger or insult would not get me the answer I'm seeking.

[mamalone]

48. Mister,

as I read through this thread, I am really admiring you! You seem like such a kind, gracious person...

I hope you have a wonderful evening:)

[Mimosa]

3. Riots in the cities.

Riots, alienation, sorrow, more apathy from the young.

The Democratic party will be screwed. I'll feel sad because I don't want to see this country ruled by successive dynasties of well-connected people. But that may well be what will happen?

[RiverStone]

6. Are you a Hillary supporter?

No problem. I'm just trying to see what those who want her to win see as the end game.


peace~:)

[wanpete]

7. I really like how you phrased your point. Successive dynasties of well-connected people.

that's just what Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton will reflect. America deserves better than that.

[terrell9584]

9. There are not going to be riots

Don't try and stir up fear by saying there would be. The one thing history proves is that rioting never helps to make the public more sympathetic to a rioters cause, and well, we've moved beyond that. There will be grumbling, anger, a party split, but we are not going to see cities go up in flames.

[RiverStone]

15. Are you a Hillary supporter?

If so, you say there will be a "party split" - I agree.

So how does that translate to a winning strategy?

Thanks.

[terrell9584]

23. I was an Edwards supporter

Because the ticket I wanted four years ago Clark-Gephardt, never materialized. I actually did get a primary vote this year, but only after most of the other candidates had dropped like flies.

I'm honestly not passionate about either, though I'm with Clinton right now solely because of her husband, that said, I have no dog in the fight and I will vote for the nominee. But, I just think it is asinine to suggest there will be riots. I believe that the race should play out. If a candidate has the lead in delegates and popular vote, then obviously they are nominee. However, I'm not opposed to MI having a revote (or FL) or counting FL as is. I think we have to do something in those states or else we could face a backlash.

Honestly, I don't see Hillary as a hope or inspiring but from my vantage point, she'll use every dirty trick in the book to win, and I think that's what the Republicans will do and she'll at least match tit for tat. And in the environment I grew up in, that's how things got done. The person who had valor and honor usually lost to the person who would go into the mud, and that's not just a political statement, it's a life statement in general.

This said, I support whoever is the nominee, but this should at least play out till June 3rd, because every election that goes forward does have something to tell us, and seeing as we have given everyone else in the country a vote, we don't have a right to tell IN, NC, WV, KY, etc, that they shouldn't have a voice too, because this will probably be the only Presidential primary ever in which every state and territory gets to chime in.

[RiverStone]

30. Solely because of her husband?

I think Michelle Obama would be a fantastic first lady and would ultimately contribute more to the sea-change then having Bill back in the White House (with nothing to do).

For the record, I'm a former Kucinich supporter who worked like hell to get Bill elected. He was a very good president, but sadly I have lost a lot of personal respect for him given the low tactics he has pulled straight from Rove's playbook.

I appreciate your thoughtful response terrell9584. :hi:

[DJ13]

4. An immediate 20% of registered Democrats becoming Independants

That would be the initial reaction.

That number might be low, as that only counts a good portion of the AA voters.

[wanpete]

8. I would actually say more than 20%.

[DJ13]

13. Im sure you're right. I know I would register as an Independant at that point

[RiverStone]

18. Lots more IMO.

[terrell9584]

5. If she does it by somehow winning the national popular vote without FL

It will probably be expected. It's something that would be hard to do, but it actually is in the realm of possibility, if just because West Virginia and Kentucky are states, and they are going to be so lopsided. Very much a long shot, that could happen. However, if there is no justification other than electability, it probably won't fly.

[PBS Poll-435]

10. Nada. No scenes, no tears. nt

[RiverStone]

17. Really? Folks will simply say OK?

Not being snarky - do you believe this or were you being :sarcasm:

Thanks :hi:

[PBS Poll-435]

19. After 8 years of Bush people aren't going to complain.

They will fall in line, (or they will vote for Nader.)

[RiverStone]

22. I don't think disillusioned Obama supporters will fall in line...

We remember what a stolen election felt like in 2000, IMO the sting from the (perception) of a stolen nomination from within would be even more compelling. The party would be effected negatively for a generation of voters.

But thanks for sharing your perspective prodn2000.

[PBS Poll-435]

25. It would be AFFECTED...

Effect is a noun, affect is a verb.

I would assume that the small percentage of those disillusioned (and devastated) would either stay home or vote for a fringe candidate. Like they usually do.

I, however, would vote for the Democratic candidate.

[RiverStone]

27. Affect it is - but where we can agree to disagree is...

You see a small percentage staying home, I see such a large percentage staying home that the Dems would not only lose the GE - but our majority on The Hill.

As an optimistic aside, in reality - I'm very confident the SuperD's would never let this happen. But the point of my OP is to understand how Hil supporters see us still winning with it happening.

[PBS Poll-435]

28. You are obviously biased towards your candidate.

However, I have not a doubt in my mind that hurting some feelings and winning the GE is more important than losing to Bush v3.0

The Super Ds want to win, and they want to win big. And with Obama, that is not likely to happen.
.

[RiverStone]

32. Yes I am - but I'm trying to be polite so folks will want to talk about it.

Thanks for sharing prodn2000. :hi:

[PBS Poll-435]

33. And thank you for asking.

Honestly.

Your politeness should be a shining beacon of light for others.

And I am sorry about my grammar overreaction.

:-)

[BalancedGoat]

43. The trouble then...

...becomes equating McCain to Bush v3.0 in young voters minds. Those are the voters most at risk of sitting this one out as many of them have yet to develope party loyalty. It's possible but I doubt it will be easy.

[jody]

12. Would that not be IAW rules of the Dem Party? HC opponents would have to live with it or show they

are not real Dems by leaving the Dem party and voting for another candidate or not voting.

[John Q. Citizen]

14. A: The SD are going to vote, by and large, for the pledged delegate winner. B. Just

because some one likes Obama's opponent better is a good enough reason to vote for them, period. No one has to fantasize that the SDs are going to cut their own throats in order to cast a ballot for Sen. Clinton.

So worrying or speculating on what hasn't happened and most likely isn't going to happen is kind of a waste of time.

[RiverStone]

26. I'm not worried about it.

And I agree John Q. Citizen 100%, that most likely it isn't going to happen.

But that's not the purpose behind the OP.

I'm just trying to understand how Hillary folk see the same thing so very, very differently. Not having too much luck getting that answer so far....

[Upton]

16. Deleted:

[RiverStone]

20. I agree yet am still seeking Hillary supporter perspectives here...

I can't fathom the end game doing any less then your observation Upton.

This is why I am so curious how Hillary folk see it (and obviously see the end game very different from us).

[GoldieAZ49]

21. Same way Obama and his supporters have told Hillary supporters

you just have to get together.


He said it in the ABC debate.

[NJSecularist]

24. Probably the same way Hillary supporters would feel if Obama was given the nomination

by some backroom superdelegate deals.

[RiverStone]

35. I agree 100%

Appreciate the honest reply NJSecularist.

Do you think the party faithful would see a Hillary SD over-ride as equally fair as an Obama win?

One feels like a "deal" the other feels like a "win" - at least from this voter.

[Hamlette]

29. A McCain presidency as the young people Obama brought to the party drop out

or serious talk about a 3rd party...which also means a McCain presidency.

Bye bye choice.

[PBS Poll-435]

31. Nah...

The Democrats who were Democrats before the sudden ascension of Barack Obama will elect a Democrat as President. And she will win FL, WV, KY, OH, and PA like real Democrats do. (Like Bill Clinton did in 1996)

[Kool Kitty]

36. That's ascension-not assention.

[PBS Poll-435]

37. And down the memory hole it goes....

Dang Diebold spell-checker!

[RiverStone]

38. karma or is it kharma?

peace~:)

[PBS Poll-435]

40. It is clearly a POTATOE

:P

[Kool Kitty]

45. But I got your drift.

;)

[Ravy]

34. Depends on the rationale. If she is leading in popular vote,

I would think it would be seen as legitimate by most people.

The idea of supers throwing in with the most pledged delegates is weak to me compared with actual votes. The SDs are there for the express purpose of using different metrics if no one gets to the threshhold. If they want to back down from their responsibility then there is absolutely no reason for their existance. We should just give the nomination to whoever gets the most pledged delegates and to hell with having to reach some sort of threshhold to become the nominee.

[jillan]

39. Obama cannot win without the Super D's either...and if Hillary is winning the popular

vote - I believe she is the winner.

[RiverStone]

42. Ah, the ol popular vote conundrum...

It's really too bad the DNC and FLA/MI party leaders could not work out a redo. Even worse FLA/MI party leaders should have followed the DNC rules in the first place, then we would have an honest and complete primary for both states in the books.

Because unless they do - which is very unlikely at this late date - what exactly equals the popular vote is in for a very contentious and protracted debate.

In other words, a major clusterfuck.

[HooptieWagon]

54. How is an accurate popular vote determined?

Several states use caucuses to determine delegates. Many caucus participants end up supporting a second or even third choice. Often an accurate total count isn't kept, and can only be guessed at. Primaries in MI and FL were advertised as not counting, and the candidates did not campaign. Why should those popular vote totals now be counted? Why shouldn't current national polls be counted, which would be no less accurate than a popular vote estimate? And lastly, the rules agreed to by the Party and candidates were that the winner would be determined by delegate counts, and the campaigns strategized accordingly. Why should the rules now be changed in favor of the current loser? Does the Democratic Party really want to put out the meme that even if a candidate is qualified, capable, and winning by the agreed rules, they will be thrown under the bus if they're not white?

So, how should the SDs determine their votes? There are no hard fast rules, but first they should look at the PD count since this was the agreed upon criteria. They should probably look at which campaign has been better organized, financed, and run. Nominate the establishment candidate who used name recognition, connections, and corporate support to amass a $100M bankroll and 160 SDs before the first primary and has since mismanaged and squandered those advantages? Or nominate a candidate who had none of those advantages, but created an army of grass-roots workers and small donors, attracted hundreds of thousands of new voters to a Democratic candidate, and carefully managed resources, staff, and strategy to take the lead from the presumptive "inevidible" candidate? Which candidate will generate more excitement and support for Dem candidates in down-ticket races? Lastly, I suppose the "electibilty" factor gets addressed. Hillary has the highest negatives of any candidate of either party. People don't like her. This is not because she's a woman or white, but because of who she is and how she's positioned herself. Many people simply cannot support a prevaricating war-mongering corporatist. Obama's negatives however, seem to center around his race and the chutzpah of mounting a serious challenge to the Clinton machine.

Either selection will result in the alienation of some voters. Who is the Party willing to alienate? Racists or Progressives? What direction is the Party to take? Who does the Party wish to represent and fight for? We have already seen the DLC's unwillingness to fight GOP/corporate control of government... in fact their mission is to embrace it. So, why nominate the titular DLC head as candidate?

[jillan]

55. WHY are you bringing up race? What does that have to do with anything?

Honestly - I am so fed up with Obama supporters bringing up race....just because he is half black.

Who cares?????? This has NOTHING to do with the color of his skin.

[lumberjack_jeff]

41. People? Half of 'em will be happy. Half will be pissed.

Exactly the same proportions as if the nomination is awarded to someone who didn't attract a majority of voters.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kool Kitty]

57. Funny-I don't see any Obama folks calling for riots here,

and neither do you. No one that has replied to this thread has.

[Liberal Gramma]

46. There might not be blood running in the streets

but the funds to the Democratic party would dry up immediately. The AA community would depart, I know not where, maybe third party, and most of the activist liberals would also leave. It would be the end of the party as we know it; therefore, it would be the heart's desire of the Republican party. IF that happens, we'll know for sure that the party has been taken over by stealth Republicans.

[Hope08]

47. The "just like Obama supporters would feel" answers fascinate me

I suspect I may catch hell for this, but . . . I have very few reasons to vote Democratic, from a purely selfish standpoint. (Without belaboring the point, my career is largely recession proof and I make enough money.)

If, notwithstanding Obama's plainly more legitimate claim to the nomination, Clinton supporters stay home and McCain is elected as a result, many will only be hurting themselves (particularly in light of the blue collar demographic she appeals to). It amazes me that folks who have no business doing so vote to give me tax breaks year after year after year -- tax breaks that I don't even ask for and don't want! But I suppose I'll take them, it's been the only silver lining to the last eight disastrous years. And make no mistake, if you stay home this election cycle that's exactly what you'll be doing: giving folks like me, who don't need government assistance at all, more government assistance (what else do you call not making us pay our fair share?) and taking it away from Americans who could really use it. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face . . .

[Mezzo]

49. It's not an over ride. MORE DEMOCRATS have gone to the polls to vote for HER . period.

I've been against disenfranchising voters since before 2000.

Howard Dean got into a pissing contest with state legislatures in order to appease IOWA. Trying to disenfranchise voters as a result shows something sinister is afoot.

[totodeinhere]

53. It is unclear who has got more votes at this point.

MORE DEMOCRATS have gone to the polls to vote for HER . period.

You can't make an unequivocal statement like that. For instance, many primaries were open primaries where independents and Republicans could vote in the Dem primary. And in some states independents but not Republicans could vote. And then some primaries were closed. So how do we know how many voters in those open primaries were Democrats? The answer is that we don't, so in those states it's impossible to know who got more votes from Democrats.

Then we have the caucuses. Obama did very well in many caucus states. Yet in some caucus states they didn't even tally total votes. All they tallied was delegates. So how can we work that out?

The truth is that the only true measure that we have to go by is pledged delegates, not popular votes.

[FlaGranny]

50. The only way for this to end peacefully

is for someone to drop out. The one who is behind should drop out. It's the only decent thing to do. Although I am supporting Obama, if he were as behind as Clinton, I would hope he would drop out and drop out now. To not drop out at this point is causing division and is destructive to both candidates and to the party. Hillary has every right to continue, but she is taking us into a train wreck. I believe, at this point, if in her shoes, Obama would have quit the race for the good of the party and the country. He's smart enough to count the delegates and wouldn't want to divide the party with a huge convention fight. Of course, that's just what the MSM would love to see.

[RiverStone]

51. Yes, a voluntary exit = a peaceful resolution

If the SuperD's force a hand, that will potentially add resentment to the mix.

[RichardRay]

52. The chimera of the 'popular vote'.

I think I'm going to get on a soap box about this in threads where the issue is raised.

We don't know what the popular vote was. The voting process in the primaries is a rat's nest of rules and processes that make a 'vote' in one state almost largely distinct from a 'vote' in another. Some state hold caucuses; any effort to convert a caucus result into a 'number of votes' is strained. Some states have open primaries, some closed. In no location is the process of polling up to the GE standards - it's managed by the party in a variety of ways. If machines are used they're even less dependable than they are for the general elections; as far as I know they don't even have to be certified by the various secretaries of state or anyone else.

What we have is an estimate of the popular vote, based on a sample, and I don't care for the way the sample was taken. As a sampling technique the primary process is pretty haphazard.


If you want to advocate for a different process then go right ahead, I agree that our current approach seems to be unsatisfactory. Be that as it may, though, we have delegates and super delegates, not a popular vote. The super delegates are expected to be wiser than other voters, that's why they're 'super'. their decision is based on their opinions and beliefs just as is that of every other voter. If a super delegate really believes that selecting Senator Clinton over Senator Obama wold be more likely to lead to a Democratic victory in November than that super delegate should vote that way, without hiding behind some claim of a mandate based on a non-existent popular vote total.

[Aussie leftie]

56. The "primary" system in itself isn't fair.

If every state showed uniformity, and if every state got to vote, then maybe the system would be fair. Caucusing is no more or less as fair as getting by on the votes of super delegates. Ohio and Pennsylvania are extremely important states to win in the GE and they are the ones Clinton won by a good margin.

When it comes to electability (looking from outside the square) Hillary Clinton seems to appeal to a wider variety of the population.