Reply #31: Even if they did, it would at least have been a valid election [View All]

[karynnj]

where every candidate would have participated. This is because had they initially said that they would retain half their delegates, it would have been ridiculous to insist on no one campaigning. I think that another possible solution is to have let them have ALL their PLEDGED delegates, but NO superdelegates. That would put the pressure on the superdelegates to push for staying in the rules. (They could let them attend, only NO vote or they could even deny them seating unless they won as pledged delegates.)

This year, had it been a valid election - Obama would have likely gained a higher percent than the amount he got in the what if exit poll - which would have resulted in at most a small net for HRC. In every (or nearly every) state that Obama actually campaigned in, he closed the gap at least to some degree. Had this happened in FL and MI, even arguing for re-instating the whole thing would not work.

I agree (as usual) with the OP - this was mishandled by the DNC. It is really not good to have the Clintons out there arguing that we are not "counting all the votes". It is despicable of them that they created the idea of a "popular vote" in the primaries. It makes no sense to compute it over a mix of caucuses and primaries. It is the equivalent of adding apples and oranges - and it completely destroys the weights that should be given to the states. They floated the idea first in February after they really knew they might well lose and the media bought it. It was an attempt to win when by the rules of the game they lost. While it is true that HRC is closer to Obama than any previous runner up in the last several decades, that does not mean it is a tie or that she deserves anything special.