Why are some DUers only for DNC rules when they benefit Obama?

[Clintonista2]

Here is basically what I'm hearing from Obama supporters:

Scenario #1- The DNC decides to take away the voice of Michigan and Florida. We must accept this because we must follow the DNC rules.

Scenario #2- Super delegates (who overwhelmingly favor Clinton),under DNC rules, may end up being the tie-breaker. We must not accept this because it is undemocratic.


Care to explain the contradiction Obama fans?

[MonkeyFunk]

1. I've been pointing that out...

some people let their candidate preference override their common sense.

[Clintonista2]

2. It's hard to get a straight answer from them.

[thunder rising]

3. The rules stand. Superdelegates count, FL/MI are out ... gooooBama

[Clintonista2]

5. Exactly. Superdelegates count. So why are Obamatons against them?

[joshcryer]

16. Hillary has more superdelegates. Hillary has more MI and FL votes. What's to consider?

It's obvious why they're against them.

[thunder rising]

25. careful, I am an Obamaton. We'll beat Hillary on the stated rules.

[havocmom]

4. And right below this on Latest page, HRC defends Superdelegates

So, it may not just be Obama supporters who want some rules struck down and others maintaine.

Just pointing out the facts. HRC wants the MI and FL rule breaking to go unpunished - change THAT rule, but maintain the rule giving Super Delegates power to overturn the will of party voters.

Don't go blaming one side for what all are doing.

[Clintonista2]

6. Why should voters have their voices taken away, because of something the party did?

[havocmom]

17. So you are for the abolishment of the Superdelegates too?

Cuz unelected delegates who can wheel and deal sure as hell take everyone's voice away in a tight race.

[Clintonista2]

19. I would love to have superdelegates abolished

But you can't support squelching the voices of Florida and Michigan voters, while at the same time being against superdelegates for being "anti-democratic"

[havocmom]

23. EXACTLY! And the opposite is also true, can't be for seating MI and FL

and FOR keeping the super delegates, unless, or course, you are HRC. That is my point. She is doing what you accuse Obama supporters of doing.

IF you want THE VOTERS heard, you would want MI and FL seated and Super Delegates striped of voting rights.

That isn't what HRC advocates. She wants MI and FL seated because she is the only one who campaigned and won there. She wants Super Delegates because she has influence there.

So, it seems less about votes counting than about SUPPORT counting in a very tight race.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

7. Im opposed to the Super Delegate scam PERIOD

I support Obama, I also had supported Edwards.

I oppose the backroom dealing of using Super Delegates to override the will of the voters.

There shouln't be any super delegates PERIOD, not for anyone.

[polichick]

8. LOL - like Clinton is not trying to seat the MI & FL delegates!

[Levgreee]

9. No one is asking for the super-delegates to removed, this year... also, super-delegates do not

overwhelmingly favor Clinton. That is a huge misconception on your part, showing that you simply do not understand the situation clearly.

[LiberalFighter]

22. Exactly. Obama people are acting like the vast majority of SD are supporting Clinton.

[NastyRiffraff]

10. Good point

Personally, I think that candidates implicitly accepted DNC's rules when they signed up to campaign. In the case of Michigan and Florida, they all knew that the DNC said that delegates woudn't be seated because they violated DNC rules about primary/caucus dates. Fair enough; Dean couldn't let those states' blatant violations stand, and they had been strongly warned of the consequences.

Superdelegates have been around long enough for all candidates are VERY famliar with those rules. They may be overwhelmingly for Clinton, but it's not like Obama doesn't have a chance to reach them; he knew about them, and who they were since before the campagin began. Unlike Michigan and Florida, he can actively try to gain delegates.

That said, I do hope the Michigan & Florida situation can be resolved fairly. Dean has called for binding caucuses. That's not a perfect solution, but it's better than not seating delegates. I hope both states take note and do everything they can to make sure their delegates are seated.

[CaptJasHook]

11. I've been trying to point out that this is problematic for all of us

Both the Super delegates (I had no idea they had that many votes... that much power to dismiss we Democratic voters) and the Florida/Michigan situation.

This F***ing electoral/delegate system is so freaking arcane.

Who stole my country? My own party is guilty.

[1awake]

12. well,

scenario #1 is inaccurate. I can't comment on it because.. well.. none of it is true, sorry. I will say that both Michigan and Florida should be allowed to re-vote / caucus, but allowing the original would be extremely bad, and that has nothing to do with the rules. Michigan for obvious reasons, and Florida because of what was considered before/while the vote took place. If you want to count their vote, thats appropriate, but make it fair for everyone.

Scenario #2 - I will support either Hillary or Obama if they win the majority of the delegates. I take issue with ANY person who did not win a majority of the delegates, to be selected by others regardless... and that would go both ways, even if Obama was selected.

[totodeinhere]

13. There is no contradiction.

Most Obama supporters are not saying that the super delegate rules should be violated. What Obama supporters are doing is to try to influence the super delegates to vote for whoever gets the most elected delegates. It is not against any DNC rule for either side to try to jawbone the supers, and both sides are doing it.

[PATRICK]

14. What about the compromise?

Dean suggested caucuses for Florida and Michigan that might favor Obama but in reality at this late date might just legitimately seal a majority of those state delegates- legally- for Clinton. I'd like to know either campaign's response to that suggestion. This intended as a non-partisan question.

The mess that is our primaries has always been compromised by conflicting concerns and methods. When it goes the distance ALL the blemishes appear, and bear weight: the over importance of early small states, the caucus effect, crossover voters not registered Dems, the mere existence of superdelegates. At least we don't have winner take all states anymore such as when California used to shut down close contests like this one.

The only remedy is to abide by the rules. We have already been brought to the point of chaos by idiotic Florida and Michigan state party officials. The pressure on superdelegates can be stated without changing the reality much. Pressures will be brought to bear, so making them somewhat public might be healthier than otherwise. And pressure obviously will come close to forbidden boundaries or it wouldn't be pressure.

In the usual hullabaloo common to all past primary seasons the only likely rational reform to come from the inevitable discontent and after the fact concessions will be more ludicrous tinkering. As usual no one is even breathing a serious word about primary reform anymore than getting rid of the godforsaken electoral college and crazy quilt fraud that makes the presidential election a dangerous joke.

[joshcryer]

15. What I find insulting is the idea that superdelegates won't support the will of the people.

What a fucking joke.

[fenriswolf]

20. ill put it to you like this

with bill clinton running around to every super D that he ever did a favor for I know for a fact that unless Obama wins in a land slide hillary will win from a margin thanks to the super delegates.

Exactly what is beholding them to vote how their district or state votes?

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. No one has given any good responses

at this thread either:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4500657&mesg_id=4500657

At the Nevada caucus the popular vote went to Clinton and the majority of delegates went to Obama. Not only didn't I hear a peep out of a single Obama supporter about that result being undemocratic, but I saw many (not all) Obama supporters insisting that Obama won Nevada, not Clinton, because the popular vote is not what mattered, the only thing that mattered was who, according to the rules, got the most delegates - hence Obama won Nevada and Clinton lost it according to them.

[LiberalFighter]

21. Give all the delegates to Edwards. No wait give them all to Gore

[Cameron27]

24. I've been arguing that in three different threads,

the contradiction is called hypocrisy. The rules only apply when they favor Obama.

[kdpeters]

26. Because it's about breaking establishment power and promoting the collective voice of voters

Scenario #1: To someone who is distrustful of political party machines and having our candidate selected for us, who supports hearing not only the voice of the people, but ensuring minority voices are heard, we understand this rule. It gives the nod to smaller states with diverse geographic and cultural representation to have earlier primaries so their issues don't get drowned out by the bigger states.

Then draws a line in the sand and says "No more. Period." Thank heavens. Otherwise, where will the leapfroggin end? How long are we going to stretch out the presidential election season? It's already much too long. It diverts attention and energy away from important issues. This HAD to be done. A vote of 50 states' parties agreed.

There may be problems with this setup to argue, but it is fundamentally a GOOD rule for democratic principles. Attempts to circumvent or break this rule smells reeks of corporate, establishment power trying to maintain their choke-hold on power. Large population swing states, especially the Florida cash cow - complaining about a lack of representation simply doesn't hold water. We see local Democratic officeholders -- all of them supporting the same inevitable establishment candidate - colluding with Republicans with full knowledge of the consequences going public an openly fomenting intra-party division and resentment among Democratic voters. They're even willing to disenfranchise their own states' voters and cloak themselves in "voice of the voter" rhetoric? It's disgraceful. This is fundamentally anti-democratic and any liberal immediately recognizes the divide and conquer strategy used to dampen our collective voice.

The biggest issue is the voters of Florida and Michigan. They are the victims and efforts need to be made to see that they have a say. There is no good solution at this point, but is MUST be compromise. I support the ostensible principles behind the four early state exemptions and FULLY support the line in the sand preventing primaries from moving earlier and earlier.

In my opinion, this rule should be followed. However, I'm a big believer in scrutinizing the rules according to principles. Rules are often made by people with powerful self-interests. I'm all for civil disobedience and defying unjust rules. That's the case you need to make if you're arguing to break this rule and seat the delegates. I don't see how anyone but the people of Florida and Michigan are served while all the other 48 states who followed this rule are pushed aside by two big states wanting to front-load their interests by breaking the rule. If you want to make the case made for seating their delegates, speak to my principles.

Scenario #2: Superdelegates? Yes, there are rules about superdelegates, but they clearly go against democratic principles. They don't seemed designed to give more say underrepresented voices? So what is their purpose? If we have a good, strong, bottom up, grassroots Democratic Party, I don't see why any are needed at all, but as it is superdelegates are close to 40% of the total. That isn't designed to represent the people. It looks suspiciously designed to ensure the people make the "right" choice and to override us if we don't. If the superdelegates override the voice of the people, our suspicions will be confirms. Why bother even voting if it doesn't matter? This is a fundamentally anti-democratic rule that MUST be fixed. If you want to argue that this is a good rule, speak to my principles.

[FlyingSquirrel]

27. Here's my opinion: Give Hillary BOTH.

Let her have Michigan and Florida. The most she'll get out of it is 50 delegates. Guess what, Obama's gonna beat her handily by a much larger margin.

Let the superdelegates fall where they may. The majority of them are waiting to see who's gonna win before adding their votes 'cause they don't want to split the party by voting for the one who's losing and putting them over the top against the popular vote. If that vote goes to Obama, you'll see defectors from Clinton left and right who've already endorsed.

Let her have it all. She's still gonna lose.