So, If Obama edges Clinton on pledged delegates, but she wins in the total popular vote

[ruggerson]

who do the superdelegates vote for?

I mean, if we are to accept the "will of the people" argument.

[mondo joe]

1. And: should they go with the popular/or delegate vote of the nation? Or their state?

I can hardly wait.

[jgraz]

2. I don't think that's going to be an issue

Hillary's in a deep hole and now she's making noises about writing off Ohio. This is already over. We're just waiting for her to figure it out.

[AJH032]

4. huh?

"noises" about writing off Ohio? What are you talking about?

[jgraz]

15. Here y'go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4606848

"Sen. Hillary Clinton last night said she does not view Ohio as a must-win firewall to keep Sen. Barack Obama from winning the Democratic presidential nomination."

[jackson_dem]

33. That isn't writing it off. No one says a state is a must-win

Except candidates who plan to drop out if they lose the must-win (Fred Thompson, Giuliani are two examples from this cycle). Actually this is a good sign. It suggests she will continue to fight on even if she loses Ohio. She may settle for taking Texas, Rhode Island, and Vermont on March 4.

[lisa58]

9. Where did you hear/read that?

[CreekDog]

3. Let's cross that bridge when/if we come to it

If she catches up that could be a consideration.

[msongs]

5. the will of the people argument only applies if it benefits obama doncha know? nt

[calteacherguy]

6. Then we have a real mess. I say popular vote, either way.

Excluding Florida and Michigan, where there was no election, of course.

You have to go with the will of the people, but it's probably a moot point because it will never happen.

[mondo joe]

11. Popular vote of their state? Or of the nation?

[calteacherguy]

Popular vote of nation, excluding Florida and Michigan.

There were no legitimate elections in those states.

[MonkeyFunk]

21. Nonsense

Florida and Michigan should count.

[lisa58]

30. no they shouldn't

not unless they have a fair vote

[jackson_dem]

35. Florida certainly had a fair vote

[lisa58]

41. no they didn't

you have no idea how many people didn't vote because they knew IT WOULDN'T COUNT!

[mondo joe]

42. Then it applies across the board: it was a fair vote.

[lisa58]

44. no it wasn't

[mondo joe]

45. Of course it was. It was fair to all candidates. That you don't like the results

doesn't change that.

[lisa58]

47. they didn't campaign...

...you have a candidate that has a "brand name" against someone that has a great "ground game" and wasn't allowed to use it.

It wasn't fair.

[mondo joe]

48. None of them campaigned locally. They all had national attention. It was fair.

Even if they did campaign, one would still have had greater name recognition.

They all played by the same rules.

[jackson_dem]

46. It was the fourth highest turnout of any of the 25-30 primaries/caucuses held this year!

[lisa58]

49. they didn't campaign...

...see post 47 above so I don't have to re-type.

[jackson_dem]

50. That makes the voice of 1.7 million folks irrelevant?

We NEED these folks in the general. How do we win without Florida and Michigan? We don't.

[lisa58]

51. FL and MI will count in the general

[Leopolds Ghost]

55. We don't need Florida, it's in with the Bushes, always has been. Who needs that.

We need more significant states, not flyover states like Florida.

[houstontxdem]

56. Where's the smiley? We need every single vote in the general election

We need to cultivate everyone, no matter which state or affiliation/category.

[dysfunctional press]

60. what other races/issues were on the ballot...?

you don't get record turnout for a meaningless vote.

[mondo joe]

24. Why the nation rather than their state?

[bellasgrams]

37. INCLUDING FL & MICH. Don't discriminate against others

because of stupid party leaders. In Fl the candidates were on the ballots the people voted the way they wanted to vote. In Mich. there were only 3 or 4 that didn't remove their names. That's not the people's fault, other candidates were just not as bright, you wouldn't want someone in charge of the country if they couldn't look ahead and see the possibility of a change. They didn't have to remove their names.

[bellasgrams]

31. funny-My family in Miami voted and they deserve to have their

votes counted. They are tax paying born in the USA citizens. By the way they're split between BO & Hillary

[jackson_dem]

34. Except the will of 1.7 million Floridians and 600,000 Michiganlanders (sp)?

[LisaM]

36. LOL. It's "Michiganders"

Don't worry, you were way closer than Randi Rhodes, she couldn't come up with anything, so she just said Wolverines.

[Lerkfish]

7. what exactly bothers you so much about the "will of the people"?

you seem to treat it with apparent contempt.

[ruggerson]

18. I believe in not changing the rules in the middle of the game for political convenience

I know it's an old fashioned concept.

Thus, I think the superdelegates should vote for whomever the hell their conscience tells them to vote for.

[lapfog_1]

23. Then you are all for not seating the FL and MI delegates

because those were rules too. Agreed to in advance by all parties.

Or are you only in favor of rules that benefit ONE candidate?

[ruggerson]

27. I've explicity said as much three or four times

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4582585&mesg_id=4582585


So, what's your position?

[lapfog_1]

40. I have no problem with Super delegates doing what they want

but I also believe that if they overturn the will of the Democratic party rank and file and nominate someone who has fewer pledged delegates and fewer votes in the primaries, there is a good chance that the party will split over this. Just as the case in 2000 when Al Gore won the popular vote and, because of theft and the shenanigans of the Supreme Court, did not become the President. I don't see this as being all that different, rules or no rules (after all, rules were in play in 2000 as well).

And I don't think the MI or FL delegates should be seated. I don't like the "punishment" handed down by the DNC, but then... those were the rules.

Mostly I'm hoping we, as a party, avoid the whole mess. Obama goes on to run the table and Hillary bows out. That's what I hope. Unfortunately, I don't think that will happen.

[Lerkfish]

53. I agree with rules, however, I think the superdelegate rule is a bad rule

regardless of whom it benefits this time, because it takes power away yet again from the voters in a close election.
It benefits the party machine vs. the popular vote... It opens the door for smoky backroom dealing, and as such, I think it should be honestly reexamined in the light of day AFTER this election. If it is reexamined, I would avocate its abolition.

[lisa58]

8. If it's that close they have to vote their conscience

[joshcryer]

14. Exactly, there will be a lot of hard decisions to be made.

At that point I believe the superdelegates, even some of Obama's superdelegates, would vote to seat MI and FL out of common sense. Almost 2 million voters cannot be disenfranchised, so it'd be quite interesting.

[lisa58]

22. MI and FL are a very different story...

...the candidates agreed to the dnc policy before the vote - something has to be done. I think they should just lower the amount of delegates necessary that the candidates need to acquire by the 360ish that FL and MI represent.

[moobu2]

10. That’s easy

As long as it’s Burack Hussein Obama doing the election stealing, it’s cool.

[lisa58]

12. no it isn't

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[Political Heretic]

59. Mann Coulter? Is that you?

[LaurenG]

13. I would say that she wins then. nt

[catagory5]

19. not at all

I dont think saying that is a sign that she is writing off Ohio. I think she is trying to downplay the importance of a huge Ohio win. All in all, everyone knows it is a must win for her.

[LaurenG]

26. Well if the rule is that the person who wins the popular vote is

the nominee then we have to go with that. If Obama won by those guidelines then he should win.

[Obamaniac]

16. Not going to happen

He leads by a substantial margin at this point.

He leads by about one million votes or 4% of the total population.

[joshcryer]

20. You're not counting MI and FL.

[lapfog_1]

17. I believe that to be impossible

because of the way the pledged delegates are awarded in most districts.

First off, there isn't any "winner take all". Second, the rules reward more delegates to the second place finisher, in general, than the percentage of the vote in that district.

Again, this is for most states, and caucuses tend to throw the math off (since they are almost like an instant runoff voting system, done manually and with peer pressure).

But I think the winner of the pledged delegates will, with almost certainty, be the winner of the nationwide popular vote.

If I'm wrong, I'd like to see the math that proves me wrong (not that I can come up with it myself).

In any event, I'd like to see the candidate nominated who wins the popular vote and the pledged delegate race, rather than have the super delegates decide differently.

[tandem5]

29. its very possible...

even with proportionally awarded delegates there is still the potential because the ratio of delegates to state population favor states with smaller populations.

There are all sorts of various tacts that yield different results - for instance if the super delegates were to be compelled to vote with their state's election results well then Clinton might have the advantage in super delegates as the bigger states that she's won have many more super delegates than the smaller states.

[lapfog_1]

43. I was leaving the super delegates out of the equation

and would love to see the math that shows that the candidate that shows up with the most pledged delegates (from primaries and caucuses) does NOT have the most votes nationwide (or caucus goers). Like I said, it might be possible for this to happen, but I don't think it's very likely.

[bellasgrams]

25. I hope you don't mind, but I used your msnbc line in an email

All Clinton supporters should flood them with it.

[ruggerson]

28. be my guest

:)

[PermanentRevolution]

32. I say we do it by sack race

Winner-take-all. In the event of a tie in the sack race, each candidate, with their campaign manager, will take place in a three-legged obstacle course - best 2 out of 3 gets the SD's votes.

[billyoc]

38. I'd want the SD's to vote for Sen. Clinton in that case.

The popular vote is more important to me.

[rinsd]

39. Then we are in a real fucking mess.

[Perky]

52. I think the conventional (pardon the pun) wisdom is that the world blows up

if that is the scenario.

I think the superdelegate in that instance probably align with the the state or congressional distric they represent.

That would seem to be the only fair way.

but realize that is when there is a split decision on votes and delgates.

Incidently I think Obama probably wins if they play it that way.

[chascarrillo]

57. There is no total popular vote.

How can you determine a candidate on the basis of a "national popular vote" that doesn't exist?

[Political Heretic]

58. Since there should BE no SD's in the first place, the correct answer is:

they should follow whoever has the most pledged delegates, rather than undermine the people's voice who participated in the parties primary and caucuses under the illusion that they would get to pick their parties candidate.

If the people don't get to choose their representatives, then there's no point in being in the party at all.

[LordJFT]

61. won't happen, there are too many states Clinton thinks "don't count"