Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Does Hillary Want the Supreme Court to Decide Race?
Last year Hillary signed a statement agreeing to not allow Michigan and Florida delegates to be seated in August. Only after Hillary took a look at her math did she decide she ‘changed her mind’ and now wants to seat those delegates.
She’s out there demanding they be seated. She claims the voters in those States will be disenfranchised if their delegates aren’t counted. Barack Obama says he'll follow the rules of the DNC.
Meanwhile, her campaign has been pushing the idea that Super delegates should ignore what the voters say and vote for who they think will win in November.
Recently she’s been pushing the idea that even ‘elected’ delegates have a right to override the Will of the voters in their States.
At the same time, Hillary’s camp is pushing the idea that if she wins the popular vote, that proves she deserves the nomination. As some of you might know, the nominee is chosen by the person to reach total of 2024 delegates. The nominee is ‘not’ chosen by popular vote. The rules say ‘delegates’ decide the winner.
Some of you might say, “Connie, you must be one of those that took the side of George W. Bush in 2000 down in Florida, saying it was the ‘delegate’ count that made the winner”. No, actually it was the Supreme Court that decided the winner.
That fact brings me back to the confusion Hillary is causing. On one hand she wants ‘YOUR VOTE TO COUNT’; but on the other hand, she wants the ‘Super and elected Delegates’ to override YOUR vote.
If the Supers and Elected delegates override the Voter’s Will --- isn’t that the same as having the Supreme Court decide who wins?
Comments (6)
About all that we can say with absolute certainty right now is that Senator Clinton wants to be our president. She wants that badly enough that if it requires the elected delegates to give the finger to the voters she will go for that. She wants it badly enough that if it takes the results of an election where Senator Obama wasn't even on the ballot to give the finger to Senator Obama, she will go for that. And, if it takes Justice Scalia to declare that caucuses don't count, thats fine too.
This is called determination. Actually I notice that it is called other things here, but I chose determination.
March 29, 2008 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is not just determination. It is unprincipaled determination
March 29, 2008 6:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
"If the Supers and Elected delegates override the Voter’s Will --- isn’t that the same as having the Supreme Court decide who wins?"
No. The Supreme Court is controlled by Republicans.
That makes a huge difference. :o)
Another difference is that the Supreme Court justices are appointed rather than elected, and the fact that they were appointed in part for their partisanship did not escape people's notice.
This will come into play if the nomination does make it to the convention. There are both elected representatives and unelected insiders in the ranks of the superdelegates, and it will make a very big difference if the nomination is seen to have been decided by the elected reps (who are at least accountable to voters) or the smoke-filled room players.
I suspect most people will grit their teeth and support the party in the presidential election even if their candidate loses, but if the party leaders' interference doesn't result in a win in November, I suspect people will take it out on the elected reps at the first opportunity.
I think there will also be a concerted effort to remove the party insiders. There will be a lot of casualties if a Democrat doesn't take the White House this fall.
Having said all that, I am 100% certain that the leader in pledged delegates will win on the first ballot at the convention. It may be true that superdelegates can vote however they please, but since the only way they can be sure of not losing their jobs over this is to wash their hands of it and say they're voting as they were told, I have no doubt that this what they will do.
March 29, 2008 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe you are correct about how the supers will vote.
March 29, 2008 6:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Haranguing about the will of the voters and the importance of the popular vote is definitely wildly at odds with asserting that pledged delegates should behave like superdelegates.
March 29, 2008 2:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
DF, that is what I thought!
Somehow hoppycalif2 above calls that DETERMINATION. (Spin and more spin...)
No sir, it is CONTRADICTION.
March 29, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment