Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Hillary Wins Nomination via SuperDelegates
If you support Hillary and want her to continue fighting for the nomination do you recognize what this means?
It means you want the superdelegates to overrule the will of the voters. Before we consider whether you are ok with this, let's check the numbers.
Obama delegate lead now = 142
Hillary big win in PA = 30
Hillary big win in FL revote = 30*
Obama win in NC = 13
Other primaries equal out (maybe +/- 5 either way).
Obama delegate lead going into convention = 90
* Key point here, even with a revote she can't make up the difference. Feel free to argue this point in the comments.
Now, if you are ok with superdelegates deciding this thing I am curious on what basis you believe this is right?
I'd like to stick to this central issue of party leaders and elected official delegates deciding that the voters were wrong.
Is your endorsement of this concept without limitation? Meaning you trust them explicitly in this and future elections regardless who they choose?
Is it only on the basis that this election included caucuses (and small states...sorry couldn't resist) and that the results are therefore unfair? If so, this doesn't seem consistent with the argument that we should not disenfranchise voters (FL and MI).
This is also the reason you cannot now make a case for deciding on the popular vote (which she still will likely lose) and ignore states that had caucuses.
If your reasoning is electability, you are still arguing that the superdelegates opinions (thats what they are) should carry more weight than votes.
It's fair for you to argue that superdelegates are part of the process and that Obama supporters should therefore accept it if they do throw this thing Hillary's way. I'm just wondering on what basis you find this acceptable?
Since it was ok for Hillary to hold a big lead in committed superdelegates from the start of this contest, would it also be ok if the remaining superdelegates decided to give Obama an insurmountable lead tomorrow?
Comments (11)
It's only fair if they vote for Hillary. Otherwise, their vote is irrelevant, they aren't playing by the rules and Hillary is calling her lawyers. Did I get that right?
March 13, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh! Exactly! And there's gonna be some chit go down if I, with the majority of We The People, get run over in another stolen election!
March 13, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now, if you are ok with superdelegates deciding this thing I am curious on what basis you believe this is right?
I think it's almost certain that SDs will decide this since it doesn't appear that either candidate will win the required number. It's the way it's going to have to work.
As to the 'will of the people', it seems to be split down the middle. Using your math above, 90 delegates is a small lead, likely gained from the caucus states (like mine) which I contend produce a result that distorts the 'will of the people'.
The Texas primary is a great example. About 3 million people voted by ballot and Clinton won by 3-4 points. Results from the caucus in Texas gave Obama a large win but only about a million people participated in it. Which is the will of the people?
...would it also be ok if the remaining superdelegates decided to give Obama an insurmountable lead tomorrow?
Yes. In fact, if that's the way it's going to end up, I wish they would do it tomorrow. I'd like to see the SDs declare tomorrow to help clarify the nomination.
March 13, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the reply Indiex. You are of course correct that SDs will decide this. I should have more clearly questioned whether it was acceptable for them to give the win to the candidate who had fewer pledged delegates.
So, the basis is that the lead is small and because of caucuses skewing the results.
Had it been a larger lead than we could dismiss the caucus results and be more confident that the delegate counts represented the will of the voters and so superdelegates should not than be allowed to change things?
How big would the lead have to be? Do we worry about disenfranchising those states that had caucuses and those voters who showed up?
March 13, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Had it been a larger lead than we could dismiss the caucus results and be more confident that the delegate counts represented the will of the voters...
Had it been a significantly larger lead, he would be within reach of clinching it w/o the SDs. I'm not a fan of the SDs or the rest of the process. Come Nov, there aren't going to be any caucuses that determine anything. Because of that, I don't think caucuses should be a part of the nominating process. I'd like to see one-person one-vote at the primary and GE level.
March 13, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Texas primary is a great example. About 3 million people voted by ballot and Clinton won by 3-4 points. Results from the caucus in Texas gave Obama a large win but only about a million people participated in it. Which is the will of the people?
Of course they both are, the first measure is people who feel strongly enough to vote, the second is a measure of how many feel strongly enough to dedicate a few hours.
March 13, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
...the second is a measure of how many feel strongly enough to dedicate a few hours.
I don't understand why some people got to vote twice in Texas. I mean there was a primary where people cast their ballots and had their opinions counted. Then, for those who didn't have a sick child, a paying job they needed to be at, other family responsibilities, etc...they would get to vote again at the caucus. Maybe some voters are more equal than others.
March 13, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
lepp- Texas is the ONLY state with both a primary and a caucus. Your logic does not apply in normal states where there is one or the other.
March 13, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you, JohnDoe, I should have been more clear, I was only responding to the question of why Texas had such different results.
I don't think you would see this big an effect on results in a state which held only a caucus or a primary. I think caucuses still reflect a bit more commitment, but if it is your only chance to cast your vote there is already a good incentive to get there. In Nevada, 1/3 of the registered democrats voted in the caucus and the caucus results were pretty close to the polling data.
March 13, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think caucuses still reflect a bit more commitment, but if it is your only chance to cast your vote there is already a good incentive to get there.
"Committment" is merely "willing and able to show up at the specified time and place for whatever reason". And why does committment, from whatever source, qualify a person for more than one vote?
March 13, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indiex - I'm not sure how I feel about caucuses. But, they are a part of the process. You can't dismiss them. I also don't think closed primaries are fair as independents shouldn't have their choices limited. The time to argue this is prior to the election.
Same deal with FL and MI. I believe there were only 2 votes against moving the primary up in FL and not enough of an effort to avert the problem in advance.
March 14, 2008 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment