home

Whatever Happened To The Politics Of Contrast?

By Big Tent Democrat

As, in the day, one of the proponents of what I term the politics of contrast, it was with great interest that I considered Paul Lukasiak's argument (and the reactions to it) that Super Delegates should consider, among other things, which candidate is the choice of Democrats (as opposed to Independents and Republicans who vote in Democratic contests). I myself think it has to be a secondary consideration to the who the overall popular vote winner and pledged delegate leader is. While I abhor the super delegate system (utterly undemocratic), open primaries (because they dilute the voice of Democratic voters, thus weakening their ability to hold their Democratic representatives accountable), caucuses (because of their unrepresentative and undemocratic tendencies ), congressional district apportionment (it also dilutes the choices of voters) and overrepresentation of voters for various alleged "party building reasons (rural voter overrepresentation, etc.), the rules were written not by the candidates, but by the Party, and they were required to play the contest as the rules were written (MI and FL is a different, more damning story of the DNC but let's leave that for now.) That includes playing in the caucuses, taking into account congressional and other factored apportionment, open primaries AND Super Delegates.

Accordingly, it is my view that the pledged delegate count and the overall popular vote count SHOULD BE the primary considerations of Super Delegates and that the support of just Democrats should be a secondary consideration. That said, I also recognize that Super Delegates are empowered to form their own judgment of these things and, if I accept the rules, I must accept their judgments as part of the rules. More . . .

But the reaction to the Clinton Super Delegate strategy in some quarters has been to act as if Hillary Clinton is attempting a coup d'etat. The Opinionator notes:

Josh Marshall, perhaps the ur-blogger for online Democrats, writes at Talking Points Memo that Mrs. Clinton is “carving a path to the nomination through the heart of the Democratic party.”

Marshall is one of many liberal bloggers who object to the Clinton campaign’s attempts to win the Democratic presidential nomination with superdelegates instead of with victories in primaries and caucuses across the country.

(Emphasis supplied.) This is rather an ironic objection to me. Of course, Clinton is trying to maximize the Super Delegate count in her favor, as is Obama. But what really struck me was his line about "carving a path . . . through the heart of the Democratic Party." From that one would think that Clinton is losing overwhelmingly with Democrats in this race. Of course, as Lukasiak demonstrates, it is Obama who is losing handily to Clinton among Democrats. One could argue that it is Obama who has carved a path to the nomination through through the heart of the Democratic Party.

And indeed, this leading progressive blogger did in January 2008:

Who is the best defender of progressive ideals?

Edwards, by a landslide. Not the 2004 edition, but the new and improved 2008 model. From a rhetorical standpoint, no one has come close to articulating the nation's ills and why progressive solutions are the best salve. This is important -- Democrats have been poor at branding their ideology, thus ceding that ground to demonizing conservatives. Long term, our movement cannot survive another Bill Clinton -- someone more interested in making David Broder and Joe Klein happy with triangulating rhetoric that undermines rather than bolsters progressive values and policies.

Clinton isn't horrible on this front, but Obama has made a cottage industry out of attacking the dirty [effing] hippies on the left, from labor unions, to Paul Krugman, to Gore and Kerry, to social security, and so on. People think I was being ticky tack with the Gore thing, and in isolation it would've been but a minor non-event. But it was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back for me, yet another in a pattern of attacks against Democrats and their constituencies. [Obama] is the return of Bill Clinton-style triangulating personified. Now I'm willing to consider that this is all a front, and that he'd govern as progressively as Bush governed conservatively after his 2000 bullshit about being a "uniter" and "compassionate". He can even pull a Bush, I suppose, and claim a "mandate" on policies he blurred or ignored on the campaign. But we've seen how a lack of true mandate has crushed Bush's presidency and made him the most unpopular and least effective president in history. I'd rather have our candidate elected promising progressive reform, especially in a year where the American people seem to crave such solutions.

(Emphasis supplied.) It seems that Democrats voting in these contests may have agreed with that assessment. They have not gone Barack Obama's way. But to hear some quarters on this issue, even DISCUSSING this is "cheating" or "changing the rules."

Ironically, defending Obama's version of 1990s triangulation is a Lieberman man, Dan Gerstein:
The Kossacks and their activist allies -- who skew toward the Boomers -- believe that Republicans are venal bordering on evil, and that the way Democrats will win elections and hold power is to one-up Karl Rove's divisive, bare-knuckled tactics. Their opponents within the party -- who skew younger and freer of culture war wounds -- believe that the way to win is offer voters a break from this poisonous tribal warfare and a compelling, inclusive vision for where we want to take the country.
Ron Brownstein noted this dispute about Obama:
"We are ready," Obama told his reverent audiences, "to come together as Democrats and Republicans and independents and say that we are one nation, we are one people, and our time for change has come."
That dispute no longer exists. What happened? Gerstein speculates:
[Y]ou might say that Mr. Obama did not kill Kos-ism so much as co-opt it -- by harnessing its most powerful forces and channeling it in a more constructive, convincing direction for a new political moment. He recognized early on that the primary electorate was changing in the wake of Mr. Bush's departure, and that it was hungry (post-Boomer voters in particular) for something bigger and better than the same polarization wrapped in a blue ribbon.

(Emphasis supplied.) The Netroots made into a force for post-partisanship, triangulation and unity? Apparently so. Certainly that has become the practical effect.

Think for a moment about the attitudes now taken on open primaries. It was long the consensus of the Netroots that Open Primaries weakened Democratic values by diluting the voices of true progressives. One of the reasons Joe Lieberman was vulnerable in Connecticut was that it was a closed primary. Indeed, if it was an Open Primary, a challenge of Lieberman would never have occurred, he would never have been defeated in the Democratic Primary, and even today, he would be a "leading Democratic voice" in the Media.

This is not to discredit the Obama wins with non-Democrats. He is operating in the system local Democratic parties have chosen. And he is winning. Winning within the chosen system is the primary consideration. But the national Democratic Party also chose the super delegate system. And appealing to these Super Delegates is ALSO a part of the system chosen. Making an argument that, all else being relatively equal, choose the candidate that DEMOCRATS prefer seems a very legitimate argument to me.

And it would be surprising that strong proponents of the Politics of Contrast, which describes much of the Netroots, would take affront at an argument they once championed.

< Break The Public Financing Pledge Now Sen. Obama | Non-Issue Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Thank you for pointing this (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:34:09 AM EST
    appealing to these Super Delegates is ALSO a part of the system chosen.
    out.

    Some people have a block on that point.

    I call him out by name (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:39:23 AM EST
    every time he brings his Big Orange sophistry here.

    Yes I refer to Kid Oakland.

    Parent

    His style of argument (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:42:05 AM EST
    has become indistinguishable from talex's. Pretty sad.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:50:33 AM EST
    He has become Talex.

    Great observation.

    Parent

    One other point (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:51:26 AM EST
    the Superdelegates were created before the Internet and the intense scrutiny of the blogosphere.  20 years ago the SDs could vote in relative anonymity.

    Today every SD will be scrutinized for their actions.  So most of them will seek out the safest political cover they can find.  

    And thus (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:52:11 AM EST
    the wrangling about "what SDs should do."

    Parent
    Yup (none / 0) (#18)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:01:05 AM EST
    The notion that the SDs will be a check against anyone is false in this day and age.  

    The SDs are going to take political heat no matter who they vote for.  The loser's side will feel that the SDs "stole" the election.  So what the SDs will need to do is create a reasonable defense of their actions.  

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:09:40 AM EST
    And one expects they will look to reasoned arguments, like Lukasiak's, to see where the cover might be found.

    This is politics as usual my friends.

    Parent

    Nonsense. We had tv's 20 years ago (none / 0) (#61)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:17:23 PM EST
    We really did, and we could watch convention coverage for what our delegations did, in the day when networks covered conventions much more.

    We even had those new-fangled radios and newspapers, too.  The internet tubes are a wonderful new technology of communication, but they didn't invent it.

    Parent

    I never realized how "broken" the (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:06:14 AM EST
    open primary system can be and how disenfrachising it can be to a party until now.  Hard way to learn.  Grandma Vera always liked caucusing because she was the sort of girl that caucusing was made for ;)  Like she wasn't going to make it to the caucus or nobody was going to hear what she had to say ;)  I'm sure she isn't impressed with me today looking down from the clouds.......I should have flown from Alabama back to El Paso Co for the caucuses.  She isn't impressed with her son either who told me yesterday that he didn't caucus while I tried to pick my jaw up off the floor.  My father's reason......too many conservative ex-military in El Paso Co caucusing with the Dems and he didn't want to fight with them and he says they were all on the fight.  I told them that was a really lousy excuse (mine is better).  I tagged along when I was twelve and watched my grandmother caucus, that woman could change a whole dynamic of a room walking in in her pantsuit ;)  Pledged delegates need to decide this though whether or not that ends up being in the favor of my candidate or not.  The superdelegates from that point on must unite the party.

    Grandma Vera (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:08:35 AM EST
    sounds like a great party activist.

    But I for one do not like the idea of ONLY, or even MAINLY party activists, choosing the nominee.


    Parent

    She made it hard to complain about (none / 0) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:16:17 AM EST
    being a disenfranchised girl sometimes.  My family has a newpaper clipping of her with four other men from the early 60's and the headline reads El Paso Co Democratic party leaders.  I still don't know how she did that.  I'm sure it was a mixture of opportunity and just stepping up to the plate but.....that makes it tough being her offspring and having believeable excuses.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:20:01 AM EST
    Well, some folks are just extraordinary.

    Parent
    The Democratic Party can do Whatever It Wants (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by pluege on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:10:19 AM EST
    If you substitute the word "club" for "party" everyone would maybe be better able to understand that the Democratic Club (party) can do whatever it wants in terms of deciding who its representative candidate is for the presidential "contest", i.e., there is nothing demanding that the process be democratic, just, rational, or anything else.
    .

    Well that (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:11:25 AM EST
    I totally disagree with.

    Parent
    Framing (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:12:54 AM EST

    What the Move-On and DFA  have done is "frame" ( I hate the Lakoff language but will use it) Hillary lobbying or even trying to woo, superdelegates as "trying to silence the voices of millions", almost like she is subverting the system. Move-on and DFA should have been educating people on the process,  not interjecting their bias.  The end result is that they shown that they can mobilize people, but that they don't understand the political process.  

     They also pushed the  "Obama is not lobbying";  Chelsea and Bill are lobbying and pressuring superdelegates to call in their favors.   So they painted this picture of the Clintons as the "devious politicians" trying to steal the primary.  

    So, what is left is the Clintons are liars and cheaters.  The subtle rules and history of the nomination process is completely sidelined and missunderstood.  Once again, I find this I guess, to be triangulating-- in truth I prefer Rovian.  

    See, this stuff works in the primary cause the netroot people speak to the progressive base and primary voters will pick this up along the way, but using the netroots in the General Election will be a bust, cause guess what, the Indies and Moderate Republicans probably don't read, TPM, Arianna, Kos et al.  They will be useless in the GE, hissing in the wind.  

    Who will manipulate the MSM then?  

    Move On and DFA (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:15:14 AM EST
    are charlatans.

    I have said so LONG BEFORE this nomination contest.

    Parent

    Nominating Process As Excuse (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by pluege on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:17:58 AM EST
    the unfortunate thing about the Democratic nominating process isn't that it is a mess. The unfortunate thing is that there are a lot of people - many in the left blogosphere and so-called "grassroots" and "netroots" - that are using the process to cause disruption, and are building a case to ultimately use it as an excuse not to participate if their must-have candidate doesn't win. This is completely disingenuous, distracting, and besides the point.

    The ONLY point is to elect a democrat. The focus should be on policy and what it will take to beat mccain and increase democratic majorities in Congress. Note, no. 2 priority after winning the presidency is having a LIEberman-proof majority in the Senate, followed by replacing Reid and Pelosi - two Vichy Dems that have failed us miserably.
    .

    Absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:19:10 AM EST
    Short division & long division (4.50 / 2) (#52)
    by Camorrista on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:06:22 AM EST
    Underlying many of the arguments here is the notion that any super-delegate hanky-panky (as defined by either side) will divide the Democratic Party.

    Is there any evidence for this, other than the strenuous analyses (and spiteful rants) on blogs (and in the press)?

    It's not as if the Democratic Party hasn't had prolonged and bloody nomination battles in the past.  Did those battles lead to a drastic reduction in voting by Democrats in the general election?  Did Democrats stay home and sulk?  Did they vote for Republicans?  

    So far, the primary & caucus season has shown huge increases in voting by Democrats--in every state, across every demographic.  Maybe lots of those people will stay home (or vote for McCain) if their candidate isn't the nominee (guaranteed if their candiate is the nominee, they won't care if he or she was chosen by kangeroos wearing super-delegate T-shirts).  But maybe they won't.  

    Maybe, they care more about putting a Democrat in the White House than those (like Josh Marshall, or Frank Rich, or Arianna Huffington or John Aravosis, add your own names) who  have been itching to destroy what they consider the old, corrupt Democratic Party, and don't care what weapon they use to that end.

    BRAVO! n/t (none / 0) (#53)
    by Mary Mary on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:09:37 AM EST
    Yep (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:12:07 AM EST
    Well put.

    Parent
    Hope you're right (none / 0) (#57)
    by AF on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:15:55 AM EST
    But there is some evidence, unfortunately.

    Parent
    Hmmmmm... (none / 0) (#59)
    by Camorrista on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:35:08 AM EST
    Forgive me if I don't share your conclusion that a piece in Rupert Murdoch's New York Post that favorably quotes Al Sharpton is evidence.  For years, if not decades, the Post has viciously pilloried Sharpton as a liar and ghetto hustler.  But now that Sharpton is in Obama's camp (and the rabidly right-wing Post has endorsed Obama), the Reverend Al has become quotable (and by extension, respectable).

    Not persuaded, sorry.

    Parent

    Like I said (none / 0) (#60)
    by AF on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:55:07 PM EST
    I hope you're right.  But it's naive not to be worried about it.  The Clinton campaign is.

    Parent
    I'm not going to put words in anyone's mouth (none / 0) (#1)
    by andrewwm on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:21:39 AM EST
    But I think it is a legitimate argument that a Clinton victory via superdelegates (especially if that victory occurred in the context of a >40 pledged delegate lead for Obama) would point out how horribly flawed the superdelegate system is, while still accepting the legitimacy of her win.

    That is, I know that you've stated your own opposition to superdelegates, and I think you'd have to agree that Clinton winning that way would emphasize exactly why they're a terrible idea (which is separate from saying she won legitimately).

    Isn't Obama ahead in delegates and SDs? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Josey on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:10:51 AM EST
    and isn't Hillary ahead in the popular vote?


    Parent
    Remember... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dan the Man on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:26:52 AM EST
    Marshall supported Lieberman in the last general election so it's not surprising what his views are.  In fact, he was annoyed with all of the e-mails questioning his judgment.

    Did He? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:27:57 AM EST
    I do not think that is accurate.

    He did support the Iraq Debacle.

    Parent

    He was neutral for most of it (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:33:12 AM EST
    I don't think he really came down hard on Lieberman until after the primary.

    Parent
    THAT (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:39:49 AM EST
    I distinctly remember

    Parent
    Yes, you're right... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Dan the Man on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:14:14 AM EST
    I think I got Marshall confused with David Kurtz, who at that time was posting for Marshall on weekends.  He wasn't supporting Lieberman outright, but he did get in a fight with Atrios when he kept on saying that progressives should "shift their money and attention from the Connecticut Senate race to more important contests" after the primaries were over.  This resulted in the e-mail spat I remembered.  This would have effectively killed Lamont's campaign.  Looking back, I'm surprised how little money Lamont was able to get for his election campaign especially when compared with the amount of money Obama is able to raise through the internet.

    Parent
    That I know (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:37:20 AM EST
    I had an ongoing fight with Kurtz over that very issue.

    I have NEVER had any sacred cows.

    Parent

    The Discretion Granted Superdelegates (none / 0) (#9)
    by bob h on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:43:37 AM EST
    obviously has as one of its aims the guarding of the Party's interests when prarie-fire- or mania-driven candidacies arise.  The Supers should keep their powder dry until the Summer, when it will be clearer whether there is a more enduring foundation to Obamamania, whether he is standing up to press scrutiny and Republican sniping.

    Perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:50:04 AM EST
    there are many theories of the purpose of Super Delegates.

    In the end, they have the freedom to determine their own individual purposes.

    Parent

    Very interesting post (none / 0) (#10)
    by AF on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:46:00 AM EST
    But I think you completely misunderstood what Josh Marshall was saying.  His statement that Hillary is "carving a path to the nomination through the heart of the Democratic party" has nothing to do with who got more Democratic votes, who is more progressive, whether there should be open or closed primaries in the future, or whether the netroots have sold out.  

    It is about whether the party will be united or divided at the end of the primary season.  Hillary is mapping out a strategy for victory that is dangerously likely to divide the party.

    Make no mistake: The party will be divided if the super-delegates choose the candidate who lost the pledged delegates and the popular vote in the primaries.  Just because the rules allow it, doesn't mean it will be seen as fair or just or democratic.  Similarly, the party will be divided if the FL or MI delegates are seated and provide the margin of victory for Hillary.  This will be seen as cheating.

    By signaling that she is planning to rely on super-delegates and/or FL or MI to win the nomination, Hillary is threatening the divide the party.  That is Josh Marshall's point.  

    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:48:52 AM EST
    you MAKE my point:

    But I think you completely misunderstood what Josh Marshall was saying.  His statement that Hillary is "carving a path to the nomination through the heart of the Democratic party" has nothing to do with who got more Democratic votes, who is more progressive, whether there should be open or closed primaries in the future . . .

    It is ridiculous to NOT discuss these things when discussing "driving through the heart of the Democratic Party. It is precisely my critique of Josh Marshall's ridiculous post.

    As for the rest of his nonsense, it is just that, nonsense.

    Parent

    I don't get it (none / 0) (#19)
    by AF on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:02:34 AM EST
    There have been lots of posts on this blog that addressed only the super-delegate question and not those longer term issues.  Frankly, I don't think they have that much to do with each other.  The super-delegates going against the popular vote would divide the party whether it favored Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or John Edwards.

    Parent
    Your comment is noresponsive (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:10:41 AM EST
    Marshall went beyond the super delegate issue to discuss "the heart of the Democratic Party."

    You NOw choose to ignore that fact.

    Parent

    You are taking his quote out of context (none / 0) (#33)
    by AF on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:15:58 AM EST
    Here it is:

    But the most immediate and significant import is Lewis's signal that whatever the basis of his original endorsement he is unwilling to join Clinton in carving a path to the nomination through the heart of the Democratic party. The tell in Lewis's announcement is that he is not technically withdrawing his endorsement from Hillary, at least not yet. He is saying that as a super delegate (which is by virtue of being a member of Congress) he plans to vote for Obama at the convention. On Wednesday the Clinton camp started pushing hard on the idea that a delegate is a delegate and if they need to pack on super delegates to overwhelm Obama's edge with elected delegates then so be it. A win is a win is a win. I take this as Lewis saying he just won't sign on for that.

    Clearly about super-delegates.

    Parent

    Excuse me (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:20:43 AM EST
    That is irrelevant to what I am discussing.

    Parent
    Reread the passage (none / 0) (#41)
    by AF on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:26:44 AM EST
    It contains the quote we are discussing.  Should've bolded it.

    Parent
    Yes and it remains irrelevant (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:36:30 AM EST
    Marshall discusses cutting the heart of the Party while ignoring all the issues I discuss.

    He does not like the rules for Super Delegates and that Clinton is following them. Fine. But he conflates that with "cutting the heart of the Dem Party" while ignoring every issue I raise.

    It is a ridiculous piece from Marshall, but that is all he offers now.

    Like Marshall, you want to avoid discussion of the issues I raise in my post. I will not humor you.

    Parent

    I don't have a problem (none / 0) (#11)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:48:39 AM EST
    with either side using whatever method of persuasion they feel effective to convince the SDs to vote their way.

    In the end I don't think it will much matter.  The SDs will either vote for the person with the most delegates or the person who won their state, aside from the hardened partisans on both sides.  

    I don't believe that Hillary has any inherent advantage in superdelegates.  Certainly not enough to overcome a 150 delegate gap.

    In the end it still comes down to how the race finishes.  If Hillary loses one of the big 3 she is going to have a very hard time overcoming that.  And the SDs aren't going to save her bacon.

    Indeed (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:51:39 AM EST
    This is all a tempest in a teapot.

    If Obama wins either Texas, PA or Ohio, the controversy will be over.

    Parent

    No matter which way the Super Delegates (none / 0) (#27)
    by Saul on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:13:49 AM EST
    choose, using their own independent judgment or following a consensus on who received the most pledge delegates no matter who is nominated there will still be great dissatisfaction by the side that lost the nomination.  My question is the following:

    What about this possible scenario

    This is the most passionate nomination election of a Democrats I have ever seen in my life time.  It will be historical to say the least no matter who gets nominated and even more historical if he or she gets elected.  The problem being that if Obama is nominated you will have the much disenfranchised Hilary supporters and if Hilary is nominated you will have the much disenfranchised Obama supporters.   Hilary supporters will say no one else will do except her and Obama supporters will say no one else will do except him.  Therefore come Election Day the disenfranchise side will write in their candidate.  Could it be that writing in the candidate gets so popular by spreading the word to write in the candidate using the high tech internet that you actually could have the write in candidate get elected?


    That is why both Clinton and Obama (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:14:31 AM EST
    MUSt be on the ticket, among other reasons.

    Parent
    x (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Mary Mary on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:35:44 AM EST
    Depends on the media coverage. As it stands now, Clinton might need Obama on the ticket, but I don't think Obama needs Clinton.

    I actually think Clinton/Clark would be the ideal ticket.

    Parent

    My God, man (none / 0) (#42)
    by Mary Mary on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:32:45 AM EST
    do you ever actually talk to real voters? The vast majority of whom do not read blogs?

    Have you read about the voters on Super Tuesday who went to their polling places only to find out that their state had already had their primary?

    Short answer: no, your scenario would never, ever come to pass.

    Parent

    The general (none / 0) (#46)
    by Saul on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:42:34 AM EST
    election would be different.  The word of posting the losing democratic nominee as a write in candidate would be not only on the internet, it would be on TV, the newspapers in English and Spanish, brochures at the polls, etc etc.  It would not take that much to educate the public on one item before the general election. As as passionate as these voter have been they will take time out to learn about this.

    Parent
    x (none / 0) (#47)
    by Mary Mary on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:45:41 AM EST
    This general election will be no different from any other except in one respect: there will be a history-making candidate running on the Dem ticket.


    Parent
    In addition (none / 0) (#48)
    by Saul on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:48:37 AM EST
    I honestly believe that as passionate as these voters have shown to be for either Hilary or Obama if they don't write in their candidate many will not even vote in the General Election if their man or woman is not nominated and will stay home as a sign of protest.  

    Parent
    x (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Mary Mary on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:59:18 AM EST
    You know, I've never, ever gotten this attitude. Perhaps it's because I've never in my life cast a Presidential vote for someone. It's always been against someone - in this case, Rs. The only even possibly palatable candidate the Rs have run in my time as a voter (first vote for Jimmy Carter) was Bob Dole.

    I simply cannot wrap my mind around the concept that someone would risk having John McCain become president because they want to "protest." When my man Dean was taken down in 2004, I wrote a vituperative letter in response to a DNC fundraising letter and quit the party (since re-registered since my vote in PA might mean something in April). But I darn well canvassed for John Kerry.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#55)
    by Saul on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:11:10 AM EST
    with you that the democratic voters need to look at the big picture of winning the election even if their nominee lost but it is my gut feeling that this particular nominating election  being so unprecedentedly passionate is like no other I have ever seen in my life time and many disenfranchised voters no matter how wrong they will be for not voting to defeat McCain  will just stay home out of protest.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#32)
    by Korha on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:15:16 AM EST
    BTD: "Accordingly, it is my view that the pledged delegate count and the overall popular vote count SHOULD BE the primary considerations of Super Delegates and that the support of just Democrats should be a secondary consideration. That said, I also recognize that Super Delegates are empowered to form their own judgment of these things and, if I accept the rules, I must accept their judgments as part of the rules."

    I agree. Of course, the practical political ramifications of the superdelegates voting against the winner of the pledged delegates/overall popular vote are an entirely seperate issue.

    But I too would oppose that (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:18:45 AM EST
    and hope it does not come to that.

    I do however recognize that the rules permit the SDs that freedom of action.

    One point - if Obama is ahead in the pledged delegate count by say 50, and is behind in the PV by say, 100,000, then I hope that there will be no squawking from his supporters.

    That is a tie.


    Parent

    There will be no squawking from me (none / 0) (#49)
    by AF on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:50:17 AM EST
    If that PV figure refers to states where candidates are allowed to campaign.  If it includes Florida, I will grumble but not squawk. :)

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:05:09 AM EST
    I will object to your grumbling especially if you do not endorse my compromise solution on FL and MI.

    Parent
    Don't worry (none / 0) (#58)
    by AF on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:19:03 AM EST
    I'll grumble quietly.  

    In all seriousness, if Obama leads by 50 pledged delegates, that will mean Hillary has turned the contest around.  She would have have a legitimate claim on the nomination on that basis alone.

    Parent

    Indepenedent Thinker (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:16:31 AM EST
    Your comment includes a personal attack and thus I will delte it.

    It is also unfair. AF is one of our better commenters.