We elected the Super Delegates, after all

for me.  First off, they were not elected to decide intra-party primaries, especially ones in which the candidates weren't even contemplated at the time they were elected.

If all that necessary is that they be elected, we don't need to have, for instance, Senate elections (or Presidential ones) -- the State legislatures could select the Senators and the Senators select the President.  Would anyone be particularly happy with that?

It's also true that only some of the supers are, in fact, current holders of popularly elected offices.  Others are former office holders (eg, people who may well have been unelected) or Party functionaries.

In that case I'd wouldn't really expect either candidate to back down.

Heck, I even would be haunted by the good ghosts of Susan B. Anthony who wrote the 19th Amendment -- as well as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucy Stone . . . and millions of women who, knowing they would not live to ever vote, fought for the sake of their "daughters' daughters" to do so.  And to do much more than vote, as the good ghost of Alice Paul reminds me, since she wrote the ERA in 1923 -- yet it still doesn't have a number, since it never got into our Constitution . . . so that good document still is gendered against me and other women.

And now, 160 years after Seneca Falls, we finally see a woman candidate who could win . . . except that there are these rules again, you see.  Uh huh.  We're used to that.  They're called "boys' rules" -- the kind that keep changing as soon as we get close to getting there.

No, women won't riot in the streets.  But many of us will stop working as the mainstay of volunteers in the party, stop donating our dollars we could spend on other causes.  I never could stop voting -- but some might, and then the Dems would lose whatever hope they had of winning some tough fights, since we have been the majority of voters since '52 and now are 55-60% of Dem voters.

But the biggest issue I have with your comment is that blunder #2 isn't going to happen.  It's Clinton who has the superdelegate lead, so the only possibility is that the supers take it away from Obama and give it to Clinton.  If the other outcome were possible I'd probably be worried about it as well but it's not, so I'm not.

I can't at this moment bare the suggestion that we should just let them have it for fear of alienating their supporters.  A fair solution needs to be constructed, I hope there is one.

I like popular votes in your state determine where your super delegate vote goes.  Or, is Obama willing to give up super delegates in states Clinton won, if he wants her to give him hers?  How is that fair?  I know the popular vote model favors Clinton and I'd be open to something fairer.

In the meantime, I've wanted very much to vote for Obama.  It's been a bi polar primary season for me.  But, I can't quite get over how angry I get every time I hear him say, "I'm certain I'll get her votes.  I'm not certain she'll get mine."

It makes me react emotionally to politics, where I'm usually for the brilliant wonk, with appreciation for the big picture, inspirational candidates.

It's making me determined to decide once and for all to go ahead and vote for Hillary.

And yet again, women take a back seat so that men can get ahead and we can keep the peace.

The decision would have to be Obama's: If he wanted to calm his supporters down, he could. But would he want to, or would he just fuel the fire and let the streets wash in blood as a surrogate for his personal tantrum?

Hope all those new people he's bringing into the party are prepared to fund the party and handle all those boring committees and chores.

I wouldn't hold my breath...

It makes a lot of sense, though.

You guys talk about disenfranchisement but what you really are concerned with is getting Hillary some free delegates.

Another primary vote?  Why?  People voted.  They counted them.  If you do it over it will not be the same thing...different voters (some have died, some have become eligible, some are ...) and the stakes have changed on the landscape...so the candidates would have to rush off to Florida and spend, spend, spend.

Then....imagine the fun we'll have if the results were markedly different!  Oh yeah...that sounds like a great idea.

Nuts to that.

Held the vote.  Counted the vote.

Seat the delegates or don't.

He lost some big blue states to another democrat. That does not indicate the slightest potential weakness when it comes to winning those states against a Republican.

And to be fair to the other side, winning amongst democrats in red states does not necessarily indicate that he would win those states against a republican.

Since we are short-staffed (imagine that) I get to sit in a room with high school students, who may or may not show up, manning a phonebank to tally totals.

I am, oddly enough, having fun.

I got into this to get people elected. I'm stuck dealing who can't agree on how to do that.

I can run a ground game, if only local, I really like that.

Can somebody please help me get a county board member elected? Please? Is that too much to ask.

I am jazzed about the big time politics that we are getting a taste of right now. It hasn't come to Nebraska in a long time. But if it doesn't help the farm team, I'm not pleased.

We'll see.

Maybe I might make the jump to bigger ponds, but I'm a little bit too old, I think, to do that.

A political party is made up of the people who show up.  I'm a liberal too...a progressive...a moderate...depending on the issue...and a practical activist.  To accomplish anything, though, I need others...hence a party.  

This is a much less democratic alternative.  It disenfranchises literally most of the people in these two states who have already voted which they will remember very well.  As everyone has seen Obama does exceedingly well in caucus' which I'm sure is the reason why Obama supporters are for them.  

How do you think the people of Florida will look at this patently political ploy to reverse their vote?  Shades of Bush/Cheney.  First Obama works to deny their delegates seats at the convention and then as it becomes clear they may be the deciding factor works to change the decision in his favor.  

I don't know what's going to happen but if caucus' are held and Obama wins by flooding them with young people without the family or work obligations the older constituency of Clinton has you're going to have another real problem.  The barn door is open and the horses are all over the place.  Because right now if the votes are accepted even though Obama had just as much a valid election as Clinton your side will scream cheat and we'll hear lies about Clinton campaigning and him not being able to as we have already seen but worse.  While having a caucus as a do over will be seen as an undemocratic give away of the states to Obama.    Especially after we've seen state after state of caucus' going to him.  

Is that fair?  Is it valid?  Maybe so or maybe not.  But that will be the perception that Obama stole the Florida election at least.  Do you really want to go into the GE with half your party thinking your candidate is GWB junior?  Because he's already made himself look like a sore loser by his talk and his wife's talk about who will support Clinton if she wins the candidacy.  You better start hoping really hard that this breaks one way or another before the convention because it has the potential to tear our party apart and lose us this very winnable election.  You can't just throw peoples valid votes away.  The only way to have a redo would be to have 2 more primaries.  Caucus' are not a valid or acceptable alternative.  If they had held caucus' first you could hold another but not after having a primary first.