The Superdelegates Will Decide The Nominee

By Big Tent Democrat

I am tired of the delegate mathematicians ignoring the elephant in the room -- that the Super Delegates will decide the nominee. You see, here is the dirty little secret, neither Obama nor Clinton will be anywhere near the total necessary to put them over the top after all the contests are over.

All of the arguments are about what should guide the decision making of the Super Delegates. I have mine - the Super Delegates should vote for the popular vote and pledged delegate leader. But what if there is one popular vote leader and a different pledged delegate leader? My preference is for the popular vote leader. But what if the leads are insignificant? Well you can look at who Democrats preferred. Or you can look at who won the key states in the general election. Or you can look at who runs better in head to heads. Or you can vote for the candidate who won your state or congressional district. Or you can look at who you think would be the better President.

More . . .

But who cares what I think? The Super Delegates will use their own criteria. And all the spinning and narratives from the campaigns is aimed at THEM. If you want to talk about bias, consider the fact that the Media and the blogs have completely bought into the argument that the pledged delegate leader, even if he trails in popular votes, should be the choice of Super Delegates. That one bother me a lot because the delegation selection process is a bad joke. The popular vote winner has a much better moral claim to legitimacy.

But long story short, when folks lament the Super Delegates' having freedom to choose who they prefer, they are arguing against the existing rules. They want to change the existing rules. So do I. I want MY rules to be followed. So do those who argue that the Super Delegates should choose the pledged delegate leader. The difference is I admit it. And I am not threatening to bolt the Party, as some have, if the Super Delegates do not do my bidding.

< Open Thread | C-Span-Reuters Poll: Hillary Stems Obama's TX Gain >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Superdelegates should vote for the best (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by democrat1 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:27:10 AM EST
    and most likely to win the white house candidate irrespective of the vote or delegate count.  That is the purpose for which seperdelegates are created in the first place. Period.

    I agree 100% (none / 0) (#33)
    by MarkL on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:05:54 PM EST
    If neither has enough to win (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by K Lynne on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:30:01 PM EST
    and the race is fairly close, I don't understand WHY Hillary would / should drop out.  

    My take on it is that if Obama's been riding the wave of 'good media', and it appears that is heading at least somewhat downhill, I see the possibility for serious buyer's remorse setting in for Obama voters if and when the tide starts turning.  I can't imagine that HRC is not banking on at least some bounce from the Rezko trial...

    So, what happens in this scenario (which seems completely within the realm of possibility, or possibly even likely)?

     - Obama leads in the pledged delegate count by roughly the lead he has now or less.

     - Hillary is close in the popular vote (and Michigan / Florida throw a whole 'nother wrinkle there).

     - Obama's popularity takes a nosedive or at least drops not insignificantly between now and the convention - or some details come out of the Rezko trial that reflect very unfavorably on him.

    Could that push enough Superdelegates Hillary's way?  Would those circumstances, even if BO leads in both pledged delegates and popular vote, justify a Superdelegate lean towards Hillary?  Seems to me that this is exactly the sort of situation the Superdelegates are supposed to address.

    I'm kinda new around here, so apologies if this has been discussed before...

    -K Lynne

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by sas on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:36:24 PM EST
    that Hillary should not drop out.  She is within around 100 delegates or so.

    The thought is absurd that she should get out.

    If the situation were reversed, I'd love to hear the media spin.  Barack is closing, he is within striking distance, this could go to the wire, etc.


    Exactly right. (none / 0) (#37)
    by oldpro on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:24:05 PM EST
    And welcome to the dialogue!

    Possible but... (none / 0) (#41)
    by andrewwm on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:45:16 PM EST
    pretty unlikely. If you assume Obama retains his current pledged delegate lead, then he's almost guaranteed to be also way ahead in the popular vote. Right now he's up almost a million votes (excluding FL and MI).

    And the likelihood of something damaging coming out about him is about as likely as something coming out against Clinton, so she's facing real long-shot odds now.


    So the superdelegates should exclude FL and MI? (none / 0) (#53)
    by cymro on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:45:33 PM EST
    This suggestion completely misses the point that a superdelegate's job is to evaluate all the information available and pick the candidate who is most likely to win the general election. That's why we have them, not just to rubber-stamp the popular vote or the primary pledged delegate count.

    I trust that the superdelegates will have a better grasp of their responsibilities than you do.


    Here's a crazy thought (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by ChrisO on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:14:20 PM EST
    How about if the supers do what we did, and vote for the candidate of their choice? And their choice can be based on any number of reasons, including electability, who's got the lead in delegates and/or popular vote, who would make the best President, who's got the nicest smile... I don't know that it's written into the rules anywhere that the supers have to receive instructions on how to vote.

    I also think it's amusing how the Obama campaign keeps harping on the rules when it comes to seating delegates, but seem to think that the nomination should go to whoever's ahead, whether or not they have the required delegates. If Obama doesn't have the required amount, that's because he didn't get enough voters to vote for him. If it was meant to be the candidate with the most votes, the rules would have been written that way. It's that simple. That's why they have multiple ballots. And please spare me all of the "smoke filled room" crap. When conventions go to multiple ballots, do you think the same delegates keep voting the same way on ballot after ballot? Or is there a lot of arm twisitng and deal making by all involved? Do you think all of those calls that Ted Kennedy and Daschle are making to the supers right now are grounded in "new politics"? I doubt it.

    I don't think the delegate selection process is so sacrosanct and pure that it necessarily represents "the will of the voters." Among other things, why should the will of Republicans hold sway in the selection of the Democratic nominee?

    The conventions are run by the party, for the sake of the party. I'm really getting sick of the extortion threats from Obama supporters. Apparently, Obama's nopmoination is the only acceptable outcome. Otherwise, they'll "walk out,"  all the while saying "Look what you made us do!" It won't be Hillary Clinton tearing the part apart, it will be the people who are only along for this ride, and have no committment to the party at all.

    Probably the most positive outcome if the supers swing the nomination to Hillary will be that we get rid of Donna Brazile.

    And the Primary Season will continue (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by katiebird on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:09:58 PM EST
    right through until the convention.

    Hillary should NOT drop out -- no matter what the results of the remaining state primaries.

    I think we should keep the dialog going through the summer as they both woo Super Delegates.


    I think the Super Delegates should ... (4.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:36:01 AM EST
    base their decisions on the Tarot.

    And I'll bolt the party if they don't.


    Which cards would HIllary and Obama Be? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:11:12 PM EST
    Hillary: The Empress or The High Priestess?

    Obama: The Magician? The Hierophant? The Emporer?

    The Magician has power through intellect; the High Priestess has power through knowledge; the Empress has power through love.

    The Emperor has power through power.

    He is in control, he is forceful and ambitious. Nothing will stop him. He is a natural leader, having either been born to the role or having disposed of all those who stood in his way.

    The Emperor has power - can he avoid corruption?

    If well aspected in a Tarot spread this card can indicate success. It represents obstacles overcome, goals reached and ambition fulfilled. If badly aspected it can indicate either weakness or an abuse of power.

    Well ... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:26:14 PM EST
    usually the Minor Arcana are used to represent people.

    Obama would be the Six of Wands, inverted.

    Hillary the Queen of Cups, inverted.

    Now I've just revealed I actually know something about the Tarot.  

    Should I go hide in the corner?


    So, Hillary supporters are Tarot (none / 0) (#19)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:34:34 PM EST



    Not at all (none / 0) (#31)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:56:48 PM EST
    I had a tutor in the Tarot twice a week for a year back in Ann Arbor in 1971. I graduated to doing readings for people. I still have the same deck, wrapped in the same silk scarf. I haven't had time for it in the past 30 years, but it was very interesting.

    As to the major arcana, I mentioned those in my comment above because the readings I did started with the person going through them to pick which one they most identified with at that moment.  The minor arcana cards were used as modifiers.

    You sound like you know much more about it than I do, so I'll stop now.


    Unfortunately . . . (4.00 / 2) (#14)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:23:47 PM EST
    My big fear with super delegates is that they will do what the loudest screaming tells them to do - i.e., go along with the Obama crowd, no matter what. And that crowd will want whatever gives him the advantage, no matter what the majority of dem voters wanted. Incidentally, that's what the MSM will also want and will scream about constantly, drowning out everyone else. It is really going to be a circus, and I have no confidence that the right thing will be done by democratic voters.

    Yes they will want the "unity" ... (3.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:41:26 PM EST
    ...and "hope" theme for the convention. Makes good TeeVee.

    Superdelegates (none / 0) (#2)
    by athyrio on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:31:26 AM EST
    should take a look at who has consistantly won the most democratic votes....That would be Hillary...You cannot count on "cross over" votes in the GE....It is highly foolish...

    role of superdelegates (none / 0) (#3)
    by wasabi on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:33:07 AM EST
    I don't really have a problem with the roll that the superdelegates have been given.  I see it as trying to prevent the party from driving off a cliff.  They will vote for who they believe will be most electable.  If the top vote/delegate getter suddenly is deemed unelectable due to a scandal, then the supers will not vote for that person.  Short of that, they will vote for who gets the popular/delegate count.  I think in all likelyhood these will be the same, although I could be wrong.

    Right, with minor modifiications (none / 0) (#56)
    by cymro on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 08:56:31 PM EST
    Your statement (reprinted below) is right, but too narrowly conceived. If you were to modify it by dropping the words enclosed in brackets, then we would agree:

    I see it as trying to prevent the party from driving off a cliff.  They will vote for who they believe will be most electable.  If the top vote/delegate getter [suddenly] is deemed unelectable [due to a scandal], then the supers will not vote for that person.

    A suddenly emerging scandal is not the only reason a candidate might be deemed unelectable. In fact, the superdelegate role was not even created to handle that problem. Because in exactly that situation, the party has been able to persuade a candidate who was already the nominee to withdraw -- recall Thomas Eagleton in 1972.

    So the superdelegates are not there to deal with major scandals, which will usually take care of themselves. They are there so that already elected Party representatives and officials can counterbalance the popular vote of the primaries and caucuses to select the candidate with the best chances of winning in the GE.


    What's interesting. . . (none / 0) (#5)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:36:21 AM EST
    If you want to talk about bias, consider the fact that the Media and the blogs have completely bought into the argument that the pledged delegate leader, even if he trails in popular votes, should be the choice of Super Delegates.

    is that the media (including blogs) generally buy into whatever interpretation benefits Obama (I assume that it's considerably more likely that Obama will end up with a pledged delegate lead and a popular vote deficit than the other way around).

    The question is one of agency. Does the media simply favor Obama for largely demographic reasons (they are the highly paid, highly educated Obama base) or is the Obama campaign actually working to cause this outcome?  If the later, it bodes well for his campaign and his putative Presidency.

    It is Hillary Hate (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:37:05 AM EST
    as you well know.

    That is my worry, but. . . (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:44:41 AM EST
    I detect some signs of subtle and cynical media manipulation from the Obama camp (eg, their largely successful pinning of the "race card" issue on the Clinton campaign) that, frankly, I approve of in politics -- a campaign based on hope, change, and a knee to the groin.

    Only time will tell whether they're getting a free ride on the "Run Over Hillary" train or not.  We'll know sometime in the summer.


    Nancy Pelosi (none / 0) (#20)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:36:22 PM EST
    has gone on the record as saying the leader in pledged delegates should end up with the nomination....

    It is not Hillary hate that leads to such a conclusion.....


    What leads to it? (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:44:14 PM EST

    What Pelosi says (none / 0) (#29)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:51:33 PM EST
    The need to avoid using smoke-filled rooms to throw the nomination to someone who is behind in delegates. Obama's people would walk out of the convention....You have to have a result that appears fair.....Using behind the scenes arm-twisitng to erase an Obama lead would be catastrophic.  

    I do not think Pelosi is either stupid or a Hillary hater.


    Does Pelosi think FL & MI delegates count? (none / 0) (#28)
    by katiebird on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:48:43 PM EST
    I can't get a handle on how that issue fits into the pledged delegates thing.  

    Has Pelosi gone on record about how she feels on the issue of seating FL & MI?


    Pelosi says don't (none / 0) (#30)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:52:43 PM EST
    seat Florida or Michigan--they violated the rules.

    Pelosi is the Chair of the Democratic Convention and will thus hold the gavel......


    Pelosi can't have it both ways. (none / 0) (#34)
    by vicsan on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:10:32 PM EST
    She either supports ALL rules, or she doesn't. If she supports the rule that the MI and FL delegates won't be seated because they broke the rules, then she MUST support the LONG-STANDING rule of "The Super Delegates will vote for whomever THEY CHOOSE to vote for"....NOT who Mr. Hope thinks they should vote for. THAT is the RULE. Super Delegates vote for the person THEY CHOOSE TO VOTE FOR. Period. Rules are rules. You either support them all, or not. If you don't want the Super Delegates to vote for whomever they wish, then MI and FL delegates should be seated. It's that simple.

    If the rules can't be changed in the middle of the game for the MI and FL delegates to be seated, then the Super Delegate rules can't be changed in the middle of the game either.


    East Coast v. West Coast (none / 0) (#40)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:34:55 PM EST
    The difference with respect to the Superdelegates and process in general seems to me a difference between West Coast v. East Coast sensibilities....

    I'm here in California, and I definitely find process important...East Coast types seem more resigned to an insider style.....I envision Cadillacs, trenchcoats  and Jack Daniels when thinking of East Coast Democrats....They don't care about twisting arms or rules or being unfair....

    Hillary is East Coast.

    I have voted for Republicans in the recent past when the Democrats were corrupt....I voted for the recall of Gray Davis and the installation of Ahnold here in that bluest of blue states. So, although others pooh-pooh process, I do not and vote accordingly.....Many others here on the West Coast tend to agree....

    In some ways, the winner of a protracted nomination process is likely to lose; so, if Obama can't wrap it up Tuesday, and a long fight is likely, it would be good for Obama to make Clinton steal it--and let her take the hit in November.....He could then pick up the pieces as the challenger to McCain in 2012. The Clintons would finally be finished.....


    Because (none / 0) (#42)
    by Lena on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:50:43 PM EST
    running 4 years later worked so well for Edwards...

    And hasn't Obama categorically refused to run again? Of course, he also promised to finish out his Senate term in Ill. before running for president, so who knows when what he's saying is for real, or when he's just fooling?


    The only real knock (none / 0) (#44)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:15:26 PM EST
    on Obama is that he is inexperienced.....If he had four more years in the Senate under his belt, this election would not even be close....

    So, unlike Edwards, he would stay in the Senate and gain more experience.  Hillary would be finished....and there would be no one else to challenge him.

    I am listening to Hillary live in Dallas right now, trying to fake a Texas accent, dropping her "gs".....God spare us all.

    But who knows, Obama could win Texas, or Ohio, and then have the nomination in his grasp.  


    Why would there (none / 0) (#45)
    by Lena on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:21:34 PM EST
    be "no one new to challenge him"?

    There's always the next big thing coming. Who knows who'll be teh rock star next time around?

    Obama had his chance in the sun, and if he can't do it with a pretty empty record and a fawning press, why would he be able to do it next time with a record to defend and a wiser press?


    I get it (none / 0) (#46)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:29:48 PM EST
    You really, really dislike Obama--and that dislike travels quite far down the road in the future....

    Most disagree with you....


    Inexperience is the least of it (none / 0) (#59)
    by pluege on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:13:08 AM EST
    the progressive knock against Obama is that his policies aren't very progressive. Which is what really matters. The only progressive of the big three was Edwards. Obama and Clinton are status quo insiders. Obama with a big pretty bow on him, but still just an insider.

    Obama can't wrap it up, either (none / 0) (#49)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:08:39 PM EST
    -- not on Tuesday, not before the convention. Do you understand that? He's too far away in delegate count, too.

    Well I'm sure that conventional and...... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:38:06 PM EST
    ...left blogosphere wisdom will unite around the idea that super delagates are the bees knees if Obama campaign gets enough of them to commit and/or switch to Obama.

    Bingo (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:41:06 AM EST
    And I've come to the conclusion that it is far better for this primary to go on for a while. So long and Hillary and Obama are the story, McCain will be the little guy poking his head up form the bottom of the magazine--like Ross Perot.

    I've been saying that literally (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by scribe on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:01:37 PM EST
    since before Edwards had to suspend his campaign.

    HRC and Obama should Lincoln-Douglas it all the way to the convention.  This serves several purposes:

    1.  McBush is, as you say, the little old crank popping his head up every now and again.
    2.  It keeps the media fixated on what they love and can cover best - the horse-race - and keeps that among Democrats.
    3.  It gives both the Dems loads of free - read it FREE media.
    4.  It prevents the media from going into "trash the presumptive Dem nominee mode" because with two, any media who do will immediately be subject to recrimination as being Pro-the one or Anti-the other.  The media will have to give bland to positive coverage of both Dem candidates.
    5.  It empowers activists on the left of the Dem party (you reading this - you're likely one of 'em) to keep the Dem nominee from selling out to the Republicans in the name of "moving to the center".  Not only that, but it may make it possible to garner committments from the respective candidates on issues which are important to the activists.
    6.  Played carefully by having the candidates treat each other respectfully - and everyone seems to have recognized this and is pretty much going along with the program so far - it will both energize the party base (and keep them energized through what would be the dead zone of May-August), but raise the interest among non-activists.

    I'm glad to see others have started to catch on to the benefits of keeping this thing going.  The media has, which is why they keep pitching to have the one or other quit.  

    Realistic view? (none / 0) (#23)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:40:51 PM EST
    Sorry, in  a close race candidates get negative and develope lines of attack that can be used by the other side....

    Thinking the candidates will play nice for another 6 weeks until Pennnsylvania or beyond defies history and is unrealistic...

    If Obama does not win Texas, say hello to President McCain....no matter who ekes out the Democratic nomination on the other side.....


    OK, so it's Obama or McCain (none / 0) (#32)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:01:41 PM EST
    in your opinion.  Hope we get to test the theory.

    your post (none / 0) (#48)
    by sas on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:38:51 PM EST
    was interesting.

    now i think both should go on


    Super... (none / 0) (#9)
    by oldpro on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:47:29 AM EST
    I hope enough of them stay undecided until August to let the campaign play out as full a story as possible.  Then their decisions will have meaning.

    August convention fight? (none / 0) (#27)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:45:23 PM EST
    That would leave only 2 months for the general campaign.....

    I know Hillary can only win after a protracted fight for delegates...but that means Hillary has to tear apart the party to win the nomination.

    Only a miracle would allow McCain to win given everything--and he may have it.....


    Yes. The math is simple. (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by oldpro on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:19:35 PM EST
    Two months+ for the GE. as the Dem. Party well knew when it selected the dates for all of these events...primaries, caucuses, conventions, etc.  The only known date was election day in Nov. so these were deliberate choices based on ummm...assumptions!...and ummm...probabilities and ummm...finance issues/fundraising...and history and oh-for-gawd's-sake...

    As for "I know Hillary can only win after a protracted fight for delegates...but that means Hillary has to tear apart the party to win the nomination"...that is also true of Obama.  Do you know that as well?  Neither candidate will have enough pledged delegates to win the nomination.  Both will need superdelgates to win.


    It is a foregone conclusion that the party will be torn apart no matter which candidate wins the nomination now.  The atmosphere has been poisoned and it will be years before we recover from this disaster...if ever.  Probably not in my remaining lifetime.


    For once I agree with BTD, (none / 0) (#10)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:52:29 AM EST
    the SD's will choose the Dem nom.

    Although, imo, the elephant in the room re: getting votes by getting one's "message" out to the voters is the media, therefor the SD's should base their decision on who the media likes/dislike the most.

    NPR ran a story this AM about the 3/4 Rhode Island primary (remember RI?) and they played a clip of the comments of a kid, maybe 10 y/o or so, who said she "loved Obama because he was going to get her a college education."

    No amount of money spent on ad buys is ever going to get you that kind of irrational exuberance.

    I'm not sure (none / 0) (#13)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:18:28 PM EST
    since one of his ads in TX indirectly says he'll make sure everyone gets a college education.  It's a line in one of the 'rock star' type ads, 'stop war, stop foreclosures, college for all, good jobs, 2 cars in every garage'.  One of those ads  :-)

    And a chicken in every pot? (none / 0) (#16)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:26:40 PM EST
    Amazing that 10 y/o kids are getting hyped up on this sort of stuff.

    this ad does look (none / 0) (#22)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:38:46 PM EST
    and sound like a feel good "video", so maybe he knows his demographic  :-)

    Grim realism (none / 0) (#25)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:41:56 PM EST
    only motivates a few.......Bill has said as much....

    If the election remains close (none / 0) (#18)
    by Manuel on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:31:53 PM EST
    the FL and MI issue will loom large.  I don't see how superdelegates can ignore it and I would want them to factor it into their decision.  It seems like a do over is the best of all the bad alternatives.

    It would have to be funded by the party but that doesn't seem like a huge problem this year.

    No. No do-over in Florida. (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by oldpro on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:26:49 PM EST
    Not possible financially or any other way.

    Michigan?  What a mess.

    Democrats...with a major assist from Dems 4 a day and crossover mischiefmakers.  Remember Kos suggesting Dems cross over and vote for Romney?  Sheesh...


    The superdelegates don't need a do-over ... (none / 0) (#54)
    by cymro on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 08:19:46 PM EST
    ... in FL and MI before they can factor the views of the electorate in those states into their own decisions. You are confusing the role and responsibilities of superdelegates with the election of pledged delegates.

    I don't think many people want a credentials fight (none / 0) (#55)
    by Manuel on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 08:46:29 PM EST
    at the convention.  If it is close they'll craft some compromise and the revised results will be considered by the full conventon.

    The subject of a credentials fight is moot (none / 0) (#57)
    by cymro on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:06:48 PM EST
    Neither candidate will have a plurality regardless of the final decision regarding FL and MI, so the superdelegates will still have to vote to decide the outcome.

    And they will have all the information they need to decide on that vote regardless of whether there has been a do over, a compromise, or a credentials fight, or whatever.


    So the best thing to do is just prepare (none / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:22:04 PM EST
    for ugly huh?  I can do that.

    Very ugly. (none / 0) (#39)
    by oldpro on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:28:34 PM EST
    Put on your combat fatigues and your helmet and read up on '68, '72, '76, '80, '84...

    God, I can't go through this again.


    Go ahead and lean on me (none / 0) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:49:49 AM EST
    I'll drag you to the extraction point when we're done ;)

    The top 5 most boring arguments (none / 0) (#43)
    by fladem on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:14:23 PM EST
    in this primary season.

    1.  The Michigan and Florida elections are completely valid, and there is no question that they should be seated.
    2.  The Michigan and Florida elections were completely invalid, and there is no question that the delegates should NOT be seated.
    3.  Clinton supporters on MYDD and other sites are mean and unfair.
    4.  Obama supporters on DKOS are completely unfair and engaging a conspiracy to shut down debate.
    5.  The Super-delegates should just do what they think is right, and no one should attempt to put any pressure on them at all.

    With regard to the last: Hello!! These ARE politicians we are talking about.  In fact, the super delegates are NOT going to decide this nomination.  It will be decided by the popular vote leader and the pledged delegate leader - which will almost certainly be the same person.

    Hello? (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:31:39 PM EST
    I am giving my view of what they should do. So is everyone else. Unlike everyone else, I am NOt pretending anything different.

    So give me an effing break FlaDem.


    Good Riddens (none / 0) (#58)
    by pluege on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:53:59 PM EST
    here, here, BTD. This threatening to bolt the party if ones opinion isn't adhered to is TOTAL BS. Whoever says that should be shown the door.

    The rules are the rules. If SuperD's have free reign to decide to vote however they want then so be it - change the rules AFTER this nominating season, but fer gawd's sake, adhere to the damn rules that exist this season. Messing with Fl and Mi was bad enough, but that at least was before the action started. To mess with the rules now would be total disaster.