The Will Of The Voters

By Big Tent Democrat

Adam Nagourney writes:

While many superdelegates said they intended to keep their options open as the race continued to play out over the next three months, the interviews suggested that the playing field was tilting slightly toward Mr. Obama in one potentially vital respect. Many of them said that in deciding whom to support, they would adopt what Mr. Obamaís campaign has advocated as the essential principle: reflecting the will of the voters.

(Emphasis supplied.) Ah, the question is begged - what do we mean by the "will of the voters?" Obama means the selected delegate count. Most normal people say the popular vote.

More . . .

I like Sherrod Brown's criteria for deciding who to cast his delegate vote for:

ďItís the overall popular vote, itís the overall delegates, itís who is bringing energy to the campaign, itís who has momentum,Ē Mr. Brown said.

I think that is actually what the Super Delegates will look at. I am comfortable with that myself.

< Edwards Delegates Bolt To Obama In Iowa | Obama Pitches Independents and Repubs to Register as Dems in PA >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    if they don't pick my candidate (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Turkana on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:52:14 PM EST
    they are not respecting the will of the voters!

    i am the world!

    Do you count yourself amongst (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:57:27 PM EST
    "most normal people?"

    hmm (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Turkana on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:58:36 PM EST
    some would say i fail on all three counts...

    Unless Obama supporter's threats (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:52:19 PM EST
    to burn the house down scare SDs into following the Obama rules at vote time.

    steady now. (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:58:01 PM EST
    Theres plenty of blame to go around (none / 0) (#23)
    by JoeA on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:12:29 PM EST
    The Clinton campaign were emailing out the exit polls for Mississipi to press and highlighting the fact that 25% of Clinton voters wouldnt support Obama in the General whereas only c.10% of Obama supporters wouldn't support Clinton.  That smacks of Mark Penn to me.

    Now I do think an element of that was a function of Clinton winning the Republican crossover vote 3-1 (most of whom arent going to vote for either in the General).


    I believe (none / 0) (#47)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:29:18 PM EST
    that you are mixing up apples and oranges a little.  The 10/25% numbers came from a nationwide Pew poll that was taken shortly before Mississippi.

    I agree with you that it's sort of crass for the Clinton campaign to be boasting about how many of their supporters are willing to abandon the party, but it's just the mirror image of Obama's rhetoric from earlier in the campaign ("I'll get all of her supporters, but will she get all of mine?")  At the end of the day, crass or not, I suppose it has to be a genuine consideration.


    Didn't Obama say in a debate (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:30:44 PM EST
    that his voters would not vote for Clinton, but hers would vote for him?

    Crass is as crass does, I suppose.

    It's called politics.


    IIRC He Has Made That Statement (none / 0) (#100)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:31:07 AM EST
    at least two or three times.

    I would have sworn (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:54:37 PM EST
    the whole point of super delegates was that they were party members entrusted to use their own judgment.

    I do recall seeing some list of super delegates and the amount of money donated to their campaign funds by BHO and HRC...it was interesting

    yes. Good point. But doing that would (none / 0) (#110)
    by derridog on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:43:21 AM EST
    be "following the rules, " and, as we know, Obamaites only support that idea when it benefits them.

    Also, the claim that the superdelegates should support the winner of the delegate race and not the popular vote is interesting, since that means that we pit, for example, California's nine million voters against Wyoming's 5,000.  That's really fair.


    I think (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:54:57 PM EST
    there was a poll last week that said the Democratic electorate was roughly split; half considered the delegate count more significant in determining the will of the voters, and the other half considered the popular vote more important.

    The question is, then, whether the superdelegates ought to take into account not only the will of the voters, but the meta-will of the voters as to how the will of the voters should be measured.  Heh.

    I recall that the poll stated (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:58:51 PM EST
    that the majority of folks said the popular vote winner should get the nomination.

    I think that as the days progress, and Rezko rolls on, and Obama gets more "frontrunner scrutiny," we will see where the momentum lies.


    You may be right (none / 0) (#14)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:03:00 PM EST
    What I recall is that the results were fairly close.

    Here's the poll (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by tree on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:20:24 PM EST
    from Rasmussen

    In the craziness of the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, it is possible that one candidate might finish the Primary Season with the most pledged delegates while another could end up with the most popular votes. If that happens, 57% of voters nationwide believe the nomination should go to the candidate with the most votes overall. A Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found that just 26% disagree and say the nomination should go to the candidate with the most pledged delegates.

    Second paragraph:

    Among Democratic voters, 59% believe the candidate with the most popular votes deserves the nomination while 25% take the opposite view. Barack Obama will almost certainly wind up with more pledged delegates than Hillary Clinton. However, in what might create a nightmare scenario for Democratic Party leaders, it is also quite possible that Clinton will wind up with more popular votes than Obama.

    Still, 45% of Obama voters believe that the nomination should go to the candidate with the most popular votes rather than the candidate with the most pledged delegates. Just 32% of Obama supporters believe the candidate with the most pledged delegates should win.

    Clinton voters overwhelmingly believe the winner of the popular vote should get the nomination.

    so, more than half--right? (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:22:36 PM EST
    Among Democratic voters, 59% believe the candidate with the most popular votes deserves the nomination while 25% take the opposite view.

    Yep (none / 0) (#45)
    by tree on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:26:35 PM EST
    And the rest(16%) are not sure.

    What is it with those "not sure" people? (none / 0) (#111)
    by derridog on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:44:38 AM EST
    I mean, it's not a hard question.  

    Hmm (none / 0) (#49)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:29:48 PM EST
    I think I must have seen a different poll on this.

    If more voters knew just how those delegates (none / 0) (#57)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:33:28 PM EST
    were being parcelled out, that 59% in favor of the popular vote would skyrocket.  imho

    There's been more than one (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:07:35 PM EST
    wrong poll? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:10:22 PM EST
    Need the one saying who they wanted to win: popular vote winner or delegate vote winner.

    SUSA didn't poll that, I don't think (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:11:18 PM EST
    This debate reminds me so much of 2000 (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by litigatormom on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:30:00 PM EST
    Democrats were all "Gore won the popular vote," and Bushies were all "the Electoral College is how we elect presidents."  My own view: the total delegate count matters very much, but I wish Obama supporters would stop talking about the "number of states" he's won.  

    Hopefully, the Supreme Court will not weigh in here, because if they do, you know McCain will end up as the Democratic nominee.


    McCain would lose trying to use (none / 0) (#59)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:34:54 PM EST
    the Democratic machine  :-)

    The 'Great Divide' (none / 0) (#98)
    by Rainsong on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:20:05 AM EST

    The split in their voting demographic base, has me intrigued, and I stumbled over an old February NYT piece which has an entertaining look at the basis of the difference between Obama and Clinton voters:

    Class issues


    Two Conditions by which (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:02:57 PM EST
    I regard the whole process as legitimate.

    1. Popular vote.

    2. Florida being seated as is, the Jan. 29 vote being certified. Or a revote in Florida producing results that are, at the very least, the same as the Jan. 29 vote.

    If Obama gets boosts from two states voting 3 to 4 months AFTER THEY SHOULD HAVE VOTED, I'm done with the party.

    In short, Obama needs to win this in PA and Michigan alone at this point.

    I've let Michigan go.

    I will not let Florida go.

    That is unaccepatble too (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Coral Gables on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:31:49 PM EST
    <<Florida being seated as is, the Jan. 29 vote being certified. Or a revote in Florida producing results that are, at the very least, the same as the Jan. 29 vote.>>

    This is wrong. If you accept a revote then you accept the outcome. You can't accept a revote predicated on a self determined outcome.

    Either is fine with me and I dont care if Hillary wins a revote with 60% or if Obama pummels her in Florida. I just want every vote to be counted.


    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:36:27 PM EST
    I don't see how a rational argument can be made against doing a revote in FL if it's okay to do one in MI.  I know that O's name was not on the ballot in MI, but the issue is whether or not the delegates count, not whose name was on the ballot and who got the most votes.  For all intents and purposes, as the vote in both states did not count, you could've put Curious George (the real one, not GWB) on the ballot and it would've mattered just as much as if Edwards or Obama was on it.

    Michigan and Florida (none / 0) (#94)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:54:11 AM EST
    were supposed to happen a month and a half ago.

    Delaying them for 3 months is a larger betrayal of the intent of the rules than counting them as is.

    That's as simple as I can put it.

    Michigan is different cause his name is on the ballot.  As I said above, I'm letting that one go.

    But here's two options regarding Florida.

    1.  A revote in June.

    2.  Counting the Jan. 29 vote.

    Now, given that the letter of the rules is no longer an option, tell me which of those two options is the bigger betrayal of the intent of the rules.

    Counting a vote where no candidate had any advantage over the other, that took place 5 days before it was supposed to, and where there was unprecedented turnout.

    Or taking a vote that was scheduled to happen on Feb. 5th and making it happen in June.

    If the timing of votes doesn't matter, there's some others I'd like to reschedule as well.

    What's the difference?


    The Difference (none / 0) (#106)
    by Coral Gables on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:48:18 AM EST
    The difference is the DNC ruled in advance it would not count but offered up two options to each State.

    1. Taking it before the credentials committee at the Convention and arguing the state's case for seating their delegates (still an option for both states)

    2. Scheduling another way to determine the selection of the delegates that is acceptable to the DNC prior to June 7. (Still a possibility that will or will not move forward on Monday for Florida)

    If you say a revote in Florida has to result in the same outcome or it's invalid, it's the same as saying a regular season game has to have the same outcome as  a pre-season game or it's invalid. If you take this tact in Florida then you have to also admit that any totals under 55% in Michigan for Hillary or over 40% for Obama (the uncommitted) are also unacceptable.

    Your argument that a vote is only valid if it follows your own self determined outcome is defective. You would be far better saying either revote is unethical. By accepting a revote (and it's outcome) in one state and not the other flies in the face of logic.


    That analogy is faulty (none / 0) (#118)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:12:56 PM EST
    The better analogy is Team Obama getting to delay the first game of the World Series so he can set up his pitching rotation, and not because of an "act of god", say, like an earthquake, but because the commissioner "screwed up."

    If I make a consideration that the commisioner is an Obama fan, and not a fan of the other team, then fine.


    Michigan and Florida (none / 0) (#93)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:42:00 AM EST
    Were supposed to happen a month and a half ago.

    Florida Voting Date (none / 0) (#99)
    by Aussie Chris on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:06:46 AM EST
    The main issue is when Florida and Michigan should hold their primaries. Every state wants to go first. So how do you regulate this? Florida and Michigan voted for these rules in July 07 and then violated them. It was not Dean alone but members of the DNC on the rules committee including Harold Ickes, now on the Clinton campaign.

    Do you want all states to hold their primaries on one date? If so you will be front loading, so that an unknown like Obama or Huckabee cannot possibly win. What would you have done if all the other states then moved their primaries before Michigan and Florida to Dec 07 or July 07? Who should make the rules and should the rules be enforced?


    You don't regulate this (none / 0) (#119)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:13:35 PM EST
    By giving one candidate an unprecedented advantage over the other.

    So even if there was a revote (none / 0) (#29)
    by JoeA on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:16:11 PM EST
    in Florida,  you only believe it is legitimate if Clinton does as well as or better than she did the first time around?

    Way to run an election, why bother voting?

    I really dont think there will be a revote in Florida.  They will be seated with 50% delegate representation and Clinton can make her case to superdelegates that the PV from Florida is genuine.


    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:17:31 PM EST
    Why bother voting?

    No re-vote in FLA is a travesty (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by litigatormom on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:33:02 PM EST
    I would seat FLA as is, but I don't expect that to be the resolution.

    But punishing FLA by halving its votes, and letting MI re-vote?  No way.


    It's worse than a travesty (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by dianem on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:11:24 AM EST
    It's kicking the people we really need to win the election in November. It's not only unfair, it's unfair in a self-destructive way.

    Right. That solution is really "fair." (none / 0) (#112)
    by derridog on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:47:30 AM EST
    Heads Obama wins and tails Hillary loses.

    Well...after Pelosi's (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Andy08 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:04:24 PM EST
    comments last night to George S. on ABC News I am not surprised... Pelosi redefined the role of superdelegates and stated that the popular vote is irrelevant. Pelosi crossed the line for as Speaker of the House and hence president of the convention her obligation was to remain neutral. In two sentences she effectively said the race is over.
    Her comments were clearly meant to influence the
    superdelegates that are still neutral.


    Her statements were irresponsible.  

    you might get deleted (none / 0) (#17)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:09:11 PM EST
    for improper link formatting, but I will still say:

    Pelosi's support for one candidate might have a good result for the other.

    Newtonian politics: for every statement, there is an equal and opposite statement.


    oops...what is the proper formatting? (none / 0) (#46)
    by Andy08 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:27:41 PM EST
    I didn't know about this; I'm fairly new here.

    But Kathy: I love your Newtonian analogy.


    thanks! (none / 0) (#48)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:29:38 PM EST
    Link involves the link icon over the box where you post.  Highlight what you want to go blue, then click the link icon, paste in the url, then hit okay.

    Ah! Ok. (none / 0) (#63)
    by Andy08 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:41:52 PM EST
    Thank you Kathy. Will do next time.

    Those "establishment" Dem's sure seem (none / 0) (#28)
    by Teresa on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:15:57 PM EST
    to be in Obama's corner.

    O/T but I have a TL computer question. Two days in a row, when I get on my computer, TL is no longer on my Favorites. I'm the only one with the password so I can't figure what's up. I've had to add it again both times. I've never had this problem before.


    Strange. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by JoeA on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:19:32 PM EST
    Not got a solution for you,  but I can recommend Google Toolbar and the bookmarks feature within that.  Means you can access your bookmarks across multiple pc's and I have never had that kind of problem with it.

    It is strange. Every single one of my (none / 0) (#43)
    by Teresa on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:24:59 PM EST
    other favorites are still there. Weird. I think it's because I checked Kos for just a second and the bad people took over my computer. :)

    Great Minds Think Alike (none / 0) (#101)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:35:25 AM EST
    Before I read your entire comment, I was going to ask if you had been to the Big Orange lately.

    Pelosi wants Obama's coat tails? (none / 0) (#65)
    by dwmorris on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:51:09 PM EST
    I've been really surprised by the number of aggressive early endorsers Obama got.  I'm beginning to think there's a lot of SDs sucking up to his campaign because they want or need to ride his presumptive coat tails.  If so, boy are they going to be in for a surprise.

    pelosi is so full of herself that she (none / 0) (#80)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:31:40 AM EST
    jus plain disgusts me.

    Are (none / 0) (#104)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:32:23 AM EST
    all the Obama people on the A-List blogs that so loathed Pelosi and everything she said and did now in a forgiving mood with her endorsement and indication that the nomination is over? Guess voters aren't important to the DNC and Speaker Pelosi anymore.

    when they lose the general election and (none / 0) (#108)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:28:57 AM EST
    the republican party finds a way to make a comeback they'll be  back to a beggar at the table place that they seem to be used to in my opinion. i am thinking right now about ANIMAL FARM.  the pigs are more equal than others. well nancy, what goes up comes down.

    they are blowing our chances with their arrogance and basic common sense.


    Despite the lede (love that word) (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:11:44 PM EST
    the super ds interviewed do not uniformly dread the nomination being decided on the convention floor.  

    I am betting (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by americanincanada on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:11:51 PM EST
    SDs were in frantic conversations last night and will continue to be as the issues swirling around Obama continue to gain steam and volume.

    You can but hope. (none / 0) (#40)
    by JoeA on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:22:53 PM EST
    If I were Hillary I wouldn't be measuring drapes for the oval office just yet.

    Ok, call me an outlier but... (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by goldberry on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:13:28 PM EST
    ...by the time June rolls around, it will be VERY difficult to deny Clinton the nomination,  In fact, anything else will look very anomalous and risky.  That's my prediction and I'm sticking with it.  
    OH, and may I remind everyone that I nailed what would happen to DailyKos on the last day of the YK07 convention in Chicago.  All I was missing was my turban when I predicted that the site would succumb to mob rule and that it would be a very dangerous and destructive path to take if we wanted to maintain a community.  But did anyone listen to me??
    So, listen up, guys: Clinton will have EARNED the nomination by June and everyone will know it.  And the nation will see through the kabuki about Florida and Michigan as well.  You wanna know how I know this?  It's because everyone is paying attention.  When I was walking out of Macy's tonight, I saw two cashiers on break and what do you think they were discussing?  Sports?  The weather?  No, it was Michigan and Florida.  I kid you not.  There rhey were standing on the sidewalk, just too average Joes, puffing on their cigarettes and debating the delegate counts in Michigan and Florida.  Well, I made sure they knew what was going on with the do-overs as I walked by and they laughed and said thanks.  
    People know the score.  If Obama thinks for one minute that NJ is not watching every move he makes wrt to Florida, he's got another thing coming.  
    The gods of small things have spoken.

    You're an optimist I'll give you that. (none / 0) (#41)
    by JoeA on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:23:22 PM EST
    I'm trying to reconcile myself... (none / 0) (#83)
    by dianem on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:37:38 AM EST
    ...to a McCain Presidency. I can't go through a disappoint like I did the last time. I almost started smoking again, fercryinoutloud!  I would be quite happy if Clinton won the primary, but I believe that the only way we will win the election is a Clinton/Obama campaign. She can't be 2nd on the ticket, because McCain will still be able to tear into Obama's lack of experience at every opportunity. He doesn't even need to say anything - just standing next to Obama shows people everything they need to know. The media love McCain, and their love affair with Obama is fading. It won't last until the election. And a Clinton/anybody else ticket will not win over Obama's supporters. But it won't happen. Obama wants it all, and he will let the party lose before he will play 2nd fiddle to Clinton.

    On the other hand, I'm a bit of a pessimist. Maybe I'm wrong. I like your view.


    The recent scandals (none / 0) (#86)
    by Foxx on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:49:37 AM EST
    make it impossible for Obama to be her VP.

    I don't think they're that big (none / 0) (#95)
    by dianem on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:09:18 AM EST
    The Ferraro thing was never tied to Clinton at all, Clinton may not have apologized enough for adamant Obama fans, but she did aplogize. Rezko is going to tag Obama for a long time, but there still is no evidence that he did anything seriously wrong, and bad judgment is easily resolved by experience. The other thing - it could get nasty,enough to cost him the Presidency, but I don't think it would be nasty enough to cost him a VP spot. And after 8 years of watching him salute the flag and negotiate treaties and attend state funerals people will forget minor lapses in judgment and he'll look "Presidential".

    Anyway, it is a longshot. Who knows what could happen between now and November. McCain might pick Attila the Hun as his running mate. Or maybe Fitzpatrick.  


    clinton can never apologize enough for them. (none / 0) (#109)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:30:29 AM EST
    she could wear sack cloth and ashes and walk on crushed glass, and they'd whine all the more.

    I'm worried he's going to pick (none / 0) (#113)
    by derridog on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:55:42 AM EST
    Colin Powell.

    Nah, the Obama VP will be White and Southern (none / 0) (#121)
    by JoeA on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:20:50 AM EST
    You heard it here first.

    No. Not Obama. McCain. (none / 0) (#123)
    by derridog on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:09:58 PM EST
    Aaaah, makes sense (none / 0) (#124)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:53:27 AM EST
    That would be a smart move if he did so.  On the other hand Powell went through an extended debate with his family over running for the Presidency before and ended up deciding he didn't want the hassle/disruption/possibility of getting assassinated.

    Maybe his views have changed,  or he might view the Vice Presidency through a different prism.  I think that would be a very difficult ticket to beat for either Obama or Clinton.

    Two reasons why I think it might not happen.

    1.  Powell has said very nice things about Obama.

    2.  The Republican right would go absolutely nuts over it.  I think they view Powell as some kind of traitor for his time in the State Department and criticisms of the administration since leaving office.  McCain needs an orthodox conservative Republican to balance what they view as his weaknesses and I don't think Powell would fit that bill.  

    Yeah. Well, I hope you're right. It would (none / 0) (#125)
    by derridog on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:24:10 PM EST
    kill the Democrats, I fear, if he did.

    Will of the voters (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by Step Beyond on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:21:48 PM EST
    Shouldn't that be the "will of the voters that are allowed to vote?"

    Because as a Floridian voter who bothered to vote I'm pretty sure that they still aren't referring to me.

    who voted in what they knew was (none / 0) (#122)
    by JoeA on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:21:21 AM EST
    a Beauty contest.

    Delegates reflect the will of the states (none / 0) (#8)
    by tandem5 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:58:36 PM EST
    not the people. Its just we usually don't have to touch upon these issues unless the popular vote says something else.

    I believe the delegates reflect . . . (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Joelarama on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:59:47 PM EST
    the will of the delegates.

    Let's be honest (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:59:47 PM EST
    Super D's can reflect the will of their Labradors if they so choose.

    They are held to no standard, no moral imperative, no governing justice.  They can do as they like. Period.


    I bet my Golden (none / 0) (#24)
    by americanincanada on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:12:38 PM EST
    Retreiver has better judgement than Nancy Pelosi.



    Only if they're premenopausal n/t (none / 0) (#53)
    by litigatormom on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:30:53 PM EST
    My dog has better judgement (none / 0) (#69)
    by Fabian on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:12:30 PM EST
    Can I get the candidates to come over for sniff inspection?

    (Because my dog is vaguely wolfish in appearance, some people are alarmed when he gives them a thorough nose inspection.  Honestly, he's not trying to figure out if you'll taste good!  He just is cataloging where you've been, who you've been with and what pets you have.)


    my cat georgie has better judgment (none / 0) (#81)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:33:40 AM EST
    than pelosi, and all he thinks about is his food bowl.

    Period? (none / 0) (#27)
    by JoeA on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:13:46 PM EST
    Is that a sexist dogwhistle for the female super delegates? /snark.  :-)

    "The will of the states"? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:00:22 PM EST
    Strongly controlled by state dem. party as to allocation of delegates.

    I don't disagree. (none / 0) (#25)
    by tandem5 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:13:01 PM EST
    Heh (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:11:19 PM EST
    Do states have wills? (none / 0) (#105)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:37:22 AM EST
    Do states have rights? (none / 0) (#117)
    by tandem5 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:12:49 PM EST
    got me.

    I'm wondering if the Rezko deal and the preacher (none / 0) (#31)
    by Angel on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:17:07 PM EST
    thing will have any impact.  It should, but just wondering if it will.  If it does, then maybe the SDs will wander over to Hillary's place.  I'm pretty upset about this entire nomination process so I will sit out the general election unless Hillary is the nominee.  

    Angel, I understand how you feel and some- (none / 0) (#38)
    by Teresa on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:22:25 PM EST
    what feel the same way. We have got to get over it, though. I am mad as hell at the media and certain bloggers and it kills me to give in to them and give them any satisfaction at all, but we can't sit out or vote for McCain. Believe me, I want to sit out too but we just can't.

    I'm hoping that if Obama gets the nomination, and I think he will, the attacks from the right about our values and not just about Obama will help us do the right thing.


    I am in GA (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:24:11 PM EST
    so I can safely leave the country come November and have no guilt on my conscience.  And stay in a youth hostel because the dollar will be worth six cents by then.

    I'm your neighbor in TN so I know how (none / 0) (#51)
    by Teresa on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:30:10 PM EST
    tempting it is. Every single member of my family is sitting it out (as of now). I've just never not voted and I'm not sure I can do it. I want to but I'm afraid of how bad I will feel if McCain takes us down the toilet. My nephew-in-law has been to Iraq three times (he's there now, R&R starts Monday) so I feel responsible.

    It's weird though. His family is originally from Puerto Rico and they all voted for Hillary in FL and NY but every single one of them will vote for McCain if Obama wins.


    Here's why you shouldn't though; (none / 0) (#73)
    by Iphie on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:36:42 PM EST
    The difference in the popular vote. Even if your state is going to go red, racking up an even bigger margin in the popular vote gives the Democrat more "political capital." And we know, 'cause Dubya taught us just how important political capital is -- I would like to see the difference in the popular vote to be as large as it possibly can.

    Uh, yeah, that really worked for Gore (none / 0) (#76)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:41:05 PM EST
    Actually, (none / 0) (#91)
    by Iphie on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:13:33 AM EST
    the Gore situation is driving my reasoning -- I know many people who didn't vote because they knew that it wasn't going to change their state's electoral votes, both here in NY and also in TX. I also know people who voted for Nader "to send a message" which they felt perfectly secure in doing because, again, it wasn't going to change the outcome in their states. Had Gore had a much more commanding lead in the popular vote, it may not have changed the ultimate outcome, but I'd like to think that it would have held some sway. I also think (hope) that it would have given the Supreme Court pause (much greater than they felt), and made it even clearer to them that they were undoing an election, and not by some small percentage either. I do think that at a certain point if Gore had won the popular vote by massive numbers, it would have made it considerably harder to steal the election.

    heh. sure (none / 0) (#78)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:57:16 PM EST
    I'm mad as hell too (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by litigatormom on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:36:50 PM EST
    I've been an HRC supporter from the beginning.  In the beginning I liked Obama very much, and he was my second choice.  I've come to like him less.  But even so, permitting McCain to become president is unacceptable. No Democrat should acquiesce to that result. If we all stand up, and we are all counted, he will not be president.

    I'm prepared to go Obama if my preferred candidate does not win the nomination.  We should all be prepared to go for the nominee, whoever s/he is.

    Think of the Supreme Court.  Think of the Constitution. The next president must be a Democrat. Period.  If for no other reason than the Court.


    "If we all stand up, and we are all (none / 0) (#67)
    by Angel on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:01:06 PM EST
    counted, he will not be president."

    This is the problem with the entire nomination process; we have stood up but we are not being counted, so BO will get the nomination even if Hillary gets the popular vote.  And what about Florida?  We don't know if any of those popular votes or delgeate votes will be counted.  And that's because BO is too selfish or too afraid to have a new election, whether by mail or by another primary held in the normal fashion.  And he took his name off the Michigan ballot in an attempt to curry favor with Iowa.  He has cobbled together his delegates by getting the red states and by working the caucus system, not be getting the core of the Democratic party behind him.  For these reasons he does not deserve my vote in the general election.  


    Taking his name off the ballot... (none / 0) (#72)
    by Teresa on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:22:32 PM EST
    curry favor with Iowa

    Maybe partly, but mainly because he new he was going to lose badly and was thinking ahead to make her win worthless.

    I hope she wins by a bigger margin this time.


    I can give you a legit one (none / 0) (#90)
    by dissenter on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:09:21 AM EST
    I run around war zones all the time. As much as I despise John McCain, I am terrified of Obama. He has stupid advisers, he is totally naive and that is a prescription for death. Exhibit one - George Bush. He doesn't realize how his stupid comments impact us. For example, those comments about bombing Pakistan. That already is policy. Smart people don't discuss it in public. But I will tell you what it did do, ratchet up our security the very next day.

    I value the Supreme Court but I live in a pro choice state..even when it is under republican rule. Politics at the end of the day is personal and nothing is more personal to me than preserving my life, my comrades and my brother who has served as a combat medic for 16 months...fortunately on his way home.

    Make sense? For me, John McCain is better. And trust me, he is going to get 99.9% of the military/usaid vote. He will even get the family vote of servicemen and women who hate the war. Nobody over in Afghanistan or Iraq trusts BO with our safety. He doesn't even understand the situation on the ground...which can't be broken down into simplistic sound bytes.


    Well, you make a very good point. (none / 0) (#114)
    by derridog on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:03:41 PM EST
    My son is also in the army. He served a year in Iraq.  He's in the reserve now, with a domestic army job, but there's little guarantee he couldn't be sent back.  He has two small children and four stepkids.  This is another big reason I want Hillary in there.  I believe she would be able to handle this. She could get Wesley Clark to run as her VP.

    I agree with you that the military people will vote for McCain otherwise.


    I live in a pro-choice state too (none / 0) (#120)
    by litigatormom on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:02:23 PM EST
    But it's a slippery slope.  No federal right to reproductive freedom -- it's not just abortion, it's contraception. It's sex education. It's the right to privacy.

    And that's without even talking about the Fourth Amendment. Unreasonable searches without warrants, without Congressional oversight.

    And just in case you think it's just the Bill of Rights, it's not. It's further unilateral extensions of presidential power well beyond the limits of Article II.  More "inherent" power to ignore the will of Congress. More wars started and continued without cause, without review, without Congressional approval or oversight.

    I don't want my children and grandchildren growing up in that world.  I'd much much rather have Hillary as Commander in Chief than Obama.  But I would rather have Obama than a man who wants to stay in Iraq for a century, a man who insists on victory he can't define, a man who jokes about bombing Iran, a man who is still fighting the Vietnam War and thinks the mistake we made was not staying longer. I don't want that man to be my President.


    Well (none / 0) (#33)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:19:27 PM EST
    we will just have to wait and see what is on the news tomorrow.  I am sure that the Rezko interview was timed for Friday at 7pm for a reason.  Maybe the ploy will work, maybe not.

    OF course, Rezko relationship w/Obama (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:38:41 PM EST
    is now entirely vetted, by none other than Obama himself, so that's done; thank you very much.

    Are the candidates doing the Sunday TV (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:19:32 PM EST
    rounds, or are the likes of Plouffe, Axelrod, Penn, and Wolfson on tap?

    Obama's popularity? (none / 0) (#44)
    by Saul on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:25:37 PM EST
    I see Obama's popularity diminishing.   Although he controls or owns the AA vote in most states, I think you will not see the white voters  moving over to him as they have in the past.  I think more white voters will vote for Hilary in the remaining primaries.  Time is on Hilary's Side.  

    take that to the general election! (none / 0) (#82)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:36:41 AM EST
    and you have defeat! obama played his guards and the chickens will come home to roost. how foolish some have been!

    National tracking polls (none / 0) (#58)
    by dwmorris on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:33:35 PM EST
    If the SDs are really interested in the "will of the voters", they'll need to pay attention to the national tracking polls.  All the other metrics don't take into account the mounting buyer's regret (on both sides) that will continue to grow until they make a decision.  I know this is a lousy metric, but too many biases are introduced by (1) MI and FL, (2) the caucuse format, and (3) the timing of the various contests for vote totals or delegate counts to represent a reasonable representation.

    Obama is more electable (none / 0) (#62)
    by OxyCon on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:40:50 PM EST
    His negatives are only 49%


    They used to be 45 (none / 0) (#97)
    by dianem on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:25:39 AM EST
    He is pretty much at the peak of his game, the right wing hasn't even begun to attack, and he is already at 49. Clinton started high and stayed where she was, and she'll stay right there throughout the election. If you really think that Obama can beat McCain, look at McCains negatives. They've gone down from 50 to 45, and his people are just starting to coalesce into a unified party.

    As opposed to Hillary's 51%, when she's been (none / 0) (#115)
    by derridog on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:08:25 PM EST
    under attack continually by everyone for the last fifteen years? What else can they throw at her? No one knows anything about him, really. There are so many questions, like Rezko, that can damage him, when played by the Rethugs, even if he doesn't have anything to hide and I sincerely doubt that.  They can define him and him they will. He won't know what hit him.

    forging a "deal" (none / 0) (#64)
    by Imelda Blahnik2 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:47:05 PM EST
    I see a lot of references to "forging a deal." As in  Dean or Gore or some other so-called party "elder" stepping in to forge one, in the event that the nomination is not settled prior to the convention. But what do people mean by this? What kind of deal? To forge a deal requires resources  -- power, money,  support - to be dealt. And given that the Presidency is the ultimate prize for Clinton and Obama, what could possibly sway them to abandon that prize for something else?

    Any ideas?

    what they build up (none / 0) (#66)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:54:08 PM EST
    they can also destroy.

    Obama's takeaway is he can be VP for eight years, then get the nom in 2016 and be the POTUS.

    Clinton--I don't think they can offer her anything that she doesn't already have.  What she can offer them is promises that she won't go in and, say, chop off Dean's head and put Ford in, or something similar.

    I may be wrong, but this seems like the case to me.  


    I liked the union President's laughing (none / 0) (#75)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:39:41 PM EST
    acknowledgement this is an impossibility.

    you are killing me (none / 0) (#77)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:41:48 PM EST
    forge a deal? with the likes of dean (none / 0) (#84)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:38:02 AM EST
    and pelosi. throw in ole brazile and you have a real deal there, right! i don't see it. i see a real mess at the convention. and everyone calling for hillary to give in while obama smirks.

    Blog "X" has gone crazy (none / 0) (#70)
    by OxyCon on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:15:56 PM EST
    I used to be a regular at a small blog where two nice ladies post for some guy (no more info than that). And man have they lost their minds there. They are high fiving each other over Obama's plan to register Repubs so they can vote against Hillary in Pennsylvania. They are also scheming up underhanded plans that Obama could use in order to make sure Florida and Michigan do not count.

    I really think the superdelegates are kind of (none / 0) (#79)
    by wrkn129 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:43:03 PM EST
    there to "save us from ourselves" so to speak. From people I have talked to, they have no idea where the candidates stand on the issues. Some support Obama because of his message of "change" and "hope" and others are for Clinton because she's a woman. I have kids who are 18-30, and I wouldn't let them pick my car, much less my president. How many of those have jumped on the bandwagon? They aren't so much interested in politics or the issues as they are in the hype of the first black president or the first woman president. In light of all of the "dems for a day" for either Obama or Clinton, I don't think the "will of the people" of the ones who will actually vote for the Democrats in November is accurately portrayed by the results of the caucuses. If my state was a caucus state, I wouldn't be able to vote unless the caucus is before 9am or after 9pm and I know a lot of police, fire and hospital workers who would not be able to attend a caucus unless you want to close the police station, fire department and hospitals. Yet, my kids can ditch their college classes but don't hear anything except that Obama will give them a $4,000 credit for college. Hmm, there are a few more issues than that.  I, therefore, believe the superdelegates should vote for the person they think will do the best job as President, who has the best experience (not necessarily the most), the best stance on the issues, the ability to appoint the right people to the key positions, etc. The superdelegates know the candidates in a different perspective than the average voter. The superdelegates should not be voting on a candidate because he is black or she is a woman. While I think the "will of the voters" should be taken into consideration, the superdelegates should vote for the person best fit to do the job and the one most likely to beat the Republicans in November.

    and who will save us from the (none / 0) (#85)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:39:11 AM EST
    super delegates? forgive me, but i have lost complete faith in this process.

    Hee Hee. I know what you mean. (none / 0) (#89)
    by wrkn129 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:06:23 AM EST
    But for lack of anything better at this time, I just have to trust that they will do what is right for the people of our great country.

    Unfortunately, if they are like Pelosi, (none / 0) (#116)
    by derridog on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:12:28 PM EST
    I doubt they will.  

    BTD ... (none / 0) (#87)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:51:27 AM EST
    are Super Delegates "normal people?"

    This is all so unclear (none / 0) (#88)
    by chemoelectric on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:56:03 AM EST
    This is all so unclear and nonsensical. Over at NovaM Radio's website, Shelly Drobny likens the primaries to a baseball season, with wins and losses, to argue against the popular count, neatly neglecting that baseball is winner-take-all and the Democratic primaries aren't. The only thing he succeeds in with this argument is showing that the popular vote total isn't really what it seems; he fails to show the pledged delegant count is more meaningful.

    Plainly, the superdelegates should follow whatever they feel is the best thing to do. They have brains of their own. Well, some of them do, anyway--like Al Gore, he has a brain. A lot of the others have some kind of nervy polyp or perhaps argon gas in their heads.

    well... (none / 0) (#92)
    by Rainsong on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:30:28 AM EST
    .. you never know, it may come down to the retired and no longer serving ones with Super-delegate status, and no personal stake in it - someone like Jimmy Carter, casting the final deciding SD vote with the wisdom of solomon.
    Mondale is still around too, isn't he?

    Popular Vote (none / 0) (#102)
    by Aussie Chris on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:35:40 AM EST
    There really is no such thing as the 'popular vote' in the Democratic primaries and caucuses. First, should they be open or closed? The states differ. If  Republicans can cross over and independents can vote, it can be more indicative of the general election. Winning core Democrats in closed primaries doesn't mean you will win the general. Even in primaries, less than 40% of the voters actually vote. So they are more motivated than the 'average' person who stays home. In caucuses, the voters tend to be even more motivated. By winning caucuses you get less votes than in primaries. Obama won the WA caucus by >20% and 10,000 votes and, later, the (meaningless) WA primary by 4% and 30,000 votes. Which do you count?

    Super-Dels: To Protect the Democratic Party (none / 0) (#103)
    by bmc on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:43:36 AM EST
    I'm dismayed at the comments by the Super-Delegates who apparently don't know what their role is supposed to be at the Convention.

    The role of super-delegates in the Democratic Party is supposed to be a vote based on what is best for the party--not the popular "will" of the "voters" or the number of delegates. Normally, the super-dels don't even come into play, when delegate counts show a clear leader. Unfortunately, this race is quite close, which brings the Super-dels into play. There are many considerations they should apply; but the fundamental role they are--acc to the "rulz"--supposed to follow is not popular will or in this case, a miniscule lead in delegate counts.

    The best argument for the role of Super-delegates as final arbiters of what is best for the Democratic Party is Obama's "Democrat for a Day" tactic in Florida, California, caucuses around the nation, and now, apparently, Pennsylvania, where he recruits Republicans to switch registration to the Democratic Party, vote for him, then switch back to their original party.

    Super-delegates may think the "popular will" or the "delegate count" are the sole raison d'etre, but if we end up with a nominee pushed by Republicans, we get a Republican--not a Democratic--Party nominee for the general election. Those "Democrats for a Day" will vote for McCain in November, and the Republican Party will have successfully engineered a Democratic Party defeat.

    I'm not particularly crazy (none / 0) (#107)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:12:08 AM EST
    about superdelegates, but I think you are correct that their basic function is to protect the interests of the party as they see it.

    I can see an argument that their function is to reflect the will of the voters by going along with the popular vote, because of situations can arise where the delegate count is out of whack with the popular vote. I don't think that's a clear cut argument since, as I understand it, party rules don't say that that is their function. On the other hand, there could be situations where protecting the will of the voters against a skewed delegate count IS in the interests of the party. But that's up to each superdelegate to decide.

    As for the argument that their function is merely to follow the delegate count, its falsehood is obvious from the fact that superdelegates would be entirely superfluous if all they are supposed to do is follow the delegate count, as Nancy Pelosi would have us believe.