Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« OK, They Spelled The Names Right | Main | Don't Trust Anyone Under Thirty »

April 16, 2008

Comments

Jane

I wondered how they would throw it to her. "This is a democracy, we did what the poll said to do".

Soylent Red

The beauty of this whole thing is that unless the party mandates this approach, neither Hillarity or Obamessiah will know for sure how many delegates they have locked until the convention.

Thus extending the process to the (dare I say it) bitter end, bleeding off resources, and generally acting as McCain's 527s.

Not to mention the fact that one side or the other will be alienated from the party as a whole and might possibly swing to McCain, or even better, just sit out the election altogether.

Knowing all that, when it comes to dirty backroom political wheeling and dealing, my money goes on Hillarity.

But all that could just be my wishful thinking, because I deeply want to see a 1968 replay.

clarice

Oh, I think you're right Soylent..It's a corollary of good fences make good neighbors. Unclear election rules make chaos. Now, let's say this practice were adopted. Are you going to believe that Ted and John would ignore their support for O and vote for Hill? Wouldn't that put them in even better odor than they already are?

And yet if they do vote for O I can see many Mass Dem voters being angry enough to vote for McCain. Really I do.

clarice

And just to be sure of that result, I am hoping my good friends here (including Soylent, of course) will join me in creating a new source of agita which beams its message--LET EVERY VOTE COUNT--to those states where it is likely that the supers are going to ignore the vote total in their states.

Karl

Hillary would lead if the Democrats used the "winner-take-all" system.

Buford Gooch

But we're not talking about "winner take all" in pledged delegates. We're talking about leaving pledged delegates as they are, but requiring all super delegates from the state to vote with the majority of the state. I would love to see the math on that one.

DebinNC

Popular vote and delegates graphs

Danube of Thought

Seems to me it would have to be a Hillary slam dunk, wouldn't it? (I await the precise numbers from Ballard.)

I'm beginning to wonder about the "dream ticket" being resurrected, as someone suggested on another thread last night. By the time they get to the crunch, things may be looking so bad for the Dems that it's their only way out. But if I'm Obama at the top of the ticket, I'm thinking I would rather have a viper in my boot than a Clinton in my White House. And I would surround myself with food-tasters.

Jane

LET EVERY VOTE COUNT

I'm in!

Rick Ballard

"I await the precise numbers from Ballard."

Huh uh. I ain't helpin' pry the lid of that coffin open. I know what's inside.

Besides, the ploy isn't even half clever. The Superdopes are supposed to vote on the basis of their "conscience" (stop laughing). Additionally, one might make the argument that statewide office holders' votes shold reflect the will of the mob majority but what about the thieves pols who represent the plantations? Are Pete Stark and Maxine Waters supposed to vote against the mob majority in their fiefs districts?

DebinNC

Hillary ought to put down the shot glass and return to hammering Obama on his blocking a revote in MI, especially if, as expected, she closes the popular vote gap in the coming primaries.

Chris

Don't know who Stark supports but isn't MW a prominent Hil supporter? I await the trial balloon where the Dem's float a redefinition of the presidency. BO will run for prez of the domestic and Hil will run for everything outside our territorial waters. After two years, they'll switch roles. Part of the "living" constitution.

Patrick Tyson

MW is supporting HRC. FPS is undeclared.

I'm bowing out as an occaisional member of the commentariat and since I haven't been wrong about any election result prediction I've put in writing or said out loud since the primary season in 1992, I might as well put an end to that (or not) here. BHO will receive more votes than HRC on Tuesday next.

I may be reading you from time to time, but more likely I'll be reading Charles Dickens and then William Faulkner.

Best.

Rick Ballard

MW is with the Rangel/Nutter clique? I should have googled her first. It would be entertaining to see Stark go with RW while Barbara Lee and hugs BHO.

clarice

Jane--glad to hear that. We need you and we need your state to make this really work!

Jane

Aw Patrick, we will miss you.

M. Simon

Its a judgment call. Whatever they judge it will be a bad call.

Mikey NTH

If I was a superdelegate i would back the candidate that won in my state or district - whereever my political power base is. And I would excuse it by saying I was supporting the wishes of my constituents.

Its called CYA and isn't a new phenonema.

clarice

Patrick will be back--this is the real Hotel California.

There is no point to having superdelegates EXCEPT to overrule the popular vote when it is deemed necessary to do so to protect the party, is there?

GMax

If I were a superdelegate I would promise free cotton candy for everyone! That would make me popular!

But I would vote my conscience which would be heavily influenced by my analysis of how I thought the dufus at the top of the ticket ( be it dufus1 or dufus2 ) would impact my own election changes, my ability to keep my committee chair or committee assignments and of course my stranglehold on certain lobbyists for loot and treasure.

Soylent Red

GMAX:

I think yours is the more realistic model.

It's gonna be a long, hot summer...

M. Simon

I think the supers will go for who ever gives the biggest bribe campaign contribution.

The whole thing is a shambles. Take the money and run. Sauve qui peut.

Tom Maguire

Additionally, one might make the argument that statewide office holders' votes shold reflect the will of the mob majority but what about the thieves pols who represent the plantations? Are Pete Stark and Maxine Waters supposed to vote against the mob majority in their fiefs districts?

I would think that if politicians were interested in the minimization of political heat, the statewide holders (Gov, Senator) would back the statewide winner and the Congressional Reps would back the winner of their district.

Done that way, Hillary would get diluted down again, as lots of big state reps would be in Obama districts.

RCH

If superdelegates should just vote for whoever has the most delegates, then why have superdelegates at all? The idea is rendered pointless. One has to respect the idea that superdelegates have the right to voice their own opinion or they should be disbanded.
I wonder if Hillary was ahead in delegates, if Obama supporters would have the opposite view of superdelegates that they have now.

RCH

If superdelegates should just vote for whoever has the most delegates, then why have superdelegates at all? The idea is rendered pointless. One has to respect the idea that superdelegates have the right to voice their own opinion or they should be disbanded.
I wonder if Hillary was ahead in delegates, if Obama supporters would have the opposite view of superdelegates that they have now.

Rgaye

I've thought all along that if, IF the superdelegates are bound ethically or morally to vote a certain way this was the only way that made sense. We are nominating by state (except Florida and Michigan this year it seems) and we elect our president by state. We don't do it by popular vote.

Caucus states don't even pretend to promote a popular vote mechanism for choosing the nominee. So it just seems silly to say "They must vote the popular vote". There was no popular vote, no process to produce a popular vote, among voters of that party in those states. The premise of following the 'popular' vote from those states is just flawed at it's deepest level.

Primary states are a little different. They seem to follow, for the most part, the same kinds of rules in the primary as in the general or any other type of election. Even given that point we still elect our nominees by state and we still elect our president by state, so vote the popular vote is effectively giving power to people whom any particular superdelegate does not represent.... not that many see themselves as anything but representative of the party.

Dems could actually solve this next time around by moving to a winner takes all system. I suspect the tinkering they do won't be that simple though. And if popular vote is all that important then states could help by moving to a primary system.

However by the current rules I don't think either the delegates or superdelegates are bound to vote a certain way unless their states or state parties direct them too. I would hope those rules would be in place before the primary process started.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame