was off due to where I just was.
Please try answering the question instead of attempting to mislead the readers of this diary.
I sure thought it was after re-reading due to some of your poll choices.
are humorous. However the question is quite serious. Why is it a good idea to nominate either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton if they are only supported by 2024.5 delegates (less than half of the party)?
I posted the last response vertical wise and see there.
for my reply. Thanks for giving it a try. Frankly, I'm disappointed at how few posters are even attempting to answer.
If the votes don't add up to a majority, it is not a democracy.
Then you need a revote for the whole country.
No.
Uhh, because we levied those punishments against Florida and Michigan, and Senator Clinton agreed that was the number until it suited her politically? And that every time Obama gets a chance to campaign in a state that favors Clinton, he brings her numbers down dramatically, sometimes forcing to a win? And that there were literally hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people who would have voted, had they thought it would matter? And that Obama has more delegates than Senator Clinton, along with popular votes, etc?
Sorry... hope that doesn't get in the way of your "point".
DAMN YOU!
YOU MANIAC!
YOU BLEW IT UP!
AH, DAMN YOU! GOD DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!
Ain't got no snark. Please attempt to answer the question, instead of attempting to mislead other readers.
Your reasons have nothing to do with winning the election in November. I think you misunderstood the question.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought Shrub (Boo! Hiss!) got the smallest voting margin in history in 2000 or 2004. Where am I wrong?
A number of presidents have had smaller voting margins. JFK's vote margin was very small, much smaller than Bush's in 2004.
Bush actually lost the popular vote in 2000 by about 500,000 votes but three other presidents managed to win office that way, too.
Thanks, lombard. I wasn't sure why I was off and it was driving me crazy. Thanks for setting me straight.
Your second error is in cluttering this diary with irrelevant posts, instead of attempting a serious answer.
I have to admit, you had me going until I read the tags.
I know that many internet posters like to change the subject or attempt to mislead other readers when they cannot answer a question they don't want to be asked. That's disappointing. Particularly when I'm asking Democrats to tell me why we should nominate someone who receives the support of fewer than 2,209 delegates. Having minority support in the Democratic Party in August just isn't an auspicious way to continue a run for the Presidency.
Because many of those delegates would be happy to support the other candidate as well, they just have to give e preference. Support Hillary does not equal doesn't support Obama. There, simple really.
Your answer is that we should nominate someone with fewer than 2,209 delegates supporting them because many of those less than 2,209 "delegates would be happy to support the other candidate as well"?
Sorry, but that doesn't fit through any logic gates I've ever come across.
figured this was serious.
Thanks.
Settle down, and try again.
i will be checking back with frequency to see the answers. rec'd.
I hope there are some Obama supporters who give this question serious thought. If they don't, we could be in deep trouble next November.
To be as objective about it as I can be, I'd have to say declaring victory at 2025 is purely a PR move. It's the moment he passes half of the official delegates (at the time) and combined with a handy win in Oregon will give Obama a big boost and put the loses in Kentucky and West Virginia behind him.
Then the DNC rules committee will approve a plan both Clinton and Obama can accept to seat Florida and Michigan, which will likely be half votes for all their delegates and some compromise on the Michigan split (and in an ideal world none of the supers, to ensure this doesn't happen again and punish the people responsible, but that's neither here nor there). This bumps the magic number up roughly a hundred and puts Obama below it again, but the writing on the wall will be even clearer then than it is now and the pundits will talk more about how this clinches it for Obama than his jumping the gun claiming victory.
Finally, combine the continued super movement we're likely to see with the probable Obama wins in Montana and South Dakota and he makes up the delegates won in Puerto Rico (which Obama might even win) and Obama passes over the new magic number and declares victory again.
The short version is claiming victory now lets Obama control the narrative for the rest of the primary season, and lets him "win" twice at no extra cost.
They are not good reasons for the Party to nominate someone who attains that number.
Screw it, why bother with primaries and delegates at all if you don't nominate the person who obtains the official number? Why not just flick a coin or give it to Clinton?
The serious answer is we hold primaries and caucuses to obtain valuable information about the voters and the candidates, and we would be wise to consider all the information we obtain in the process - not just the information which favors one candidate and/or ignores some voters.
Yes, the Democratic Party makes rules and sometimes breaks rules. Rules are important, but they aren't always good for us, and they should never be allowed to cripple our nominee by enabling their nomination with less that a majority of the Party behind them.
I see no good reason to award the nomination to Hillary Clinton unless she manages to get the support of at least 2,209 delegates at the National Convention. Likewise for Barack Obama.
You are hilarious - in a banner year for dems, highest turnout in years for a primary season, two great candidates, you think we should nominate neither? Hilarious.
there have been tons of diaries about this lately, I think everyone has at least one version they agree on probably beat into their heads...do we really want to go here again?? I'm an HRC supporter but I don't want to fight over this anymore, it helps neither candidate!!
Why is it a smart idea for the Party to nominate someone who attains the support of less than half the party?
first there was Jerome's post that told everybody to chill on the numbers, and chastised Obama supporters for calling HRC and WV racists for finishing the primary season. Then there have been the ususal obama diaries saying he's won, and the HRC diaries that try to remind people he doesn't ahve the numbers yet. So it was a stalement, lets just finish the election and let the supers decide.
All of that history aside, my personal feeling is that Obama loses half the party, and loses big time to McCain...its even on the EV maps here and everywhere I looked this weekend. So me? No I don't think the dems ought to choose him, but then again, the dems haven't made winning choices (except Clinton) in decades--Kennedy, McGovern, MOndale, Dukakis, Kerry....so when and if they do jump on the Obama nation's bandwagon, it does mean the end of the democratic party as we know it. Obama wants a new coalition that includes red states, and his advisors have actually said "we don't need latinos, women, or blue collar workers". That is the end of the coalition that has sustained the dems for decades.
It's also interesting that the current plurality of those voting in my poll answered that 2024.5 delegates was enough for Obama, and he didn't need any of the rest.
Yes, we are terrific at nominating losing candidates, and if we are dumb enough to nominate Obama with less than 2,209 delegate votes, we probably aren't smart enough to take back the Presidency.
Which, in reality, is not at all.
JFK was nominated on the first ballot.
The third ballot nominee you're thinking of is Stevenson in '52.
How come you guys always get your facts confused?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article s/2007/12/politically_uncorrected_conven .html
Always?
Take it back, Jack. My memory isn't perfect (as I suggested in that particular matter), but it's quite stupid and annoying to ask the insulting question you just asked.
About as annoying and insulting as your diary premise.
I realize that my diary asks a question for which you apparently have no good answer. However, please don't feel insulted or annoyed by that. Please, instead, ponder why so many Democrats are on the verge of doing something so self-defeating as nominating a candidate who hasn't obtained majority support in the Party. Then ask yourself if you think we should actually continue on that risky course, because those are the rules and its good for Barack Obama (which, I think are the only arguments anyone has set forth here for doing so).
What is so hard to understand about the concept of two great candidates, who are very close. Many voters would be happy with either, but have to express a preference. Please tell me you understand this.
you. Still, whom does my diary insult?
The intelligence of everyone that has responded with reasonable answers, and just gets the same spammed nonsense from you. And this is the point where you get the last word, because this diary is the very definition of pointless.
Don't worry. Hillary won't be nominated.
than half of the Party supporting him. If you are either a Democrat and/or just someone who supports Obama, you should be worried about that also.
Look at it this way.....If you want to fudge the numbers so that Obama appears to have less than half, go ahead. But no matter how many delegates, votes, and states Obama has, Hillary will still have less -- which by your own reckoning makes her the weaker candidate.
But some people like to worry. So knock yourself out.
Clearly, 2024.5 is less than half of the delegates that will be sent to Denver. Therefore, they represent less than half of the Democrats and other people likely to vote for the candidate of the Democratic Party.
I haven't said one word in this diary about who is the weaker candidate. Are we to believe that you have achieved a successful mind-meld to determine my reckoning in that matter? Or what?
The question you continue to avoid remains. Why is it a good idea to nominate someone who has the support of less than half the party?
That's why I don't think hillary should be the nominee -- not only does have the support of less than half the party, she has less support than Obma by every measurement that isn't tailored to serve her interest.
This is like the medieval debates about how many angels can stand on the head of a pin -- it doesn't matter. Obama is the nominee and no amount of self serving semantics and manipulation of numbers will change it.
Obama has even pulled ahead in SDs, which is who this whole tired and lame argument about "electabilty" is aimed at. They aren't buying it because they know what is real and what is fantasy.
If Obama supporters persist in the fantasy that he will win in November without even a majority of Democratic delegates required to nominate him, they may get Obama nominated, but they are quite likely to belatedly realize in November just how Pyrrhic that narrow victory was.
We need a solid majority of Democrats in support of our nominee. Anyone who thinks they deserve the nomination and will receive the support of the whole party without even winning a slim majority of the party is deluding themselves.
Ok - so what do we do, not bother with a nominee this cycle, or give it to the person with even less support? Come on - let's here your solution.
What no answer? Weird - you keep cajoling everyone else to answer your question, then you don't respond.
The commenator has painted him/herself into a corner.
I would suggest to such people that the simplest way to help the Democratic nominee win in November is to begin supporting him now.
But I'm not so sure that many of them actually want ANY Democratic nominee to win.
do as you suggest, and help that nominee now.
I can, however, help whomever our nominee is by making clear that it is quite stupid to nominate that person with the affirmative votes of fewer than 2,209 delegates.
So, unless you have an argument as to why it is wise to nominate anyone with fewer than 2,209 delegate votes, I suggest that it is you who is painted into a corner, not me.
"So, unless you have an argument as to why it is wise to nominate anyone with fewer than 2,209 delegate votes"
Hillary has fewer delegates, fewer votes, and fewer states any way you count it. Whine and spin all you want about it, but she's the loser. And the loser doesn't get to represent the party and doesn't have the better chance of winning.
You continue to evade the question raised in this diary, and to make irrelevant assertions concerning where Obama and Hillary stand at the present time.
I have not asserted (as you imply) that either the winner or the loser of the Democratic nomination necessarily has a better chance of winning the general election. That's not even close to what I am asserting in this diary.
What I have asserted is that our eventual nominee does have a better chance of winning the general election if he or she is nominated with the enthusiastic support of more than half the delegates sent to the Convention. I have further asserted that it is stupid and self-defeating for the Democratic party to nominate anyone (Barack or Hillary) when they have the support of only 2024.5 delegates. I say the true "magic number" must be 2,209 or else we are headed for probable defeat in November.
Let me assure you that when Obama wraps up the nomination next week and becomes de facto leader of the party, he will seat the delegations of FL and MI -- and your pointless argument will be laid to rest with the many other canards of this campaign.
The answer to your question is below. Where's your answer to my question?
of at least 2,209 delegates at the Convention where nominations are to be made.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting. During the old days (and I'm talking up until 1932) the Democratic party had a rule that any candidate put up for the nomination had to win 2/3rds of the delegates at the convention. If that rule were around today, I think it's pretty clear that neither Obama nor Clinton would get the nomination. One possible hypothetical beneficiery: Al Gore. The race would be wide open, though, so who knows?
The most notable president who won the nomination by being the second choice candidate among the rival factions of his party, btw, was Abraham Lincoln.
If, however, you're suggesting that the Dems should nominate Hillary Clinton, well, c'mon. All of the problems you're mentioning would also apply to her. I don't get how Clinton supporters don't think a win by superdelegetes wouldn't be completely devestating to the party's chances in November. So long as Obama arrives at the convention with a margin of more than 50 pledged delegates, there really is no serious argument that his nomination was tainted (despite the Hail Mary play the Clinton campaign is trying to pull off now).
is it a good idea for the Democratic Party to nominate anyone who is supported by less than half the party? I think that's a rotten idea, which will hurt us severely in November.
I'm not asking for 2/3. All I want to see is the traditional half plus one of all the delegates sent to the convention. Anything less than that represents less than half of the Party.
there are still 400 delegates outstanding which is 10%. It seems silly to expect that in a race between 2 good candidates that one would have over 50% with 10% left...
studying, Student Guy? I ask because I would like to recommend that other students not follow in your footsteps.
I'm sorry that the question is too difficult for you to understand. "My bad".
And you wonder why nobody wants to engage you in your ludicrous argument.
Evidently, it's because no one can think of any good reason for the Democratic Party to nominate someone who has secured the support of less than half the party.
Sorry if I hurt your feelings, and I can understand why you were offended. However, I'm not here looking for cyber-buddies. I'm attempting to really find out why it is that so many Democrats think it will be just fine to nominate a candidate who receives only 2024.5 votes.
So far, the only things rising to the level of an argument are: 1. the incredulous thought that its a good idea because those are the rules, and 2. the un-democratic truth that its good pr for Senator Obama.
Well, when I was a young man, one of the rules was that non-whites had to sit at the back of the bus. Not a good idea at all, but using the "logic" of number 1 above - it was a great idea. And all I can say about the logic of number 2 above is that it strikes me as blind partisanship to assert that what's good for Barack Obama is good for the Democratic Party.
"Mayor Quimby supports revolving door prisons. Mayor Quimby even released Sideshow Bob. A man twice convicted of attempted murder. Can you trust a man like mayor Quimby? Vote Sideshow Bob for Mayor."
"Mayor Quimby says that children are our most precious resource."
Not irrelevant, irreverent.
The point is that by saying "how can we nominate somone w/ less than half the votes" Hillary supporters make about as much sense as the ad I just quoted, since Hillary has less votes (and far less states won).
Where the candidates stand today is not where they will stand tomorrow. Since there are still more primaries ahead, and since there are Superdelegates who have yet to choose, and since the FL and MI issues have not yet been resolved, the answer to my question has nothing whatsoever to do with where any candidate stands at present. Rather, it has everything to do with how wise or un-wise it would be for the Democratic Party to nominate someone who has the support of fewer than 2,209 delegates.
Please stay on topic.
There isn't a topic.
the poll in this diary. Sorry you have difficulty comprehending that.
Currently there are 4051 (in this general newighborhood and this will likely change on May 13) delegates. A candidate will not get the nomination with less than 50% the delegates.
Currently in pledged delegates Obama is closing in on a majority of pledged delegates and it would take a freak of nature for him not to receive a majority of pledged delegates.
Obama has currently taken the lead in super delegate support. I think that whoever the nominee is will have more than 50% of the pledged delegates.
The 2209 number applies if MI and FL are seated fully. There will be a meeting May 30 (or is it 31) of the Rules and By-Laws committee to determine how they will get seated.
2024.5 is less than half of the delegates that will be sent to Denver, and therefore represents less than half of the Party.
Obama's supporters have long held that he should be the nominee once he gets 2024.5 delegates (via any combination of pledged and super). The question remains why is this a good idea for the Party?
I am well aware of the surrounding relevant but still exogenous political happenings. There is no need for you to inform me of those. I simply see no way for it to be wise for the Democratic party to nominate anyone who commands the support of less than half the party. 2024.5 delegates is simply not majority support. 2,209 is the bare minimum needed for majority support. Why do you think it would be wise for the party to nominate someone with only 2024.5 delegate votes?
Oh dear Lord, make the stupid stop.
Perhaps you would like me better if I were as smart as you, and understood why it's a good idea for Barack to be nominated with less than half of the Party supporting him?
But God? I think you will be disappointed praying to God about this. That's because God must love stupid people. After all, he made so many of us. :)
If 4,417 delegates are seated in Denver, then the number required will be 2209. As of right now however, the number actually being seated in Denver is much lower than you assert.
Hence, as of right now, 2024.5 would be a majority of the delegates seated at the Convention. And it is a number Senator Clinton cannot reach, just as it will be nearly impossible for her to reach 2209 if that becomes the number.
So if neither candidate reaches 2209, do you have someone else in mind?
At present, I have no one other than Hillary or Barack in mind. I have heard Al Gore mentioned as a possible compromise candidate, and I could support him enthusiastically. If I thought General Clark was interested, of course I would be delighted and enthusiastically support him in every way possible. But I don't think either of those options will be needed. I think this can and will eventually be sorted out so that either Hillary or Barack will receive the support of over half the delegates sent to Denver. It's even possible that this will not be finally resolved until the Convention itself; and there, perhaps not even on the first ballot. In a way, that is as it should be, because, for all we know, the candidacies of either or even both candidates could gain or lose steam right up to the start of the Convention. Contrary to conventional wisdom, I think the Party may be well advised to very quickly decide what to do about the MI and FL problems and then just chill and watch what happens. That's because I see both the good and the potential downside for the Party to attempt to make our un-committed Superdelegates declare a preference roughly two months earlier than they really have to.
I could be wrong, but you seem to have missed a crucial part of my point. I know full well what the rules require. I just don't think it's wise for the party to nominate anyone who receives fewer than half of the delegates sent to (not necessarily seated at) the Convention in Denver.
It merely repeats the Party line about what is required. Hillary and I, like you, are both well aware that the Party is currently only requiring 2024.5 delegates to nominate. However, neither of us has ever said that's a good idea.
I am asking once again, why is it a good idea for the party to nominate anyone who has the support of less than half the party?
I would be asking why it was a good idea to risk nominating someone who had only 10 points (less than half of 21 for the mathematically challenged) in his cards.
yet to be answered, and judging by the various non-answers that have been posted thus far, you may yet be the first to answer it.
The question has been answered multiple times, but not to your satisfaction. As you are perfectly aware, there is no answer that would satisfy you, so why continue to torment yourself? You think you've been clever, nobody is buying it, so can we all just call it a day and do something useful with our time?
I have not asked about how big anyone's lead is. Nor have I asked what the DNC rules are. Those answers are quite widely available. I have asked a crucial question. Why is it a good idea for the democratic Party to nominate anyone who receives the support of less than half the party.
Try answering that, instead of evading it, and then you will have the right to judge what answers might or might not suit me.
He will have over half by the time the process ends - the MI/FL delegates will be seated, and he will have an overall majority of delegates. Now tell me which part of that you don't understand.
able to see all of that so definitively.
How did you do that?
I realize that he may well navigate as you say, but then again, he may not. What I have trouble with is the media and the Obama club and the DNC all claiming that 2024.5 votes is all it takes to be nominated. I don't think that's wise for anyone but the Republican media, and the Republican Party, and John McCain. Do you think its a good idea, and if so, why do you think it is?
It's less than ideal. There . . . happy now?
I think the DNC screwed up by imposing the penalty it did. It counted on a relatively uncontested primary process that would allow them to fix the process without being unfair to one candidate. Instead, it ended up with a situation that was not fair to either.
Five states violated those DNC rules. Two were sanctioned more harshly than the rules required. Three were not sanctioned at all. One candidate had TV ads that ran in FL, while one did not. One candidate held a press conference in FL while one did not. Both of them were sanctioned by the loss of all the delegates they won in Florida. One candidate removed their name from the michigan ballot while one did not. One candidate had a Michigan Congressman campaigning for them by soliciting their votes for "uncommitted".
Michigan and Florida together account for about 9% of the Democrats in the USA, and their party is now on course to ignore their primary votes completely.
John McCain will be strong in Florida, and may even win it if the party nominates someone with fewer than 2,209 votes.
Because of the outrage in their constituencies, some very gifted and ordinarily stalwart Michigan Democrats may be somewhat less than fully enthusiastic about campaigning for a nominee who gets fewer than 2,209 votes
"Sigh" indeed.
You know how in a democracy, each person is entitled to one vote? That fact is what is known as a "rule." These "rules" dictate just how things go down in an election. For instance, a person cannot vote twice in an election (a corollary to the above rule). Certain people are ineligible to vote (say, for instance, a non-citizen, a person not a part of said democracy). And so on and so forth.
Now, the "rules" in the Democratic presidential primary are slightly different. As you've picked up, the "rules" state that the nominee is determined by a simple majority of delegates. The "rules" state that these delegates have earned their vote through various processes. Some have earned their status by being a respected member of the party (elected official, former president, etc.). Others earn their status as representatives of democratic votes in various areas.
OK, so the "rules" out of the way, here's how it works out...
There are currently 4048 official delegates. Divide that by 2 and add a half (because some delegates count for only a half vote, again, "rules"), and you get 2024.5.
Thus, by the "rules," 2024.5 delegates is how many a candidate needs to get nominated. And by the power of math, it also happens to be more than half of the potential delegates.
So there you go.
Why is it a good idea for the Democratic Party to nominate anyone who receives the support of less than half the Party?
Also, I must correct you. There are 4417 official delegates to the Convention. The credentials committee can decide which of those to seat - and thus to be permitted to vote. I have no argument with that. However, those that are not so seated remain official delegates from their States and Territories. The DNC cannot deprive them of their official appointments by their states/territories. Nor can the DNCcause them or the Democrats they represent to vanish from the ranks of the party. Regardless of whether they are permitted to vote or not, why is it a good idea for the Party to nominate anyone who has the support of less than half of the Party?
See here's the problem...you're wrong. As of right now, there are not 4417 delegate votes. The number, until further notice, is 4048. You cannot simply assume that Florida and Michigan will be seated and cry foul.
And all this is because of the rules. And you trying to contest this simple fact makes me question whether or not you really get the rules. Because I mean, dividing by 2 isn't that hard.
But until the credentials committee decides to seat Michigan and Florida (something that may not even happen), the number is 4048. And for you to try and say that it represents less than half the party is like me driving up to Denver the day of the convention and demanding delegate status. The rules just don't allow it.
Because they're the rules, and they were set that way for a reason. If you break the rules, there must be consequences. Otherwise, you have chaos. If the Michigan and Florida dems would have done what they were supposed to, they would've been HUGELY influential. Instead, they were stripped of their delegates. EVERY state where both candidates campaigned, Obama closed Hillary Clinton's lead. It's logical, her name recognition along was worth five to eight points in most states. It stands to reason, then, that he would have done better in these contests if he had spent time there. (Yes, one Obama ad ran in a part of Florida on a cable station. One ad constitutes a state-wide campaign no more than a speech outside a fundraiser that looks suspiciously like a rally.) Obama followed the rules in Michigan and Florida. Should he be penalized delegates for this? Do we want future candidates breaking any rule that gets in their way? Isn't that how the country got 'the law doesn't apply to me' Bush?
Those delegates should not be seated at the convention. However, I am absolutely certain they WILL be seated. How will they be seated? No telling, at this point. What I can say is that they won't be seated unless it won't make a difference.
a good idea for the Party to nominate someone with the support of less than half the party. If they did state that curious notion, I'm sure they would also explain why that is a good idea, wouldn't they?
Please observe that I have not advocated the breaking of any rules in this diary. I simply want to know why the supporters of any candidate think it's a good idea for the Party to nominate them when they've only won the support of 2025 delegates.
because they are more popular than the other candidate (I still don't accept your premise though).
only 2025 delegates for them because "he is more popular than the other candidate", probably is the bottom line of your argument. Thanks.
I have two problems with that answer. First of all, it's not clear which of the two candidates is more popular. Lately, if we look at the national polls, it looks like Hillary may be the more popular candidate. But in any case, it's safe to say that both of them have very strong backing by roughly similar numbers of people, and that that could change tomorrow, or next week, or next month, etc.
Second, the process I remember for determining a Presidential nominee in the Democratic Party allows for delegates to change their votes from roll call to roll call, and indeed even within a given roll call, provided the Chair has not declared the roll call closed. It's through that process that someone finally gets the majority required for nomination. In between and before all roll calls, there can be floor fights concerning (among other things) credentials.
If the party does not seat MI and FL prior to the first roll call - and thus raise the magic number to 2,209, I think Senator Obama's supporters need to know that they are likely to be asked why it's such a good idea for the party to nominate him with fewer than half the delegates in Denver supporting him. If all they have is self-serving arguments about the need to adhere to rules, they are likely to find some very fierce opposition. Thus, it follows that, to be honest, Senator Obama's campaign should state unequivocably right now that 2,209 in fact will be and therefore truly is the only magic number that Superdelegates and ordinary voters, and the media need to be focusing on.
Because he WILL have more than half the vote.
Declaring victory at the 2025 mark is largely symbolic, but rest assured, at the convention he will receive the votes of well over the 2209 number. In fact, there is a good chance he will reach that number by June 3rd.
at least 2,209 delegates, they have the support of at least half the party. You seem to think that "he" (presumably Senator Obama) will have the support of at least 2,209 delegates shortly. If that is true, my question is moot.
Therefore, please show me the math. How does Senator Obama gain the support of at least 2,209 delegates in the next weeks?
Judging from your comments thus far, as well as your ridiculous poll choices, you aren't going to be happy with any explanation that doesn't fit your agenda. Said agenda is, evidently, that Hill gets to have all those votes (and delegates) from FL and MI in spite of the rule breaking.
Her own campaign chair had to sheepishly admit yesterday on 2 talk shows, that taking away 1/2 the delegates certainly makes sense, just as he threatened to do to MI when he was party chair.
What I wanna know - is when do Hill's supporters intend to back the actual nominee? When is the writing on the wall just that? When does splitting hairs become a sign of cognitive dissonance?
question remains unanswered thus far. You are utterly incorrect about my agenda. I feel, as I believe my humorous poll choices and my diary both indicate, that its a lousy idea for the party to nominate anyone who has the support of less than half the Party.
There are two ways for Senator Obama to potentially secure the support of more than half the Party. One of those is to attract to his support at least 2,209 delegates from amongst the 4049 delegates the party currently plans to seat. I'm reluctantly OK (but not happy) with that alternative. The other alternative is for him to obtain those 2,209 from amongst all 4,417 delegates sent to Denver. That, imo, is the better alternative, since it does not disenfranchise the FL and Mi delegations.
I remain vexed however at the notion that it is wise for the party to nominate either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton with anything short of 2,209 delegates firmly in their support. So far, no one seems to want to deal with that issue head on. All the Obama supporting posters here have evaded the question. That is not only disappointing. It displays a head-in-the-sand lack of concern for the awful reality that faces our party.
Please explain how the number of delegates a candidate has affects their performance in the GE. Why do you consider whether the number is 2025 or 2209, will have any affect on voting decisions in the GE?
in the GE. That's always true. This year, there is a special danger that many Democrats will not vote for the Democratic nominee.
The greater the nominee's "popularity" amongst the delegates at the convention, the likelihood is the greater their popularity amongst ordinary Democratic voters. Hence, more votes to nominate translates into more support by Dems in November.
Simple, because it makes more sense then nominating the candidate with even less support, less delegates and less votes. That's why the super delegates will continue to move in ever increasing numbers to Obama.
As Clinton repeatedly informed us the 'Automatic' delegates have the superior experience and understanding of the process and will make the choice that is right for the party in November by picking the strongest candidate. I'm sure that about a month from now that among Obama's biggest supporters and strongest campaigners will be Bill and Hillary Clinton.
of those votes will come from Superdelegates? Please clarify. Are you suggesting that Obama for some reason does not need the enthusiastic backing of at least 2,209 delegates to be nominated by the party? Or, are you agreeing with me, that it's a stupid idea for the party to nominate anyone who has the support of only 2024.5 delegates.
I concur that Superdelegates are supposed to look out for the best interests of the party. However, I find it quite disconcerting that the Obama campaign, the DNC, and the media are all still saying that it requires only a total of 2025 votes to be nominated by the Party. While that is a fact, my question is why is it a good idea for the Party?
Let me pose (rhetorically) a different question to help those who are having such difficulty grasping what I am asking. It is a fact that the President is usually elected by the Electoral College. Why is this a good idea for the Democratic Party?
The party makes the rules not Obama. Hillary and many of her top supporters and surrogates where instrumental in making those rules. THey would never have done anything to put themselves (the Clinton campaign) at a disadvantage. The Clinton campaign itself was using the 2025 number earlier and calling it a race for pledged delegates. Hillary will reaffirm that that number is sufficient when she concedes.
Is it a good idea for the party to pick a winner and begin the general after every state has voted? Yes. FL & MI will get seated and in a month the primary will be ancient history. 99% of the voters will have moved on. They have more pressing concerns then whether or not Hillary, Edwards, Biden or Obama made the cut. As Hillary and Edwards said, they will be fine, they are not going to be worried about the next mortgage payment. Voters will be focused on their own problems and who between McCain and Obama will dig them out of the hole the Republicans have put them into.
No - how about you explain what the difference is in practical terms in a GE whether you have the enthusiastic support of a certain number of delegates prior to the convention, or the enthusiastic support of all the delegates after the convention. What on earth difference does it make to voters deciding between Obama and McCain?
The party will unite behind the winner before the convention and Bill and Hillary will be leading that unification when they announce their enthusiastic support of Barack Obama. So it's a non-issue.
Agreed, but we the gritting of teeth will probably be audible at the back of the room.
As it would be if it was Obama giving his enthusiastic support to Hillary after a hard fought contest, if he had lost. But they are all grown ups and they know what happens if they can't turn it around and have to concede.
Neither Obama nor Hillary and Bill can cause all of their supporters to back the other.
Their job in trying to get as many as possible to do that will be much harder if the Party decides to nominate their opponent with less than a majority of all the delegates sent to Denver.
2025 is a majority according to the rules. Once Hillary concedes no one but a few insiders will know or care about the ins and outs of the numbers and the campaign spin of a primary that is history.
When they agree to seat Michigan and Florida which everyone with any sense agrees they will, the number again becomes 2209. And Obama is no where near that number. So the race WILL be decided by superdelegates.
